text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
In this paper we provide an example of a class of two reaction-diffusion-ODE equations with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, in which Turing-type instability not only destabilizes constant steady states but also induces blow-up of nonnegative spatially heterogeneous solutions. Solutions of this problem preserve nonnegativity and uniform boundedness of the total mass. Moreover, for the corresponding system with two non-zero diffusion coefficients, all nonnegative solutions are global in time. We prove that a removal of diffusion in one of the equations leads to a finite-time blow-up of some nonnegative spatially heterogeneous solutions.
[**Keywords:**]{} reaction-diffusion equations; Turing instability; blow-up of solutions.
address:
- ' Institute of Applied Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR) and BIOQUANT, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany'
- ' Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, 50-384 Wrocław, Poland'
- ' College of Science, Ibaraki University, 2-1-1 Bunkyo, Mito 310-8512, Japan'
- ' Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, 50-384 Wrocław, Poland'
author:
- 'Anna Marciniak-Czochra'
- Grzegorz Karch
- Kanako Suzuki
- Jacek Zienkiewicz
title: |
Diffusion-driven blowup of nonnegative\
solutions to reaction-diffusion-ODE systems
---
Introduction
============
One of the major issues in study of reaction-diffusion equations describing pattern formation in biological or chemical systems is understanding of the mechanisms of pattern selection, [*i.e.*]{} of generation of stable patterns. Classical models of the pattern formation are based on [*diffusion-driven instability (DDI)*]{} of constant stationary solutions, which leads to emergence of stable patterns around this state. Such [*close-to-equilibrium*]{} patterns are regular and spatially periodic stationary solutions and their shape depend on a scaling coefficient related to the ratio between diffusion parameters. They are called [*Turing patterns*]{} after the seminal paper of Alan Turing [@T52].
Interestingly, a variety of possible patterns increases when some diffusion coefficient vanish, [*i.e.*]{} considering reaction-diffusion equations coupled to ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Such models arise, for example, when studying a coupling of diffusive processes with processes which are localized in space, such as growth processes [@MCK06; @MCK07; @MCK08; @PCH12] or intracellular signaling [@Hock13; @KBH12; @MC03; @USOO06]. Their dynamics appear to be very different from that of classical reaction-diffusion models.
To understand the role of non-diffusive components in a pattern formation process, we focus on systems involving a single reaction-diffusion equation coupled to an ODE. It is an interesting case, since a scalar reaction-diffusion equation (in a bounded, convex domain and the Neumann boundary conditions) cannot exhibit stable spatially heterogenous patterns [@CaHo]. Coupling it to an ODE fulfilling an [*autocatalysis condition*]{} at the equilibrium leads to DDI. However, in such a case, all regular Turing patterns are unstable, because the same mechanism which destabilizes constant solutions, destabilizes also all continuous spatially heterogeneous stationary solutions, [@MKS13; @MKS14]. This instability result holds also for discontinuous patterns in case of a specific class of nonlinearities, see also [@MKS13; @MKS14]. Simulations of different models of this type indicate a formation of dynamical, multimodal, and apparently irregular and unbounded structures, the shape of which depends strongly on initial conditions [@HMC13; @MCK07; @MCK08; @PCH12].
In this work, we attempt to make a next step towards understanding properties of solutions of reaction-diffusion-ODE systems. We focus on a specific example exhibiting [diffusion-driven instability]{}. We consider the following system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
u_t &= d \Delta u -au +u^pf(v),& \text{for}\quad &x\in \Omega, \;\quad t>0, && \label{eq1}\\
v_t &= D \Delta v-bv - u^pf(v)+\kappa& \text{for}\quad &x\in \Omega, \quad t>0,&&\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ in a bounded domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with a sufficiently regular boundary $\partial\Omega$. In equations -, an arbitrary function $f=f(v)$ satisfies $$\label{as:f}
f\in C^1([0,\infty)), \quad f(v)>0 \quad \text{for}\quad v>0,
\quad \text{and}\quad
f(0)=0.$$
Moreover, we fix the constant parameters in - such that $$\label{par}
d \geq 0, \quad D>0, \quad p>1, \quad
\quad a,b\in (0,\infty), \quad \kappa \in [0,\infty).$$ We supplement system - with the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions $$\label{N}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial{n}} = 0 \;
\text{ (if $d>0$})\quad \text{and}\quad \frac{\partial v}{\partial{n}}=0 \qquad \text{for}\quad x\in \partial\Omega, \quad t>0,$$ and with bounded, nonnegative, and continuous initial data $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ini}
&&u(x,0) = u_{0}(x),\qquad v(x,0) = v_{0}(x)
\qquad \text{for}\quad x\in \Omega.\end{aligned}$$
As already mentioned above, if the diffusion in equation is equal to zero, all regular stationary solutions to such reaction-diffusion-ODE problems are unstable, see [@MKS14] for the results in the case of more general equations. In this work, we show that dynamics of solutions to the initial-boundary value problem - may change drastically when $d>0$ in equation is replaced by $d =0$. More precisely, the following scenario is valid.
- For non-degenerate diffusion coefficients $d>0$ and $D>0$, all nonnegative solutions to problem - are global-in-time. This result has been proved by other authors and, for the reader convenience, we discuss it in Section \[sec:global\], see Remark \[rem:global\].
- If $d =0$ and $D>0$ ([*i.e.*]{} we consider an ordinary differential equations coupled with a reaction-diffusion equation), there are solutions to problem - which blow-up in a finite time and at one point only. This is the main result of this work, proved in Theorem \[thm:blowup\], below.
Let us emphasize some consequences of these results.
\[rem:blow\] Nonnegative solutions to the following initial value problem for the system of ordinary differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qeq}
&\frac{d}{dt} \u = -a\u +\u^pf(\v), &&
\frac{d}{dt} \v = -b\v - \u^pf(\v)+\kappa,&\\
\label{qini}
&\u(0)=\u_0\geq 0, && \v(0)=\v_0\geq 0.&\end{aligned}$$ are global-in-time and bounded on $[0,\infty)$, see Remark \[rem:kinetic\] below. On the other hand, by Theorem \[thm:blowup\] below, there are nonconstant initial conditions such that the corresponding solution to the reaction-diffusion-ODE problem - with $d=0$ and $D>0$ blows up at one point and in a finite time. This is a large class of examples, where the appearance of a diffusion in one equation leads to a blow-up of nonnegative solutions. First example of one reaction-diffusion equation coupled with one ODE, where some solutions blow up due to a diffusion, appeared in 1990 in the paper by Morgan [@M90]. Another reaction-diffusion-ODE system was given by Guedda and Kirane [@GK98]. These examples are discussed in detail in the survey paper [@FN05] as well as in the monograph [@QS07 Ch. 33.2]. Here, let us also mention that a one point blow-up result, analogous to that one in Theorem \[thm:blowup\] but for another reaction-diffusion-ODE system (with “activator-inhibitor” nonlinearities) has been recently obtained by us in [@KSZ14].
It is much more difficult to provide a blow up of solutions in a system of reaction-diffusion equations with nonzero diffusion coefficients in both equations, rather than in only one (as in Remark \[rem:blow\]), especially in the case of systems with a good “mass behavior" as discussed in Remark \[rem:mass\]. First such an example was discovered by Mizoguchi [*et al.*]{} [@MNY98], where the term [*“diffusion-induced blow-up”*]{} was introduced. Another system of reaction-diffusion equations with such a property, supplemented with non-homogeneous Dirichlet conditions, was proposed by Pierre and Schmitt [@PS97; @PS00]. We refer the reader to the survey paper [@FN05] and to the monograph [@QS07 Ch. 33.2] for more such examples and for additional comments.
At the end of this introduction, we would like to emphasize that the model - can be found in literature in context of several applications. Let us mention a few of them. For $p=2$, $f(v)=v$, and suitably chosen coefficients, we obtain either the, so-called, [*Brussellator*]{} appearing in the modeling of chemical morphogenetic processes (see [*e.g.*]{} [@T52; @NP77]), the [*Gray-Scott model*]{} (also known as a [*model of glycolysis*]{}, see [@GS85; @GS90]) or the [*Schnackenberg model*]{} (see [@S79] and [@M2 Ch. 3.4]). Recent mathematical results, as well as several other references on reaction-diffusion equations with such nonlinearities and with $d>0$ and $D>0$, may be found in, [*e.g.*]{}, the monographs [@M2; @QS07; @R84] and in the papers [@P10; @Y08; @YZ12]. Let us close this introduction by a remark that we assume in this work that $a>0$ and $b>0$ for simplicity of the exposition, however, our blowup results can be easily modified to the case of arbitrary $a\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $b\in {\mathbb{R}}$.
Global-in-time solutions for reaction-diffusion system {#sec:global}
======================================================
Results gathered in this section has been proved already by other authors and we recall them for the completeness of the exposition.
First, we recall that problem - supplemented with nonnegative initial data $u_0,v_0\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ has a unique, nonnegative local-in-time solution $(u(x,t), v(x,t))$. Here, it suffices to rewrite it in the usual integral (Duhamel) form $$\begin{aligned}
&u(t) = e^{t(d \Delta -aI)}u_0+
\int_0^t e^{(t-s)(d \Delta -aI)} \big(u^pf(v)\big)(s)\,ds, &&\label{duh1}\\
&v(t) = e^{t(D\Delta -bI)}v_0
- \int_0^t e^{(t-s)(D\Delta -bI)} \big(u^pf(v)\big)(s)\,ds+ \int_0^t e^{(t-s)(D\Delta -bI)}\kappa\,ds,&& \label{duh2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\{e^{t(d \Delta-aI)}\right\}_{t\geq 0}$ is the semigroup of linear operators on $L^q(\Omega)$ generated by $d \Delta-aI$ with the Neumann boundary conditions. Since the nonlinearities in equations - are locally Lipschitz continuous, the existence of a local-in-time unique solution to - is a consequence of the Banach contraction principle, see [*e.g.*]{} either [@R84 Thm. 1, p. 111] or [@HMP87]. Such a solution is sufficiently regular for $t\in (0, {T_{max}})$, where ${T_{max}}>0$ is the maximal time of its existence, and satisfies problem - in the classical sense. Moreover, this local-in-time solution $\big(u(x,t), v(x,t)\big)$ is nonnegative, either by a maximum principle for parabolic equations if $d >0$ or for reaction-diffusion-ODE systems if $d =0$, see [*e.g.*]{} [@MKS13 Lemma 3.4] for similar considerations.
In the following, we review results on the existence of global-in-time nonnegative solutions to problem - with the both $d>0$ and $D>0$. We begin with the corresponding system of ODEs.
\[rem:kinetic\] It is a routine reasoning to show that $x$-independent nonnegative solutions $(\u,\v)$ of problem - are global-in-time and uniformly bounded. Indeed, such a solution $u=\u(t)$ and $v=\v(t)$ solves the Cauchy problem for the system of ODEs -. From equations , we deduce the differential inequality $$\label{q:ineq}
\frac{d}{dt} \big( \u+\v)
\leq - \min\{a,b\} \big( \u+\v\big)+ \kappa$$ which, after integration, implies that the sum $ \u(t)+\v(t)$ is bounded on the half-line $[0, \infty)$. Hence, since both functions are nonnegative, we obtain $\sup_{t\geq 0} \u(t) <\infty$ and $ \sup_{t\geq 0} \v(t) <\infty.$
A behavior of solutions the system of ODEs from depends essentially on its parameters and, in the particular case of $p=2$ and $f(v)=v$, it has been studied in several recent works, because it appears in applications (see the discussion at the end of Introduction). For $a>0$ and $b>0$, this particular system has the trivial stationary nonnegative solution $(\u,\v)=(0,\kappa/b)$ which is an asymptotically stable solution. If, moreover, $\kappa^2>4 a^2b$, we have two other nontrivial nonnegative stationary solutions which satisfy the following system of equations $$\u=\frac{a}{\v}
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
-b \v - \frac{a^2}{\v} +\kappa =0.$$ Every such a constant nontrivial and [*stable*]{} solution of ODEs is an [*unstable*]{} solution of the reaction-diffusion-ODE problem -, which means that it has a DDI property due to the autocatalysis $ f_u(\u,\v)= - a+2 \bar u \bar v =a>0.$ We have prove the latter property in the recent works [@MKS13] and [@MKS14], where such instability phenomena have been studied for a model of early carcinogenezis and for a general model of reaction-diffusion-ODEs, respectively.
\[rem:mass\] A completely analogous reasoning as that one in Remark \[rem:kinetic\] shows that total mass $\int_\Omega \big( u(x,t)+v(x,t)\big)\,dx$ of each nonnegative solution to the reaction-diffusion problem - with $d\geq 0$ and $D\geq 0$ does not blow up, and stays uniformly bounded in $t>0$. Indeed, it suffices to sum up equations -, integrate over $\Omega$, and use the boundary condition to obtain the following counterpart of inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \int_\Omega \big( u(x,t)+v(x,t)\big) \;dx
&=- \int_\Omega \big( a u(x,t)+b v(x,t)\big) \;dx +\int_\Omega \kappa\;dx \\
&\leq - \min\{a,b\} \int_\Omega \big( u(x,t)+v(x,t)\big)\;dx
+ \kappa |\Omega|.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the functions $u(\cdot, t)$ and $v(\cdot, t)$ stay bounded in $L^1(\Omega)$ uniformly in time. In the next section, we show that this [*a priori*]{} estimate is not sufficient to prevent the blow-up of solutions in a finite time in the case of $d=0$ and $D>0$ in problem -.
\[rem:global\] Let $f\in C^1([0,\infty))$ be an arbitrary function satisfying conditions . Assume that $d >0$ and $D>0$ and other parameters satisfy conditions . Then, for all nonnegative and continuous initial conditions $u_0,v_0\in L^\infty(\Omega)$, a unique nonnegative solution of system - exists for all $t\in (0,\infty)$. This result was proved by Masuda [@M83] and generalized by Hollis [*et al.*]{} [@HMP87] as well as by Haraux and Youkana [@HY88] (see also the surveys [@P02] and [@P10 Thm. 3.1]).
Let us briefly sketch the proof of the global-in-time existence of solutions for the reader convenience and for the completeness of exposition. To show that a local-in-time solution to integral equations - can be continued globally in time it suffices to show [*a priori*]{} estimates $$\label{extend}
\sup_{t\in [0,{T_{max}})}\|u(t)\|_\infty<\infty \quad\text{and}\quad
\sup_{t\in [0,{T_{max}})}\|v(t)\|_\infty<\infty \qquad \text{if} \quad {T_{max}}<\infty.$$ First, we notice that, since $ u^pf(v)\geq 0$ for nonnegative $u$ and $v$, the function $v(x,t)$ satisfies the inequalities $$\label{v:est0}
0\leq v(x,t)\leq \max\left\{\|v_0\|_\infty, \frac{\kappa}{b}\right\}
\qquad \text{for all} \quad (x,t)\in \Omega \times [0,{T_{max}}),$$ due to the comparison principle applied to the parabolic equation . Thus, the second inequality in is an immediate consequence of estimate .
To find an analogous estimate for $u(x,t)$, we observe that by equation -, we have $$u_t - d \Delta u +au =
- v_t + D \Delta v-bv +\kappa.$$ Thus, using the Duhamel principle, we obtain $$u(t) = e^{t(d \Delta -aI)}u_0+
\big(-\partial_t + D \Delta -bI \big)
\int_0^t e^{(t-s)(d\Delta -aI)} v(s)\,ds
+
\int_0^t e^{(t-s)(d\Delta -aI)} \kappa \,ds.$$ Since $u_0\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ and $v\in L^\infty
\big(\Omega\times [0,{T_{max}})\big)$, by a standard $L^p$-regularity property of linear parabolic equations with the Neumann boundary conditions (see [*e.g.*]{} [@LSU Ch. III, §10]), we obtain that $u\in L^q\big(\Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}]\big)$ for each $q\in (1,\infty)$. Using this property in equation and a well-known regularizing effect for linear parabolic equations ([@LSU]), we complete the proof of [*a priori*]{} estimate $
\sup_{t\in [0,{T_{max}})}\|u(t)\|_\infty<\infty.
$ We refer the reader to [@P02; @P10] for more details.
If $\kappa=0$ in equation , applying [*e.g.*]{} [@HMP87 Theorem 2] we obtain that nonnegative solutions to problem - with non-degenerate diffusions $d>0$ and $D>0$ are not only global-in-time (as stated in Remark \[rem:global\]) but also uniformly bounded on $\Omega\times [0,\infty)$. We do not know if this additional assumption on $\kappa$ is necessary to show a uniform bound for solutions to this problem.
Blowup in a finite time for reaction-diffusion-ODE system {#sec:blowup}
=========================================================
Our main goal in this work is to show that the result on the global-in-time existence of solutions to problem - recalled in Remark \[rem:global\] is no longer true if $d=0$. Thus, in the following, we consider the initial-boundary value problem for the reaction-diffusion-ODE system of the form $$\begin{aligned}
&u_t = -au +u^pf(v),& \text{for}\quad &x\in\overline{\Omega}, \;\quad t\in [0,{T_{max}}), && \label{oeq1}\\
&v_t = \Delta v-bv - u^pf(v)+\kappa& \text{for}\quad &x\in \Omega, \quad t\in [0,{T_{max}}),&&\label{oeq2}\\
& \frac{\partial v}{\partial n}=0
& \text{on}\quad &\partial\Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}), &&\label{oeq3}\\
&u(x,0) = u_{0}(x),\quad v(x,0) = v_{0}(x)
& \text{for}\quad &x\in \Omega, \quad t\in [0,{T_{max}}).&&\label{oini}\end{aligned}$$ Here, without loss of generality, we assume that $0\in \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is an arbitrary bounded domain with a smooth boundary, and we rescale system - in such a way that the diffusion coefficient in equation is equal to one.
In the following theorem, we prove that if $u_0$ is concentrated around an arbitrary point $x_0\in\Omega$ (we choose $x_0=0$, for simplicity) and if $v_0(x)=\v_0$ is a constant function, then the corresponding solution to problem - blows up in a finite time.
\[thm:blowup\] Assume that $f\in C^1([0,\infty))$ satisfies $\inf_{v\geq R} f(v)>0$ for each $R>0$. Let $p>1$ and $a,b,\kappa \in (0,\infty)$ be arbitrary. There exist numbers $\alpha\in (0,1)$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $R_0>0$ [(]{}depending on parameters of problem - and determined in the proof[)]{} such that if initial conditions $u_0,v_0\in C(\bOmega)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{as1:u0}
&0<u_0(x)<\Big(u_0(0)^{1-p}+2 \varepsilon^{-(p-1)}
|x|^{\alpha}\Big)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}
&& \text{for all} \quad x\in \Omega \\
\label{as3:u0}
&u_0(0)\geq \left(\frac{a}{(1-e^{(1-p)a})F_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}},
&& \text{where} \quad F_0 =\inf_{v\geq R_0} f(v),\\
\label{as:v0}
&v_0(x)\equiv \v_0>R_0>0
&& \text{for all} \quad x\in \Omega,\end{aligned}$$ then the corresponding solution to problem - blows up at certain time ${T_{max}}\leq 1$. Moreover, the following uniform estimates are valid $$\label{est:uv}
0<u(x,t)<\varepsilon |x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}} \quad \text{and}\quad
v(x,t)\geq R_0
\qquad \text{for all} \quad (x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}).$$
\[rem:u0\] It follows from assumption that $$0<u_0(x)< 2^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}
\varepsilon
|x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}\qquad
\text{for all} \quad x\in \Omega,$$ for small $\varepsilon>0$. On the other hand, assumption requires $u_0(0)$ to be sufficiently large. Both assumptions mean that the function $u_0$ has to be concentrated in a neighborhood of $x=0$.
Notice that both inequalities in give us pointwise estimates of $u(x,t)$ and $v(x,t)$ up to a blow-up time ${T_{max}}$.
The classical solution $u=u(x,t)$ in Theorem \[thm:blowup\] becomes infinite at $x = 0$ as $t\to {T_{max}}$ and is uniformly bounded for other points in $\Omega$. It would be interesting to know whether it is possible to extend this solution (in a weak sense) beyond ${T_{max}}$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:blowup\] is preceded by a sequence of lemmas. We begin by preliminary properties of solutions on an maximal interval $[0,{T_{max}})$ of their existence. We skip the proof of the following lemma because such properties of the solutions have been already discussed in Section \[sec:global\], see inequality .
\[lem0\] For all nonnegative $u_0,v_0\in C(\bOmega)$, problem - has a unique nonnegative solution on the maximal interval $[0,{T_{max}})$. Moreover, $$\label{v:est1}
0\leq v(x,t)\leq \max\left\{\|v_0\|_\infty, \frac{\kappa}{b}\right\}
\qquad \text{for all} \quad (x,t)\in \Omega \times [0,{T_{max}}).$$ If ${T_{max}}<\infty$, then $\sup_{t\in [0,{T_{max}})}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_\infty=\infty$.
Now, we show that a constant lower bound for $v(x,t)$ leads to the blow-up of $u(x,t)$ in a finite time ${T_{max}}\leq 1$.
\[lem1\] Let $u(x,t)$ be a solution of equation and suppose that there exists a constant $R_0>0$ such that $$\label{as1:lem1}
v(x,t)>R_0 \qquad \text{for all} \quad (x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}).$$ If the initial condition satisfies $$\label{u0:R2}
u_0(0)\geq
\left(\frac{a}{\big(1-e^{(p-1)a}\big)F_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}},
\qquad \text{where} \quad F_0 =\inf_{v\geq R_0} f(v),$$ then ${T_{max}}\leq 1$.
For a fixed $v(x,t)$ with $(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}})$, we solve equation with respect to $u(x,t)$ to obtain the following formula for all $(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}})$: $$\label{u:eq}
u(x,t)=\frac{e^{-at}}{\left(\frac{1}{u_0(x)^{p-1}}-(p-1)
\int_0^t f(v(x,s))e^{(1-p)as}\,ds\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}}.$$ Thus, for $F_0=\inf_{v\geq R_0} f(v)$, equation leads to the following lower bound $$\label{u:ineq}
u(x,t)\geq \frac{e^{-at}}{\left(\frac{1}{u_0(x)^{p-1}}-
(1-e^{(1-p)at})a^{-1}F_0\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}}.$$ The proof of this lemma is complete because the right-hand side of inequality for $x=0$ blows up at some $t\leq 1$ under assumption .
Next, we prove that a lower bound of $v(x,t)$, required in Lemma \[lem1\], is a consequence of a certain [*a priori*]{} estimate imposed on $u(x,t)$.
\[lem2\] Assume that $v(x,t)$ is a solution of the reaction-diffusion equation with an arbitrary function $u(x,t)$ and with a constant initial condition satisfying $v_0(x)\equiv \v_0>0$. Suppose that there are numbers $\varepsilon >0$ and $$\label{alpha:ass}
\alpha \in \left(0, \frac{2(p-1)}{p}\right)\quad \text{if}\quad n\geq 2
\quad \text{and}\quad
\alpha \in \left(0, \frac{p-1}{p}\right)\quad \text{if}\quad n=1$$ such that $$\label{u:as}
0<u(x,t)< \varepsilon {|x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}} \qquad \text{for all}\quad
(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}).$$ Then, there is an explicit number $C_0>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$ [(]{}see equation below[)]{} such that for all $\varepsilon > 0$ we have $$\label{v:lower}
v(x,t)\geq \min\left\{\v_0, \frac{\kappa}{b}\right\}-\varepsilon^p C_0
\qquad \text{for all}\quad
(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}).$$
We rewrite equation in the usual integral form ([*cf.*]{} ) $$\label{v:duh}
v(t) = e^{t(\Delta -bI)t}\v_0+ \int_0^t e^{(t-s)(\Delta -bI)}\kappa\,ds
- \int_0^t e^{(t-s)(\Delta -bI)} \big(u^pf(v)\big)(s)\,ds.$$ Here, the function given by first two terms on the right-hand side satisfies $$\label{z}
z(t)\equiv e^{t(\Delta -bI)}\v_0+ \int_0^t e^{(t-s)(\Delta -b)}\kappa\,ds
=e^{-bt}\v_0+\frac{\kappa}{b}\left(1-e^{-bt}\right)$$ because this is an $x$-independent solution of the problem $$\label{z:eq}
z_t=\Delta z -bz+\kappa, \quad z(x,0)=\v_0$$ with the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. Thus $$\label{z:est}
z(t) \geq \min\left\{\v_0, \frac{\kappa}{b}\right\}
\qquad \text{for all}\quad
t\in [0,{T_{max}}).$$
Next, we recall the following well-known estimate $$\label{e:est}
\left\|e^{t(\Delta-bI)}w_0\right\|_\infty\leq C_q\left(1+t^{-\frac{n}{2q}}\right)\|w_0\|_q \qquad \text{for all}\quad t>0,$$ which is satisfied for each $w_0\in L^q(\Omega)$, each $q\in [1,\infty]$, and with a constant $C_q=C(q,n,\Omega)$ independent of $w_0$ and of $t$, see [*e.g.*]{} [@R84 p. 25].
Now, we compute the $L^\infty$-norm of equation . Using the lower bound , inequalities and , as well as the [*a priori*]{} assumption on $u$ in , we obtain the estimate $$\label{v:ineq}
\begin{split}
v(x,t)&\geq z(t)
- \int_0^t \left\|e^{(t-s)(\Delta-b)}
\big(u^pf(v)\big)(s)\right\|_\infty\,ds\\
& \geq \min\left\{\v_0, \frac{\kappa}{b}\right\}
- \varepsilon^p C_q \left( \sup_{0\leq v\leq R_1}f(v)\right) \int_0^t
\left(1+(t-s)^{-\frac{n}{2q}}\right) \left\||x|^{-\frac{\alpha p}{p-1}}\right\|_q\,ds,
\end{split}$$ where the constant $R_1$ is defined in . Here, we choose $q>n/2$ to have $n/(2q)<1$, which leads to the equality $$\int_0^t
\left(1+(t-s)^{-\frac{n}{2q}}\right)\,ds= t+\left(1-\frac{n}{2q}\right)^{-1}
t^{1-\frac{n}{2q}}.$$ Moreover, we assure that $q<n(p-1)/(\alpha p)$ or, equivalently, that $\alpha q p/(p-1)<n$ to have $|x|^{-\frac{\alpha p}{p-1}}\in L^q(\Omega)$. Such a choice of $q\in [1,\infty)$ is always possible because $\max\{1, n/2\} <n(p-1)/(\alpha p)$ under our assumptions on $\alpha$ in .
Thus, for the constant $$\label{C_0}
C_0=C_q \left(\sup_{0\leq v\leq R_1}f(v)\right) \left\||x|^{-\frac{\alpha p}{p-1}}\right\|_q
\left( {T_{max}}+\left(1-\frac{n}{2q}\right)^{-1}
{T_{max}}^{1-\frac{n}{2q}}\right),$$ inequality implies the lower bound .
Now, let us recall a classical result on the Hölder continuity of solutions to the inhomogeneous heat equation.
\[lem:Holder\] Let $f\in L^\infty \big([0,T], L^q(\Omega)\big)$ with some $q>\frac{n}{2}$ and $T>0$. Denote $$w(x,t) =\int_0^t e^{(t-\tau)(\Delta-bI)} f(x,\tau)\;d\tau,$$ where $\left\{e^{t(\Delta-bI)}\right\}_{t\geq 0}$ is the semigroup of linear operators on $L^q(\Omega)$ generated by $\Delta-bI$ with the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. There exist numbers $\beta \in (0,1)$ and $C=C>0$ depending on $\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|f(\cdot, t)\|_q$ such that $$\label{Holder}
|w(x,t)-w(y,t)|\leq C|x-y|^\beta
\qquad \text{for all} \quad x,y\in \Omega
\quad\text{and}\quad t\in [0,T].$$
Note that the function $w(x,t)$ is the solution of the problem $$w_t=D\Delta w-bw +f, \qquad w(x,0)=0$$ supplemented with the Neumann boundary conditions. Hence, estimate is a classical and well-known result on the Hölder continuity of solutions to linear parabolic equations, see [*e.g.*]{} [@LSU Ch. III, §10].
We apply Lemma \[lem:Holder\] to show the Hölder continuity of $v(x,t)$.
\[v:Holder\] Let $v(x,t)$ be a nonnegative solution of the problem $$\begin{aligned}
&v_t = \Delta v-bv - u^pf(v)+\kappa& \text{for}\quad &x\in \Omega, \quad t\in [0,{T_{max}})&&\label{v:eq}\\
& \frac{\partial v}{\partial n}=0
& \text{on}\quad &\partial\Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}), &&\label{v:N}\\
& v(x,0) = \v_0
& \text{for}\quad &x\in \Omega, \quad t\in [0,{T_{max}}),&&\label{v:0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\v_0$ is a positive constant and $u(x,t)$ is a nonnegative function. There exists a constant $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ satisfying also , such that if the [*a priori*]{} estimate for $u(x,t)$ holds true with some $\varepsilon >0$, then $$|v(x,t)-v(y,t)|\leq \varepsilon^p C |x-y|^\alpha \qquad \text{for all}\quad
(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}}),$$ where the constant $C>0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$.
As in the proof of Lemma \[lem2\], we use the following integral equation $$v(x,t)= e^{-bt}\v_0+\frac{\kappa}{b}\left(1-e^{-bt}\right)
- \int_0^t e^{(\Delta -b)(t-s)} \big(u^pf(v)\big)(s)\,ds.$$
Suppose that $u(x,t)$ satisfies the [*a priori*]{} estimate with a certain number $\alpha\in (0,1)$ satisfying relations . Since $f(v)\in L^\infty \big(\Omega\times [0,{T_{max}})\big)$ by and since $|u^p(x,t)|\leq \varepsilon ^p |x|^{-\alpha p/(p-1)}$ by assumption , we obtain $$u^pf(v)\in L^\infty \big([0,{T_{max}}), L^q(\Omega)\big)\qquad
\text{for some} \quad q>n/2,$$ see the proof of Lemma \[lem2\]. Thus, by Lemma \[lem:Holder\], there exist constants $C>0$ and $\beta\in (0,1)$, independent of $\varepsilon $ such that $|v(x,t)-v(y,t)|\leq \varepsilon^p C |x-y|^\beta$ for all $x,y\in\Omega$ and $t\in [0,{T_{max}})$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\beta$ satisfies the conditions in (we can always take it smaller).
The proof is completed, if $\beta\geq \alpha$. On the other hand, if $\beta<\alpha$, we suppose the [*a priori*]{} estimate $0\leq u(x,t) <\varepsilon |x|^{-\beta/(p-1)}$ for all $x\in\Omega$ and $t\in [0,{T_{max}})$. Thus, there exists a constant $C=C(\alpha, \beta, p, \Omega)>0$ such that $$0\leq u(x,t) <\varepsilon |x|^{-\frac{\beta}{p-1}}
=\varepsilon |x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}} |x|^{\frac{\alpha-\beta}{p-1}}
\leq C\varepsilon |x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}.$$ Hence, repeating the reasoning in the preceding paragraph of this proof, we obtain again the estimate $|v(x,t)-v(y,t)|\leq \varepsilon^p C |x-y|^\beta$ for all $x,y\in\Omega$ and $t\in [0,{T_{max}})$ with a modified constant $C>0$, but still independent of $\varepsilon>0$.
By Lemmas \[lem1\] and \[lem2\], it suffices to show the [*a priori*]{} estimate $$\label{u:as2}
0<u(x,t)< \varepsilon {|x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}} \qquad \text{for all}\quad
(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,{T_{max}})$$ with ${T_{max}}\leq 1$, under the assumption that $\varepsilon>0$ is sufficiently small.
By assumption (see Remark \[rem:u0\]), we have $0<u_0(x)< \varepsilon{|x|^{-\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}}$ for all $x\in \Omega$, hence, by a continuity argument, inequality is satisfied on a certain initial time interval. Suppose that there exists $T_1\in (0,1)$ such that the solution of problem - exists on the interval $[0,T_1]$ and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{x\in\Omega} |x|^{\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}u(x,t)<\varepsilon\qquad\text{for all}\quad t<T_1,\label{u<1}\\
&\sup_{x\in\Omega} |x|^{\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}u(x,t)=\varepsilon \qquad\text{for}\quad t=T_1.
\label{u=1}\end{aligned}$$ From now on, we are going to use the explicit formula for $u(x,t)$ in and the Hölder regularity of $v(x,t)$ from Lemma \[lem:Holder\]. First, we estimate the denominator of the fraction in using assumption as follows $$\label{denom}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{u_0(x)^{p-1}}-&(p-1) \int_0^t f(v(x,s))e^{(1-p)as}\,ds \\
&\geq
2\varepsilon^{p-1}|x|^\alpha + \frac{1}{u_0(0)^{p-1}}-(p-1) \int_0^t f(v(0,s))e^{(1-p)as}\,ds\\
&\quad +(p-1) \int_0^t \big(f(v(0,s))-f(v(x,s))\big)e^{(1-p)as}\,ds.
\end{split}$$ By the definition of ${T_{max}}$ and formula , we immediately obtain $$\label{second}
\frac{1}{u_0(0)^{p-1}}-(p-1) \int_0^t f(v(0,s))e^{(1-p)as}\,ds>0 \qquad
\text{for all} \quad t\in [0,{T_{max}}).$$ Next, we use our hypothesis and together with the Hölder continuity of $v(x,t)$ established in Lemma \[v:Holder\] to find constants $C>0$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$ (satisfying also ), the both independent of $\varepsilon \geq 0$, such that $$\big|f(v(0,s))-f(v(x,s))\big|\leq C\varepsilon^p |x|^\alpha\qquad \text{for all} \quad t\in [0,T_1].$$ Hence, since $T_1\leq {T_{max}}\leq 1$, we obtain the following bound for the last term on the right-hand side of : $$\label{third}
(p-1) \int_0^t \big|f(v(0,s))-f(v(x,s))\big|e^{(1-p)as}\,ds
\leq \varepsilon^p Ca^{-1} |x|^{\alpha}$$ for all $(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,T_1]$. Consequently, applying inequalities and in we obtain the lower bound for the denominator in $$\label{denom1}
\frac{1}{u_0(x)^{p-1}}-(p-1) \int_0^t f(v(x,s))e^{(1-p)as}\,ds \geq
\big(2\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}-\varepsilon^p Ca^{-1}\big)|x|^\alpha$$ for all $(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,T_1]$. Finally, we choose $\varepsilon>0$ so small that $2\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}-\varepsilon^p Ca^{-1}>\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}$ and we substitute estimate in equation to obtain $$0<u(x,t)\leq
\frac{e^{-at}}{\Big(\big(2\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}-\varepsilon^p Ca^{-1}\big)|x|^\alpha\Big)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}}
< \frac{\varepsilon}{|x|^{\frac{\alpha}{p-1}}} \qquad \text{for all}\quad
(x,t)\in \Omega\times [0,T_1].$$ This inequality for $t=T_1$ contradicts our hypothesis .
Thus, estimate holds true on the whole interval $[0,{T_{max}})$. Then, by Lemma \[lem2\], the function $v(x,t)$ is bounded from below by a constant $R_0= \min\left\{\v_0, \frac{\kappa}{b}\right\}-\varepsilon^p C_0$ which is positive provided $\varepsilon>0$ is sufficiently small. Finally, Lemma \[lem1\] implies that $u(x,t)$ blows up at $x=0$ and at certain ${T_{max}}\leq 1$, if $u_0(0)$ satisfies inequality .
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
A. Marciniak-Czochra was supported by European Research Council Starting Grant No 210680 “Multiscale mathematical modelling of dynamics of structure formation in cell systems” and Emmy Noether Programme of German Research Council (DFG). G. Karch was supported by the NCN grant No. 2013/09/B/ST1/04412. K. Suzuki acknowledges JSPS the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 23740118.
[10]{}
, [*Instability results for reaction-diffusion equations with Neumann boundary conditions*]{}, [J. Differential Equations,]{} [27]{} (1978), pp. 266–273.
, [*“[R]{}eaction-diffusion” systems: blow-up of solutions that arises or vanishes under diffusion*]{}, Russian Math. Surveys, 60 (2005), pp. 1217–1235. , [*Sustained oscillations and other exotic patterns of behavior in isothermal reactions*]{}, J. Phys. Chemistry, 89 (1985), pp. 22–32.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Chemical Waves and Instabilities*]{}, Clarendon, Oxford, 1990.
, [*Diffusion terms in systems of reaction diffusion equations can lead to blow up*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 218 (1998), pp. 325–327.
, [*On a result of K. Masuda concerning reaction-diffusion equations*]{}, Tôhoku. Math. J., 40 (1988), pp. 159–163.
, [*Spike patterns in a reaction-diffusion ODE model with Turing instability*]{}, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 37 (2014), pp. 1377–1391.
, [*Sharpening of expression domains induced by transcription and microRNA regulation within a spatio-temporal model of mid-hindbrain boundary formation*]{}, BMC Systems Biology, 7 (2013), p. 48.
, [*Global existence and boundedness in reaction-diffusion systems*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 18 (1987), pp. 744–761.
, [*Finite-time blow-up in general activator-inhibitor system*]{}, preprint, (2014).
, [*The influence of receptor-mediated interactions on reaction-diffusion mechanisms of cellular self-organisation*]{}, Bull. Math. Biol., 74 (2012), pp. 935–957.
, [*Linear and quasilinear equations of parabolic type*]{}, Translated from the Russian by S. Smith. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 23, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1968.
, [*Receptor-based models with diffusion-driven instability for pattern formation in [*hydra*]{}*]{}, J. Biol. Sys., 11 (2003), pp. 293–324.
, [*Unstable patterns in autocatalytic reaction-diffusion-[ODE]{} systems*]{}, arXiv:1301.2002 \[math.AP\], (2013).
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Unstable patterns in reaction-diffusion model of early carcinogenesis*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 99 (2013), pp. 509–543.
, [*Dynamics of growth and signaling along linear and surface structures in very early tumors*]{}, Comput. Math. Methods Med., 7 (2006), pp. 189–213.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Modelling of early lung cancer progression: influence of growth factor production and cooperation between partially transformed cells*]{}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 17 (2007), pp. 1693–1719.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Reaction-diffusion model of early carcinogenesis: the effects of influx of mutated cells*]{}, Math. Model. Nat. Phenom., 3 (2008), pp. 90–114.
, [*On the global existence and asymptotic behavior of solutions of reaction-diffusion equations*]{}, Hokkaido Mathematical Journal, 12 (1983), pp. 360–370.
, [*Diffusion-induced blowup in a nonlinear parabolic system*]{}, J. Dynamics and Differential Equations, 10 (1998), pp. 619–638.
, [*On a question of blow-up for semilinear parabolic systems*]{}, Differential Integral Equations, 3 (1990), pp. 973–978.
, [*Mathematical biology. [II]{}*]{}, vol. 18 of Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, third ed., 2003. Spatial models and biomedical applications.
, [*Self-organization in nonequilibrium systems. From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations*]{}, Wiley-Interscience \[John Wiley & Sons\], New York-London-Sydney, 1977.
, [*Density-dependent quiescence in glioma invasion: instability in a simple reaction-diffusion model for the migration/proliferation dichotomy*]{}, J. Biol. Dyn., 6 (2012), pp. 54–71.
, [*Global existence in reaction-diffusion systems with control of mass: a survey*]{}, Milan J. Math., 78 (2010), pp. 417–455.
, [*Blowup in reaction-diffusion systems with dissipation of mass*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 28 (1997), pp. 259–269.
, [*Blowup in reaction-diffusion systems with dissipation of mass*]{}, SIAM Rev. 42 (2000), pp. 93–106.
, [*Maximal regularity for evolution equations in $L^p$-spaces.*]{}, Conf. Semin. Mat. Univ. Bari 285 (2002), pp. 1–39.
, [*Superlinear parabolic problems*]{}, Birkhäuser Advanced Texts: Basler Lehrbücher. \[Birkhäuser Advanced Texts: Basel Textbooks\], Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2007. Blow-up, global existence and steady states.
, [*Global solutions of reaction-diffusion systems*]{}, vol. 1072 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
, [*Simple chemical reaction systems with limit cycle behaviour*]{}, J. Theor. Biol., 81 (1979), pp. 389–400.
, [*The chemical basis of morphogenesis*]{}, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B, 237 (1952), pp. 37–72.
, [*Robust, bistable patterning of the dorsal surface of the [*Drosophila*]{} embryo*]{}, J. Biol. Sys., 103 (2006), pp. 11613–11618.
, [*Global attractor of the [G]{}ray-[S]{}cott equations*]{}, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal., 7 (2008), pp. 947–970.
, [*Global dissipative dynamics of the extended [B]{}russelator system*]{}, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 13 (2012), pp. 2767–2789.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'According to Pruessner and Peters \[Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 025106(R) (2006)\], the finite size scaling exponents of the order parameter in sandpile models depend on the tuning of driving and dissipation rates with system size. We point out that the same is not true for [*avalanches*]{} in the slow driving limit.'
author:
- 'Mikko J. Alava$^1$, Lasse Laurson$^1$, Alessandro Vespignani$^2$ and Stefano Zapperi$^3$'
title: 'Comment on “Self-organized criticality and absorbing states: Lessons from the Ising model"'
---
In a recent paper Pruessner and Peters investigated the relation between self-organized criticality (SOC) in sandpile models and absorbing state phase transitions, on the basis of an analogy with standard equilibrium critical phenomena, in particular the two-dimensional Ising model [@pruesner2006]. According to Ref. [@pruesner2006] only a careful choice of the system size dependence of the driving and dissipation parameters would yield the scaling results of the underlying phase transition. Here we point out that this reasoning does not apply in particular when one studies “SOC variables” such as various measures of avalanches in the slow driving limit, as is traditionally done in this context. This is confirmed by numerical simulations presented below.
In SOC sandpile models, the steady-state is maintained by a balance of dissipation $\epsilon$ and driving $h$. In particular, the control parameter of the absorbing phase transition, i.e. the average height of the pile $\zeta$, evolves on the average as $$\dot{\zeta}= h -\epsilon \rho,
\label{eq:soc}$$ where $\rho$ is the density of active sites, the order parameter of the absorbing phase transition. In the limit $h\to 0^+$,$\epsilon
\to 0^+$, the control parameter flows to the critical value $\zeta_c$ and the model shows scale invariance [@dickman2000]. The question raised by the authors of Ref. [@pruesner2006] is how to apply finite-size scaling (FSS) to the order parameter $\rho$ if $\epsilon (L) \sim L^{-\kappa}$ and $h (L) \sim L^{-\omega}$ are taken to be functions of the system size $L$. To investigate this issue, Pruessner and Peters employ a similar “driving” to the Ising model, using a fluctuating inverse temperature $\theta$ evolving as $$\dot{\theta}= h -\epsilon |m|,
\label{eq:ising}$$ where $|m|$ is the absolute value of the magnetization. Using this driving, the system size dependence of the order parameter, $\langle
|m| \rangle \sim L^ {\kappa-\omega}$, coincides with that expected from standard FSS only when $\omega-\kappa=\beta/\nu$, where $\beta$ and $\nu$ are the equilibrium exponents for the order parameter and the correlation length, respectively. We notice that the case $\omega-\kappa>\beta/\nu$ corresponds precisely to the slow driving limit of SOC, where there is complete time-scale separation between driving and dissipation (i.e. for most purposes one may even take $\omega \to \infty$ and wait an infinite amount of time after each driving event). In this limit, the effective temperature defined in Ref. [@pruesner2006] also would diverge. The authors, in analogy with the Ising model, conclude that the slow driving SOC state should [*not*]{} correspond to the critical point of an absorbing phase transition, in contradiction with the evidence from numerical simulations of sandpile models [@lubeck2004].
The apparent contradiction disappears when we notice that avalanche statistics, as typically studied in the case of SOC, and the average order parameter studied in Ref. [@pruesner2006] are not equivalent measures of the criticality of the underlying absorbing state phase transition. As pointed out by Pruessner and Peters, it is indeed possible to tune the system size dependence of the order parameter, or average activity, by choosing the size scaling of driving and dissipation rates appropriately. In the slow driving limit relevant for SOC, however, this is just a trivial consequence of the drive rate dependence of the quiescent periods between avalanches. The avalanches themselves are not affected by the drive rate in any way as long as it is slow enough such that no new grains are added while the system is active.
In SOC sandpiles, one usually implements open boundary conditions and infinitely slow drive, corresponding to $\kappa =2$ and $\omega
\rightarrow \infty$. The mappings to absorbing phase transitions and to depinning transitions allows to obtain the scaling behavior for any value of $\kappa$, provided that we remain in the time scale separation regime [@dickman2000]. In general, sandpile models exhibit FSS forms for the avalanche sizes $s$, of the type $$P(s,\xi) = s^{-\tau_s} P(s/\xi^D_s) .
\label{eqn:fss}$$ $\tau_s$ and $D$ are critical exponents related to the underlying depinning transition and $\xi(\omega,\kappa)$ is the cut-off scale that is determined by the condition of balance between dissipation and drive (which also results in the steady state condition $\rho = h/\epsilon$). One transparent argument to compute $\xi$ is to look at the dynamics following the addition of a single grain, which gives rise to an avalanche of average size $\langle s\rangle$ dissipating on the average one grain [@tang88]. Thus one has the condition $\epsilon(L) \langle s \rangle (\xi) = 1$ and obtains $$\xi \sim L^{\frac{\kappa}{D(2-\tau_s)}}
\label{eqn:xi}$$ Notice in particular that $\xi$ is not dependent on the drive-rate or $\omega$.
To confirm this, we consider the Manna sandpile model with periodic boundary conditions, slow driving (i.e. $\omega=\infty$) and bulk dissipation. The model is studied here on a 2d lattice, where for each lattice site $i$ one assigns an integer variable $z_i$ (the number of “grains”). If $z_i > z_c = 1$, a “toppling” occurs and the grains are redistributed according to $z_i \rightarrow z_i-2$ and $z_{nn}=z_{nn}+1$, where $z_{nn}$ are two randomly chosen nearest neighbors of site $i$. The dissipation is implemented by removing a toppling grain from the system with probability $\epsilon \propto L^{-\kappa}$. Here we consider the two cases with $\kappa=1$ and $\kappa=3$, respectively. In Figure 1 we show that the scaling follows the predictions of absorbing phase transitions: the cutoff scale of the avalanche size distribution scales according to Eq. (\[eqn:xi\]), regardless of the $L$-dependence of $\epsilon$.
To summarize, we would like to point out that the conclusions of Pruessner and Peters are misleading in the sense that avalanche statistics in sandpile models indeed follows from the underlying absorbing state transition whenever one studies the slow driving limit $\omega-\kappa > \beta/\nu$. This is the condition of complete time scale separation between driving and avalanche propagation that has been recognized already in the early literature as the crucial ingredient for SOC in sandpile models [@grinstein1995].
[10]{} G. Pruessner and O. Peters Phys. Rev. E 73, 025106(R) (2006). R. Dickman, M. A. Mu[ñ]{}oz, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi, Braz. J. Phys. 30, 27 (2000); M. Alava, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. 14, 2353 (2002). S. Lübeck, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**18**]{}, 3977 (2004). C. Tang and P. Bak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2347 (1988). G. Grinstein, in Scale Invariance, Interfaces and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics, Vol. 344 of NATO Advanced Study Institute, Series B: Physics, edited by A. McKane et al. (Plenum, New York, 1995).
![Scaling plots of the avalanche size distributions from the two-dimensional Manna model with bulk dissipation. The inset presents the collapse in the case $\kappa=1$, while in the main figure the case $\kappa=3$ is shown. Both collapses correspond to the value $\tau_s = 1.28$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](./fig1_new.eps){width="9cm"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The main signature of chaos in a quantum system is provided by spectral statistical analysis of the nearest neighbor spacing distribution and the spectral rigidity given by $\Delta_3(L)$. It is shown that some standard unfolding procedures, like local unfolding and Gaussian broadening, lead to a spurious increase of the spectral rigidity that spoils the $\Delta_3(L)$ relationship with the regular or chaotic motion of the system. This effect can also be misinterpreted as Berry’s saturation.'
address: 'Departamento de Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain'
author:
- 'J. M. G. Gómez, R. A. Molina, A. Relaño and J. Retamosa'
title: Misleading signatures of quantum chaos
---
[2]{} Quantum chaos has been an active research field since the link between energy level fluctuations and the chaotic or integrable properties of Hamiltonian systems was conjectured [@Berry:81; @Bohigas:84], providing one of the fundamental signatures of quantum chaos [@Granada:84; @Stockman:99] in atoms, molecules, nuclei, quantum dots, etc. The secular or smooth behavior of of the level density is a characteristic of each quantum system, while the fluctuations relative to this smooth behavior are related to the regular or chaotic character of the motion in all quantum systems. To achieve the separation of the smooth and fluctuating parts, the energy spectrum is scaled to a sequence with the same local mean spacing along the whole spectrum. This scaling is called [*unfolding*]{} [@Brody:81]. Although this can be a non-trivial task [@Guhr:98], the description of the unfolding details of calculations is usually neglected in the literature.
In this Letter we show that, contrary to common assumptions, the statistics that measure long range level correlations are strongly dependent on the unfolding procedure utilized, and some standard unfolding methods give very misleading results in regard to the chaoticity of quantum systems. Long range level correlations are usually measured by means of the Dyson and Mehta $\Delta_3$ statistic [@Brody:81]. On the other hand, short range correlations, caracterized by the the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution $P(s)$, are not very sensitive to the unfolding method.
Let us consider a rectangular quantum billiard with a size ratio $a/b=\pi$. This is a well known example of a regular system. In general, for regular systems level fluctuations behave like in a sequence of uncorrelated energy levels, and the $\Delta_3(L)$ statistic increases linearly with $L$. However, it was shown by Berry [@Berry:85] that the existence of periodic orbits in the phase space of the analogous classical system leads to a saturation of $\Delta_3(L)$ for $L$ larger than a certain value $L_s$, related to the period of the shortest periodic orbit. Fig. \[billiard\] shows the $\Delta_3$ behavior for a sequence of 8000 high energy levels of the mentioned quantum billiard, calculated with two different unfolding procedures. The mean level density for this system is given by the Weyl law [@Haake:01]. Using this density to perform the unfolding, $\Delta_3$ follows the straight line of level spacings with Poisson distribution, characteristic of regular systems. In this example, Berry’s saturation takes place at $L_s \simeq 750$, that is outside the figure. Let us suppose now that the law giving the mean level density of the system were unknown. Then, a standard method to obtain the local mean level density at energy $E$ is to calculate the average density of a few levels around this energy. Using this method one obtains a very different behavior, the spectral rigidity increases strongly at $L\simeq 20$, and afterwards $\Delta_3$ is close to the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) line characteristic of chaotic systems. The latter behavior is not at all related to the Berry saturation. It is a spurious effect due to inappropriate unfolding of the level spectrum and it implies that strong long-range correlations have been improperly introduced by the procedure.
This first example illustrates the problem that can arise with some reasonable unfolding methods currently used in quantum chaos calculations [@French:71; @Heyde:91; @Otsuka:92; @Meyer:97; @Bruus:97]. In order to understand its origin we shall analyze different unfolding procedures. The principal difficulty in the unfolding is the correct characterization of the mean level density $\bar{\rho}(E)$. Having this function, the unfolded adimensional variables $\varepsilon_i$, $$\varepsilon_i=\bar{N}(E_i),\;\;\;\;\bar{N}(E)=\int{dE\bar{\rho}(E)},
\label{densmedint}$$ have mean level density $\bar{\rho}(\varepsilon)=1$. The unfolded spacing sequence is then $\{s_i=\varepsilon_{i+1}-\varepsilon_i\}$, and the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution $P(s)$ is well suited to study the short-range spectral correlations [@Brody:81].
The $\Delta_3$ statistic is used to investigate the long range correlations. It is defined for the interval $[a,a+L]$ in the cumulative level density as $$\label{delta3}
\Delta_{3}(a,L) = \frac{1}{L}\,\,\, \min_{A,B} \int_{a}^{a+L}
\left[N(\varepsilon)-A \varepsilon-B\right]^2 d\varepsilon .$$ The function $\Delta_{3}(L)$, averaged over intervals, measures the deviations of the quasi-uniform spectrum from a true equidistant spectrum.
For some systems a natural unfolding procedure exists, because $\bar{\rho}(E)$ is known from an appropriate statistical theory or by a well checked empirical ansatz. For example, $\bar{\rho}(E)$ is a semicircle for large GOE matrices [@Brody:81], it often has Gaussian form for large nuclear shell-model matrices [@Brody:81], and follows the Weyl law in quantum billiards [@Haake:01]. However, in many systems where there is no natural choice for $\bar{\rho}(E)$, it is usually estimated from a set of neighboring levels. The simplest method, called [*local unfolding*]{}, has been widely used [@French:71; @Heyde:91; @Otsuka:92; @Meyer:97]. The mean level density is assumed to be approximately linear in a window of $v$ levels on each side of $E_i$, and is given by $$\bar{\rho}_L (E_i)= \frac{2v}{E_{i-v}-E_{i+v}},
\label{rholoc}$$ where $L$ stands for local unfolding. More sophisticated is the [*Gaussian broadening*]{} method [@Haake:01; @Bruus:97]. The level density $\rho(E) = \sum_i \delta(E-E_i)$ is substituted by an average level density $$\bar{\rho}_G (E) = \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} \sum_i
\exp\left\{-\frac{(E-E_i)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\},$$ where $G$ stands for Gaussian broadening. The sum runs over all the energy levels, but only those satisfying $\left| E-E_i\right| \alt
\sigma$ do significantly contribute to $\bar{\rho}_G(E)$. Although these two methods are different, both depend on a parameter $v$ or $\sigma$ that measures, in a real or effective way, how many neighboring levels are used to calculate the local mean density.
Let us now consider the atomic nucleus as example of a quantum system more complex than the quantum billiard. In most nuclei, level fluctuations are in agreement with GOE predictions at all energies, showing that the motion is chaotic. However, it has recently been observed that single closed nuclei are less chaotic than expected [@Otsuka:92; @Molina:01]. One of the most regular nuclei at law energy is $^{52}Ca$. Analysis of the shell-model level spectrum [@Molina:01] shows that the nearest neighbor $P(s)$ distribution is close to the Poisson limit (the Brody parameter is $\omega=0.25$) for levels up to 5 MeV above the yrast line. As the excitation energy is increased, $P(s)$ approaches the spacing distribution of a chaotic system. However, other statistics indicate that the dynamics still is not fully chaotic. Often, the mean level density inside a valence space is very well reproduced by an Edgeworth expansion around a Gaussian form [@Brody:81]. If we use it to perform a smooth unfolding of the 2755 $J=10$ levels of $^{52}$Ca, the $\Delta_3(L)$ statistic is close to GOE limit for very small $L$ values, but it increases linearly instead of logarithmically for larger $L$ values, as can be seen in Fig. \[unfca\]. Except for very small $L$ values, the spectral rigidity is intermediate between that of GOE and Poisson limits, giving a clear signature of non chaotic motion. This result is in agreement with the behavior of the wave function localization lengths [@Molina:01].
When the Edgeworth expansion fails, as it happens sometimes [@Otsuka:92], the local unfolding or the Gaussian broadening are the available unfolding methods. Fig. \[unfca\] also shows the results of local unfolding for $v=5$. The calculated $\Delta_3$ follows the line obtained with the smooth unfolding up to $L\simeq
2v$, but then accumulated unfolding errors increase the spectral rigidity and lead to a $\Delta_3$ saturation for larger $L$. This is the same behavior that was observed in the quantum billiard system described above. Moreover, as the $\Delta_3$ values are rather close to the GOE limit when $v=5$ is used, the conclusion in this case would be that $^{52}$Ca is a chaotic system. This example is then very enlightening. First, it illustrates that, contrary to common practice, the $\Delta_3(L)$ statistic should be calculated up to high $L$ values, because otherwise one can miss relevant information on the system dynamics. Second, it shows the problems that can arise when the mean level density is not known and one has to rely on local unfolding.
To avoid any uncertainties on the real mean level density $\bar{\rho}(E)$ and level fluctuations, we can study GOE and Poisson level spectra, the paradigmatic cases of chaotic and regular systems, respectively. We consider a GOE matrix with dimension $N=10000$, and compare the spectral fluctuations obtained by three different methods: Smooth unfolding made with the semicircle law, local unfolding, and Gaussian broadening unfolding. All these methods yield almost indistinguishable results for the $P(s)$ distribution, that is in perfect agreement with the Wigner surmise. The behavior of the short range correlations is not affected by the method of unfolding.
However, Fig. \[unfgoe\] shows a completely different scenario for $\Delta_3$. For the smooth unfolding, the spectral rigidity behaves as predicted by GOE, up to very large $L$ values. The local unfolding was performed using two different windows, with $v=9$ and $v=21$. The calculated $\Delta_3$ coincides now with GOE predictions only up to $L\simeq 2v$, then it leaves the GOE trend because the spectral rigidity increases and finally $\Delta_3$ saturates to a constant value. The Gaussian broadening unfolding was performed for $\sigma=1$ MeV and $\sigma=2$ Mev. In the central part of the spectrum these values correspond to windows containing about $10$ and $20$ states, respectively . Therefore, the effective number of states that affect the average level density is about the same as in the local unfolding case. Again, we see the same $\Delta_3$ behavior for $L$ values greater than the window used in the unfolding.
Fig. \[unfpois\] shows the spectral rigidity for 10000 levels generated with Poisson statistics and a uniform density $\bar{\rho}(E)=1$. The smooth unfolding gives $\Delta_3$ values close to Poisson predictions, but local unfolding with $v=2$, 9 and 21, leads again to the same behavior observed in previous cases for $L\agt 2v$. In fact, for the small window with four spacings, the $\Delta_3$ of the Poisson spectrum closely follows GOE predictions!
Looking for deeper insight into the spurious $\Delta_3$ saturation, we consider the sequence of nearest level spacings as a physical signal, and apply Fourier analysis techniques to its study. We have chosen a system with Poisson statistics and uniform level distribution to illustrate the idea, because the smooth density is constant. Therefore, the fundamental assumption of the local unfolding method, namely that the mean density is approximately linear within a window, is exactly fulfilled. From the real nearest-neighbor level spacing sequence $S$, we obtain: (a) the average spacing sequence $D_L$ calculated with the local constant density of Eq. (\[rholoc\]) and $v=21$, (b) the sequence of smoothly unfolded spacings $s$, and (c) the sequence of locally unfolded spacings $s_L$. Since for this spectrum $\bar{\rho}(E)=1$, we have $D=1$ and $s=S$.
Fig. \[pow\] displays the power spectrum of these sequences for frequencies up to $k=0.6$. For $D_L$, it has a maximum near $k=0$ and decreases smoothly becoming essentially zero at some threshold frequency $k_0=\pi/v$. However, this behavior is a spurious effect, because the real mean spacing $D$ is constant and then its power spectrum is zero for all the frequencies $k\ne 0$. Therefore the local unfolding procedure introduces spurious low frequency components into the $D_L$ signal. Comparing the power spectra of $D_L$ and $s$, it is seen that they are very similar at low frequencies, except for the damping of the former. The power spectra of $s$ and $s_L$ are also very similar, except that the low frequency components are missing in the latter. These results clarify the deficiencies of local unfolding. It becomes apparent that the procedure is filtering out low frequency fluctuations from the spectrum $s$, and improperly including them in $D_L$. Moreover, by reducing or eliminating fluctuations of frequency smaller than $k_0$, the procedure is introducing long range correlations with wave lengths greater than $2v$. As this fluctuation reduction is progressive, the spurious long range correlations become stronger as $L$ increases beyond the window size $2v$. It is precisely this phenomenon what has previously been detected by the $\Delta_3$ statistic, that strong long range correlations leading to a saturation of the $\Delta_3$ are observed for $L\agt 2v$.
In summary, we have shown that the correct behavior of $\Delta_3$ is strongly modified by some commonly used unfolding procedures when the exact shape of the mean level density is not known. Methods like local unfolding or Gaussian broadening introduce spurious long range correlations in the unfolded level spectrum, increasing the spectral rigidity and leading to a saturation of $\Delta_3(L)$. In these methods the local average level spacing at energy $E$ is calculated from the levels inside an energy window around $E$. The spurious behavior of the $\Delta_3$ statistic is observed for $L$ larger than the window size. In general it gives misleading signatures of quantum chaos, and for small windows the behavior of $\Delta_3$ may be close to the GOE limit. Furthermore, the spurious saturation of $\Delta_3$ can easily be misinterpreted as Berry’s saturation.
For systems intermediate between regular and chaotic, the traditional spectral statistics $P(s)$ and $\Delta_3(L)$ for small $L$ values may be close to the GOE limit, and strong deviations of the spectral rigidity from GOE predictions only appear for larger $L$ values. Thus if the local mean level density is not known from a statistical theory or a good empirical ansatz, the analysis of energy level fluctuations will not lead to correct conclusions on the system dynamics. In this case, it becomes necessary to go beyond level statistics and study properties of the wave functions, such as localization length, transition strengths and transition strength sums [@Kota:01].
We want to acknowledge useful discussions with D. Weinmann. This work is supported in part by Spanish Government grants for the research projects BFM2000-0600 and FTN2000-0963-C02.
M. V. Berry, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**131**]{}, 163 (1981).
O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 1 (1984).
O. Bohigas and M. J. Giannoni, in [ *Mathematical and Computational Methods in Nuclear Physics*]{}, Eds. J. S. Dehesa, J. M. G. Gómez and A. Polls (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984).
H. J. Stöckmann, [*Quantum Chaos*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
T. A. Brody, J. Flores, J. B. French, P. A. Mello, A. Pandey and S. S. M. Wong, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**53**]{}, 385 (1981).
T. Guhr, A. Müller-Groeling and H. A. Weidenmüller, Phys. Rep. [**299**]{}, 189 (1998).
M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**400**]{}, 229 (1985).
F. Haake, [*Quantum Signatures of Chaos*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001).
J. B. French and S. S. M. Wong, Phys. Lett. B[**35**]{}, 5 (1971).
V. Paar, D. Vorkapic, K. Heyde, A. G. M. van Hees and A. A. Wolters, Phys. lett. B[**271**]{}, 1 (1991).
M. S. Bae, T. Otsuka, T. Mizusaki and N. Fukunishi, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**69**]{}, 2349 (1992).
H. Meyer, J. C. Angles d’Auriac and J. M. Maillard, Phys. Rev. E, [**55**]{}, 5380 (1997).
H. Bruus and C.A. d’Auriac, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 9142 (1997).
R. A. Molina, J. M. G. Gómez and J. Retamosa, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 014311 (2001).
J. M. G. Gómez, K. Kar, V. K. B. Kota, J. Retamosa and R. Sahu, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{}, 034305 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The blind deconvolution problem aims to recover a rank-one matrix from a set of rank-one linear measurements. Recently, Charisopulos et al. [@charisopoulos2019composite] introduced a nonconvex nonsmooth formulation that can be used, in combination with an initialization procedure, to provably solve this problem under standard statistical assumptions. In practice, however, initialization is unnecessary. As we demonstrate numerically, a randomly initialized subgradient method consistently solves the problem. In pursuit of a better understanding of this phenomenon, we study the random landscape of this formulation. We characterize in closed form the landscape of the population objective and describe the approximate location of the stationary points of the sample objective. In particular, we show that the set of spurious critical points lies close to a codimension two subspace. In doing this, we develop tools for studying the landscape of a broader family of singular value functions, these results may be of independent interest.'
author:
- |
Mateo Díaz[^1]\
Center for Applied Mathematics\
Cornell University
bibliography:
- 'bibliography2.bib'
title: The nonsmooth landscape of blind deconvolution
---
Introduction
============
An increasing amount of research has shown how matrix recovery problems, which in the worst case are hard, become tractable under appropriate statistical assumptions. Examples include phase retrieval [@wirt_flow; @waldspurger2018phase; @eM], blind deconvolution [@li2016rapid; @charisopoulos2019composite], matrix sensing [@park2016non; @MR3480732], matrix completion [@MR3565131; @mat_comp_min], and robust PCA [@rob_cand; @yi2016rpca], among others [@boumal2016non; @li2018nonconvex_robust; @charisopoulos2019low; @jusunblog]. Convex relaxations have proven to be a great tool to tackle these problems, but they often require lifting the problem to a higher dimensional space and consequently end up being computationally expensive. Thus, focus has shifted back to iterative methods for nonconvex formulations that operate in the natural parameter space. One of the difficulties of nonconvex optimization is that, in general, it is hard to find global minimizers. To overcome this issue, recent works have suggested two stage methods: One starts by running an *initialization procedure* – usually based on spectral techniques – and then refines the solution by warm-starting a *local search method* that minimizes a nonconvex formulation. This thread of ideas has proven very successful, and we refer the reader to [@chi2018nonconvex] for a survey.
Initialization procedures are nontrivial to develop and can sometimes more expensive than the refinement stage. Thus, it is important to understand when initialization methods are superfluous. There are iterative methods, for specific problems, that provably converge to minimizers [@mat_comp_min; @ge2017unified; @boumal2016non; @cifuentes2019burer; @lee2016gradient]. Analysis of these methods are of two types: those based on studying the iterate sequence [@kwon2018global; @ding2018leave; @zhong2018near], and those based on characterizing the landscape of smooth loss functions [@ge2017unified; @phase_nonconv; @ling2018landscape].
In this work, we study the landscape of a nonsmooth nonconvex formulation for the (real) *blind deconvolution* problem. Unlike the aforementioned works, we consider a nonsmooth loss, which presents fundamentally different technical challenges. We show that, as the number of measurements grow, the set of spurious stationary points converges to a codimension two subspace. This suggests that there is an extensive region with friendly geometry.
The blind deconvolution problem aims to recover a pair of real vectors $(\bar w, \bar x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}$ from a set of $m$ observations given by $$\label{eq:measurements}
y_i = \dotp{a_i, \bar w} \dotp{\bar x, b_i}\qquad \text{for all } i \in{1, \dots, m}$$ where $a_i$ and $b_i$ are known vectors for all indices. This problem has important applications in a variety of different fields, we describe two below.
1. **Signal processing.** The complex analogue of this problem is intimately linked to the problem of recovering a pair of vectors $(u,v)$ from the convolution $(Au) \ast (Bv)$, where $A$ and $B$ are tall-skinny matrices. In fact, when passed to the frequency domain, this problem becomes equivalent to the one mentioned above. This problem has applications in image deblurring and channel protection with random codes [@ahmed2014blind; @phase_nonconv].
2. **Shallow neural networks.** Solving this problem is equivalent to learning the weights of a shallow neural network with bilinear activation functions. Taking $\big\{((a_i,b_i), y_i)\big\}$ as training data, writing the output of the network as $y = \sigma( a^\top w, b^\top x)$, with $(w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$, and the setting the activation function to $\sigma(z_1, z_2) = z_1 z_2.$
To tackle the blind deconvolution problem, [@charisopoulos2019composite] proposed the following nonconvex nonsmooth formulation $$\label{p:1}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{w, x} f_S(w,x) \triangleq \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^m |\dotp{a_i, w} \dotp{x, b_i} - y_i|.$$ The authors of [@charisopoulos2019composite] designed a two-stage method based on this formulation and showed that if the measuring vectors, $a_i$ and $b_i,$ are i.i.d standard Gaussian, then their algorithm converges rapidly to a solution whenever $m \gtrsim (d_1+d_2).$ [^2] Nonetheless, experimentally the initialization stage seems to be superfluous. Indeed, a simple randomly-initialized subgradient algorithm is successful at solving the problem most of the time provided that $m/(d_1+d_2)$ is big enough, see the experiments in the last section for support of this claim.
Main contributions
------------------
Aiming to get a better understanding of the high-dimensional geometry of $f_S$, we study the landscape of $f_S$ when $A$ and $B$ are standard Gaussian random matrices. Following the line of ideas in [@davis2017nonsmooth], we think of $f_S$ as the empirical average approximation of the *population objective* $$f_P(w,x) \triangleq {\mathbb{E}}f_S(w,x) = {\mathbb{E}}\left( | a^\top(wx - \bar w \bar x) b^\top|\right),$$ where $a \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}$ and $b \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}$ are standard Gaussian vectors. From now on, we will refer to $f_S$ as the *sample objective.* The rationale is simple: we will describe the stationary points of $f_P$, then we will prove that the graph of the subdifferential $\partial f_S$ concentrates around the graph of $\partial f_P$ and combine these to describe the landscape of $f_S.$[^3] This strategy allows us to show that the set of spurious stationary points converges to a codimension two subspace at a controlled rate. We remark that these results are geometrical and not computational.
Before we go on, let us observe that one can only wish to recover the pair $(\bar w, \bar x)$ up to scaling. In fact, the measurements are invariant under the mapping $(w, x) \mapsto (\alpha w, x/\alpha)$ for any $\alpha \neq 0.$ Hence the set of solutions of the problems is defined as $${\mathcal{S}}\triangleq \left\{\left(\alpha \bar w, \bar x /\alpha\right) \mid
\alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{0\}\right\}.$$
#### Population objective.
Interestingly, the population objective only depends on $(w,x)$ through the singular values of the rank two matrix $X := wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top.$ We show this function can be written as $$f_P(w,x) = \sigma_{\max}(X) \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\frac{(2n)!}{2^{2n}(n!)^2}\right)^2\frac{
\left(1- \kappa^{-2}(X) \right)^n}{1-2n}$$ where $\kappa(X) = {\sigma_{\max}(X)}/{\sigma_{\min}(X)}$ is the condition number of $X.$ We characterize the stationary points of a broad family of spectral functions, containing $f_P$. By specializing this characterization we find that the stationary points of the population objectives are exactly $${\mathcal{S}}\cup \{(w,x) \mid \dotp{w, \bar w} = 0, \dotp{x, \bar x} = 0, \text{and } wx^\top =0\},$$ revealing that the set of extraneous critical points of $f_P$ is the subspace $(\bar w, 0)^\perp \cap (0, \bar x)^\perp.$
#### Sample objective.
Equipped with a quantitative version of Attouch-Wets’ convergence theorem proved in [@davis2017nonsmooth], we show that with high probability any stationary point of $f_S$ in a bounded set satisfies at least one of the following $$\|(w,x)\| \leq \Delta \|(\bar w,\bar x)\|,\;\; \|wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\| \leq \Delta \|\bar w \bar x^\top\|, \;\; \text{or} \;\;\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
|\dotp{w,\bar w}| &\leq \Delta \|(w,x)\| \|\bar w\|, \\
|\dotp{x,\bar x}| &\leq \Delta \|(w,x)\| \|\bar x\|.
\end{array}
\right.$$ provided that $m \gtrsim d_1 + d_2,$ where $\Delta = \widetilde {\mathcal{O}}\left(\frac{d_1+d_2}{m} \right)^{\frac{1}{8}}$.[^4] Intuitively this means, that as the ratio $(d_1+d_2)/m$ goes to zero, the stationary points lie closer and closer to three sets: the singleton zero, the set of solutions ${\mathcal{S}}$, and the subspace $(\bar w, 0)^\perp \cap (0, \bar x)^\perp.$
Related work
------------
There is a vast recent literature on blind deconvolution. A variety of algorithmic solutions have been proposed, including convex relaxations [@ahmed2014blind; @ahmed2018blind], Riemannian optimization methods [@HuangHand17], gradient descent algorithms [@li2016rapid; @ma2017implicit], and nonsmooth procedures [@charisopoulos2019composite]. Related to this work, the authors of [@zhang2017global; @kuo2019geometry] studied variations of the blind deconvolution problem via landscape analysis; their approach is based on smooth formulations and therefore their tools are of a different nature. Besides algorithms, researchers have also been interested in information-theoretical limits of the problem under different assumptions[@choudhary2014sparse; @li2016identifiability; @kech2017optimal].
On the other hand, the study of the high-dimensional landscape of nonconvex formulations is an emergent area of research. Examples for smooth formulations include the analysis for phase retrieval [@phase_nonconv], matrix completion [@mat_comp_min], robust PCA [@ge2017unified], and synchronization networks [@ling2018landscape]. The majority of these results focus on using second order information to show that under reasonable assumptions the formulations do not exhibit spurious stationary points. The machinery developed for nonsmooth formulations is based on different ideas and is more case-oriented. Despite there are remarkable examples [@davis2017nonsmooth; @josz2018theory; @fattahi2018exact; @bai2018subgradient]. Closer to our work is the paper [@davis2017nonsmooth]; the authors of this article studied a similar nonsmooth formulation for the phase retrieval problem, which can be regarded as a symmetric analogue of blind deconvolution.
Outline
-------
The agenda of this paper is as follows: Section \[sec:notation\] introduces notation and some basic results we require. Sections \[sec:population\] and \[sec:sample\] present the results on the landscape of the population and sample objectives, respectively. In Section \[sec:experiments\], we present computational experiments corroborating the conclusions of our theory. We close with a brief discussion and future research directions in Section \[sec:dis\]. Many of the arguments are technical and consequently we defer most of the proofs to the appendices.
Preliminaries {#sec:notation}
=============
We will follow standard notation. The symbols ${\mathbb{R}}$ and ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ denote the real line and the nonnegative reals, respectively. The set of extended reals ${\mathbb{R}}\cup \{+\infty\}$ is written as $\overline {\mathbb{R}}.$ We always endow ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with its standard inner product, $\dotp{x,y} = x^\top y$, and its induced norm $\|x\| = \sqrt{\dotp{x,x}}$. We also use $\|x\|_1 = \sum |x_i|$ to denote the $\ell_1$-norm. For a set $S \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^d$, we denote the distance from a point $x$ to the set by ${{\rm dist}}(x,Q) = \inf_{y \in Q} \|x - y\|$. For any pair of real-valued functions $f, g: {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, we say that $f \lesssim g $ if there exists a constant $C$ such that $f \leq C g.$ Moreover, we write $f \asymp g$ if both $f \lesssim g$ and $g \lesssim f.$
The adjoint of a linear operator $A : {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is indicated by $A^\top: {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^d.$ Assuming $d\leq n$, the map $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times d} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{d}_+$ returns the vector of ordered singular values of a matrix with $\sigma_1(A) \geq \sigma_2(A) \geq
\dots \geq \sigma_{d}(A)$. We will use the symbols $\|A\|_{\mathrm{op}}= \sigma_1(A)$ and $\|A\|_F = \|\sigma(A)\|_2$ to indicate the operator and Frobenius norm, respectively. When not specified it is understood that $\|A\| := \|A\|_{\mathrm{op}}.$ We will use the symbol $O(d)$ to denote the set of $d \times d$ orthogonal matrix.
#### Variational analysis.
Since we will handle nonsmooth functions, we need a definition of generalized derivatives. We refer the interested reader to some excellent references on the subject [@RW98; @mord1; @Borwein-Zhu]. Let $f: {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow \overline {\mathbb{R}}$ be a lower semicontinuous proper function and $\bar x$ be a point. The *Fréchet subdifferential* $\widehat \partial f(x)$ is the set of all vectors $\xi$ for which $$f(x) \geq f(\bar x) + \dotp{\xi, x- \bar x} + o(\|x-\bar x\|)\qquad \text{as }x\rightarrow \bar x.$$ Intuitively, $\xi \in \partial f(\bar x)$ if the function $x\mapsto f(\bar x) + \dotp{\xi, x- \bar x}$ locally minorizes $f$ up to first order information. Unfortunately, the set-valued mapping $x \mapsto \widehat \partial f(x)$ lacks some desirable topological properties. For this reason it is useful to consider an extension. The *limiting subdifferential* $\partial f (\bar x)$ is the set of all $\xi$ such that there are sequences $(x_n)$ and $(\xi_n)$ with $\xi_n \in \widehat \partial f(x_n)$ satisfying $(x_n, f(x_n), \xi_n) \rightarrow (\bar x, f( \bar x), \xi)$. It is well-known that $\partial f( \bar x)$ reduces to the classical derivative when $f$ is Fréchet differentiable and that for $f$ convex, $\partial f(\bar x)$ is equal to the usual convex subdifferential $$\xi \in \partial f( \bar x) \qquad \iff \qquad f(x) \geq f(\bar x) + \dotp
{\xi , x - \bar x} \;\;\; \forall x.$$We say that a point $\bar x$ is *stationary* if $0 \in \partial f(\bar x).$ The *graph* of $\partial
f$ is given by ${{\rm gph}\,}\partial f = \{(x,\zeta) \mid \zeta \in \partial f(x)\}.$
For $\rho > 0,$ we say that $f$ is $\rho$-weakly convex if the regularized function $f + \frac{\rho}{2}\|\cdot\|^2_2$ is convex. This encompasses a broad class of functions: Any function that can be decomposed as $f = h \circ g$, where $h : {\mathbb{R}}^m \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is a Lipschitz convex function and $g : {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^m$ is smooth map, is weakly convex. It is worth noting that for functions that can be decomposed in this fashion, the chain rule [@RW98 Theorem 10.6] yields $\partial f(x) = \nabla g(x)^\top \partial h ( g(x))$ for all $x.$
#### Singular value functions.
For a pair of dimensions $d_1, d_2$ we will denote $d = \min\{d_1, d_2\}.$ A function $f: {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is *symmetric* if $f(\pi x) = f(x)$ for any permutation matrix $\pi\in \{0,1\}^{d \times d}$. Additionally, a function $f$ is *sign invariant* if $f(s x) = f(x)$ for any diagonal matrix $s \in \{-1,0,1\}^{d \times d}$ with diagonal entries in $\{\pm 1\}.$ We say that $f_\sigma : {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is a *singular value function* if it can be decomposed as $f_\sigma = (f \circ \sigma)$ for a symmetric sign invariant function $f.$ A simple and illuminating example is the Frobenius norm, since $\|A\|_F = \| \sigma(A)\|_2.$ This type of function has been deeply studied in variational analysis [@der; @eval; @lewis2005nonsmooth].
A pair of matrices $X$ and $Y$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$ have a *simultaneous ordered singular value decomposition* if there exist matrices $U \in O(d_1)$ and $V \in O(d_2)$ such that $X = U {{\rm diag}}(\sigma(X)) V^\top$ and $Y = U {{\rm diag}}(\sigma(Y)) V^\top.$ We will make great use of the following remarkable theorem.
\[thm:spectral\_sub\] The limiting subdifferential of a singular value function $f_\sigma = f \circ \sigma$ at a matrix $M \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$ is given by $$\partial f_\sigma (M) = \{U {{\rm diag}}(\zeta) V^\top \mid \zeta \in \partial f (\sigma(M)) \text{ and } U{{\rm diag}}\left(\sigma(M)\right) V^\top = M \}.$$ Hence $M$ and any of its subgradients have simultaneous ordered singular value decomposition.
[0.45]{} ![Population objective $d_1 = d_2 = 1.$[]{data-label="fig:4"}](function2D "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:contour1\]
[0.45]{} ![Population objective $d_1 = d_2 = 1.$[]{data-label="fig:4"}](contour2D "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:contour2\]
Population objective {#sec:population}
====================
In this section we study the population objective $f_P$. A first important observation is that this function is a singular value function. Indeed, if we set $X = wx^\top- \bar w \bar x^\top$ then due to the orthogonal invariance of the Gaussian distribution we get $$\label{eq:fP}
f_P(w,x) = {\mathbb{E}}|a^\top U{{\rm diag}}(\sigma(X))V^\top b| = {\mathbb{E}}|\sigma_1(X) a_1 b_1 + \sigma_2(X) a_2 b_2|,$$ where of course $U{{\rm diag}}(\sigma(X))V^\top$ is the singular value decomposition of $X.$ This simple observation leads to our first result, a closed form characterization of this function in terms $\sigma(X).$ We defer the proof to Appendix \[subsec:proof\_prop\_closed\_form\].
\[prop:closed\_form\_population\] The population objective can be written as $$f_P(w,x) = \sigma_{\max}(X) \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\frac{(2n)!}{2^{2n}(n!)^2}\right)^2\frac{
\left(1- \kappa^{-2}(X) \right)^n}{1-2n}$$ where $\kappa(X) = {\sigma_{\max}(X)}/{\sigma_{\min}(X)}$ is the condition number of $X.$
When the signal $(\bar w, \bar x)$ lives in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ the landscape of the population objective is rather simple, the only critical points are the solutions and zero, see Figure \[fig:4\]. This is not the case in higher dimensions where an entire subspace of critical points appear. In the reminder of this section, we develop tools to describe the critical points of a broad class of functions and we then specialize these results to the blind deconvolution population objective .
Landscape analysis for a class of singular value functions
----------------------------------------------------------
From now on we consider an arbitrary function $g: {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ for which there exists a rank one matrix $\bar w \bar x^\top$ and a singular value function $f_\sigma$ satisfying $$g(w,x) = f_\sigma (wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top) = f \circ \sigma \left(wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\right).$$ This gives us two useful characterizations of $g$ that we will use throughout. In the following section we will see a way of recasting $f_P$ in this form.
A simple application of the chain rule yields $$\partial g(w,x) = \left\{ \begin{bmatrix}
Y x \\
Y^\top w
\end{bmatrix} \, \Big| \, Y \in \partial f_{\sigma} (X)\right\}.$$ Notice that we already have a description of $\partial f_\sigma (X)$ given by Theorem \[thm:spectral\_sub\], that is $Y \in \partial f_\sigma (X)$ if and only if there exists matrices $U \in O(d_1)$ and $V \in O(d_2)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:descY} \sigma(Y) \in \partial f( \sigma(X)), \qquad Y = U {{\rm diag}}(\sigma(Y)) V^\top, \qquad \text{and} \qquad X = U {{\rm diag}}( \sigma(X)) V^\top.$$ Equipped with these tools we derive the following result regarding the critical points of $g.$ We defer a proof to Appendix \[proof:generalPopulation\].
\[cor:general-landscape\] Suppose that $(w,x)$ is a stationary point for $g,$ i.e. $Yx = 0, Y^\top w = 0.$ Then at least one of the following conditions hold:
1. **Small objective.** $g(w,x) \leq g(\bar w, \bar x),$
2. **Zero.** $(w,x) = 0,$
3. **One zero component.** $\dotp{w,\bar w} = \dotp{x, \bar x} = 0$, $wx^\top = 0,$ and (assuming that $x$ is not zero) $Yx = 0$ (similarly for $w$).
4. **Small product norm.** $\dotp{w,\bar w} = \dotp{x, \bar x} = 0$, ${\mathrm{rank}}(Y) = 1$, and $0 < \|wx^\top \| < \|\bar w \bar x^\top\|.$
Moreover, if $(\bar w,\bar x)$ minimizes $g$, then $(w,x)$ is a critical point if, and only if, it satisfies 1, 2, 3, or 4 for some $Y \in \partial f_\sigma(X).$
Landscape of the population objective
-------------------------------------
Our goal now is to apply Theorem \[cor:general-landscape\] to describe the landscape of $f_P.$ In order to do it we need to write $f_P(w,x)= f \circ \sigma (X) $ with $f: {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ a symmetric sign-invariant convex function. An easy way to do this is to define $$f(s_1, \dots, s_d) = {\mathbb{E}}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^d a_i b_i s_i \right|\right).$$
To use Theorem \[cor:general-landscape\], we need to study $\partial f.$ The next lemma shows that the function is actually differentiable at every point but zero. We defer the proof of this result to Appendix \[subsec:proof\_lemma\_partial\_derivatives\].
\[lemma:partial\_derivatives\] For any nonzero vector $s \in {\mathbb{R}}^d_+ \setminus \{0\},$ the partial derivatives of $f$ satisfy $$\label{eq:gradient}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial s_j}(s) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}s_j \; {\mathbb{E}}\left[{a_j^2}{\left(\sum_i^d (a_is_i)^2\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}} \right].$$
This lemma gives us the final tool to derive the main theorem regarding the landscape of $f_P.$
\[theo:mainPopulation\] The set of critical points of the population objective $g_P$ is exactly $${\mathcal{S}}\cup \{0\} \cup \{(w,x) \mid \dotp{w, \bar w} = 0, \dotp{x, \bar x} = 0, \text{and } wx^\top =0\}.$$
Notice that $(\bar w, \bar x)$ minimizes the population objective $f_P$, therefore Theorem \[cor:general-landscape\] gives a complete description of the critical points. Let us examine each one of the conditions in this theorem.
The points in $\{(w,x) \mid wx^\top = \bar w \bar x^\top \}$ and $\{0\}$ are contained in the set of stationary points because they satisfy the first and second condition, respectively.
Now, let $(w,x) \in \{\bar w\}^\perp \times \{\bar x\}^\perp$ such that $wx^\top = 0.$ Thus, the matrix $X$ is rank $1$, and consequently reveals that that any $Y \in \partial f_\sigma(X)$ satisfies $\sigma(Y) = \nabla f(\sigma(X)) = (2/\pi, 0 , \dots, 0)$. Therefore, due to , we get $Y = \frac{2}{\pi} \bar w \bar x^\top / \|\bar w\|\|\bar x\|.$ Without loss of generality, assume $x$ is not zero. Then, ${\left \| Yx \right \|} = \frac{2}{\pi \|\bar x\|}|\dotp{x,\bar x} | = 0$ and, consequently, $(w,x)$ is stationary.
On the other hand, let $(w,x) \in \{\bar w\}^\perp \times \{\bar x\}^\perp$ such that $0 <\|wx^\top \| < \|\bar w\bar x^\top \|$. Therefore, the matrix $X$ is rank $2$ and so gives that $\sigma_2(Y) > 0$ for all $Y \in \partial f_\sigma(X).$ Hence, $(w,x)$ is not a stationary point, giving the result.
Sample objective {#sec:sample}
================
In this section we describe the approximate locations of the critical points of the sample objective. Unlike in the smooth case, nonsmooth losses do not exhibit point-wise concentration of the subgradients, or in other words, $\partial f_S(w,x)$ doesn’t converges to $\partial f_P(w,x)$. To overcome this obstacle, we show that the graph of $\partial f_S$ approaches that of $\partial f_P$ at a quantifiable rate. This intuitively means that if $(w,x)$ is a critical point of $f_S,$ then nearby there exists a point $(\widehat w, \widehat x)$ with ${{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f_P(\widehat w, \widehat x))$ small.
The following result can be regarded as an analogous version of Theorem \[theo:mainPopulation\] for the sample objective. The reasoning behind this theorem is similar: we first develop theory for a broad class of functions, and then specialize it to $f_S.$ However, the proof of this result is more involved and will require us to study the location of epsilon critical points of the population. We defer the development of these arguments and the proof of the next result to Appendices \[app:approximate\] and \[app:Sample\], respectively.
\[theo:sample\_objective\] Consider the sample objective generated with two Gaussian matrices $A$ and $B$. For any fixed $\nu > 1$ there exist numerical constants $c_1, c_2, c_3> 0$ such that if $m \geq c_1(d_1+d_2+1)$, then with probability at least $1-c_2\exp(- c_3 (d_1+ d_2+1))$, every stationary point $(w,x)$ of $f_S$ for which $\|(w,x)\| \leq \nu \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|$ satisfies at least one of the following conditions
1. **Near zero.** $$\|(w,x)\| \leq \|(\bar w, \bar x)\| \Delta,$$
2. **Near a solution.** $$\| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\| \lesssim (\nu^2+1)\|\bar w \bar x^\top\| \Delta,$$
3. **Near orthogonal.** $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
|\dotp{w,\bar w}| &\lesssim (\nu^2 + 1) \|(w,x)\| \|\bar w\| \Delta, \\
|\dotp{x,\bar x}| &\lesssim (\nu^2 + 1)\|(w,x)\| \|\bar x\| \Delta.
\end{array}
\right.$$
where $\Delta = \left( \frac{d_1+d_2 +1}{m} \log\left(\frac{m}{d_1+d_2+1}\right) \right)^{\frac{1}{8}}.$
We remark that one can further prove that with high probability, there exists a neighborhood around the solutions set ${\mathcal{S}}$ in which the only critical points are the solutions [@charisopoulos2019composite]. Hence at the cost of potentially increasing $c_1$, the second condition can be strengthened to $(\bar w,\bar x) \in {\mathcal{S}}.$
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
In this section we empirically investigate the behavior of a randomly-initialized subgradient algorithm applied to .[^5] It is known that well-tuned subgradient algorithms converge to critical points for any locally Lipschitz function [@Davis2019]. Further, these types of iterative procedures are computationally cheap, easy to implement, and widely used in practice. This makes them a great proxy for our purposes. For the experiments, we use Polyak’s subgradient method, a classical algorithm known to exhibit rapid convergence near solutions for *sharp weakly-convex functions* [@davis2018subgradient].[^6] Polyak’s method is an iterative algorithm given by $$\label{eq:Polyak}
x_{k+1} \leftarrow x_k - \left( \frac{f(x_k) - \inf f}{\|g_k\|^2} \right) g_k \qquad \text{with }g_k \in \partial f(x_k).$$ Notice that the step size requires us to know the minimum value, which in this case is exactly zero. Polyak’s algorithm was used in [@charisopoulos2019low] as one of the procedures in the two-stage method for blind deconvolution.
In all the experiments the goal is to recover a pair of canonical vectors $(e_1, e_1) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}.$ Observe that this instance is a good representative of the average performance of the method due to the rotational invariance of the measurements. We evaluate the frequency of successful recovery of using two different random initialization strategies:
1. (**Uniform over a cube**) We set $(w_0, x_0)$ to be an uniform vector on the cube $[-\nu, \nu]^{d_1 + d_2}.$
2. (**Random Gaussian**) We set $w_0$ and $x_0$ to be distributed $\text{N}(0, \frac{\nu^2}{d_1} I_{d_1})$ and $\text{N}(0, \frac{\nu^2}{d_2} I_{d_2})$, respectively. This ensures that with high probability, both $\|w_0\|$ and $\|x_0\|$ are close to $\nu.$
We generate phase transition plots for both initialization strategies by varying the value of $\nu$ and $C \triangleq m/(d_1+d_2)$ between $\{2^4, 2^5, \dots, 2^{10}\}$ and $\{1,2, \dots, 8\},$ respectively. For each choice of parameters we generate ten random instances $(w_0, x_0, A,B)$ and record in how many instances Polyak’s method achieves a relative error smaller than $10^{-6}.$ The method stops whenever it reaches $100\,000$ iterations or the function value is less than $10^{-10}.$ We repeat these experiments for two different pairs of dimensions, $(d_1, d_2) \in \{(100, 50), (200, 100)\}$. The results are displayed in Figures \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\].
A first immediate observation is that the random initialization, the dimension, and the scaling parameter $\nu$ do not seem to be affecting the recovery frequency of the algorithm. The only parameter that controls the recovery frequency is $C.$ This is intuitively consistent with Theorem \[theo:sample\_objective\], since this parameter determines the concentration of spurious critical points around a subspace. Nonetheless, the effect of this parameter seems to be stronger in practice. Indeed, the probability of recovery exhibits a sharp phase transition at $C \sim 3$.
#### Reproducible research. {#reproducible-research. .unnumbered}
All the results and code implemented for these experiments are publicly available in <https://github.com/mateodd25/BlindDeconvolutionLandscape>.
[0.35]{} ![Empirical probability of recovery with random initialization, first row with Gaussian distribution and second row with uniform over a cube. White denotes probability one and black denotes probability zero. Left and right images correspond to $(d_1,d_2) = (100, 50)$ and $(d_1,d_2) = (200, 100),$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](PhaseTransitionGaussian100 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:contour1\]
[0.35]{} ![Empirical probability of recovery with random initialization, first row with Gaussian distribution and second row with uniform over a cube. White denotes probability one and black denotes probability zero. Left and right images correspond to $(d_1,d_2) = (100, 50)$ and $(d_1,d_2) = (200, 100),$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](PhaseTransitionGaussian200 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:contour2\]
[0.35]{} ![Empirical probability of recovery with random initialization, first row with Gaussian distribution and second row with uniform over a cube. White denotes probability one and black denotes probability zero. Left and right images correspond to $(d_1,d_2) = (100, 50)$ and $(d_1,d_2) = (200, 100),$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](PhaseTransitionCube100 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:contour1\]
[0.35]{} ![Empirical probability of recovery with random initialization, first row with Gaussian distribution and second row with uniform over a cube. White denotes probability one and black denotes probability zero. Left and right images correspond to $(d_1,d_2) = (100, 50)$ and $(d_1,d_2) = (200, 100),$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](PhaseTransitionCube200 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:contour2\]
Conclusions {#sec:dis}
===========
We investigated both the population and sample objectives of a formulation for the blind deconvolution problem. We showed that in both cases the set of spurious critical points are, or concentrate near, a subspace of codimension two. Such concentration can be measured in terms of the ratio of the dimension of the signal we wish to recover over the number of measurements. This sheds light on the fact that a randomly-initialized subgradient method converges to a solution whenever this ratio is small enough. Our results, however, do not entirely explain this behavior. It could be the case that we are witnessing an instance of a more general phenomenon. It is known that when the aforementioned ratio is small, the sample objective becomes sharp weakly convex with high probability. It would be interesting to know if for this type of function a well-tuned subgradient method avoids spurious critical points. We leave this as an open question for future research.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I thank Jose Bastidas, Damek Davis, Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, Robert Kleinberg, and Mauricio Velasco for insightful and encouraging conversations. Finally, I would like to thank my advisor Damek Davis for research funding during the completion of this work.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:closed\_form\_population\] {#subsec:proof_prop_closed_form}
======================================================
Recall that we defined the functions $f: {\mathbb{R}}^d_+ \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ and $f_\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times n} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ to be such that $f_P(w,x) = f_\sigma(X) = f(\sigma(X)).$ It is known that for constants $c_1, c_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ we have that $c_1 b_1 + c_2 b_2 \stackrel{(d)}{=} \sqrt{c_1^2 + c_2^2} b_1,$ where $\stackrel{(d)}{=}$ denotes equality in distribution. Then $$\begin{aligned}
f(s_1, s_2, 0, \dots, 0) & = {\mathbb{E}}(|s_1 a_1 b_1 + s_2 a_2b_2|) \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}\left({\mathbb{E}}(|s_1 a_1 b_1 + s_2 a_2b_2| \mid a_1, a_2) \right)\\
& = {\mathbb{E}}\left({\mathbb{E}}(\sqrt{(s_1 a_1)^2 + (s_2 a_2)^2}|b_1| \mid a_1, a_2) \right) \\
& = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}{\mathbb{E}}\sqrt{(s_1 a_1)^2 + (s_2 a_2)^2} \\
& = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\sqrt{2}\pi^2} \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} {\sqrt{(a_1s_1)^2 + (a_2s_2)^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{a_1^2 + a_2^2}{2}\right)da_1 da_2 \\
& = 4\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\sqrt{2}\pi^2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty} {\sqrt{(a_1s_1)^2 + (a_2s_2)^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{a_1^2 + a_2^2}{2}\right)da_1 da_2 \\
& = 2\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{\pi^2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\pi/2} r^2{\sqrt{s_1^2\cos^2\theta + s_2^2\sin^2\theta}} \exp\left(-\frac{r^2}{2}\right)d\theta dr \\
& = \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi/2}{\sqrt{s_1^2\cos^2\theta + s_2^2\sin^2\theta}} d\theta \\
& = \frac{2s_1}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi/2}{\sqrt{\cos^2\theta + \frac{s_2^2}{s_1^2}\sin^2\theta}} d\theta \\
& = \frac{2s_1}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi/2}{\sqrt{1 - \left(1 -\frac{s_2^2}{s_1^2}\right)\sin^2\theta}} d\theta \\
& = \frac{2s_1}{\pi} E\left(1 -\frac{s_2^2}{s_1^2}\right) \\\end{aligned}$$ where $E(\cdot)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind (with parameter $m = k^2$). Thus altogether we obtain $$f_\sigma(X) = \sigma_{\max}(X) \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\frac{(2n)!}{2^{2n}(n!)^2}\right)^2\frac{
\left(1- \kappa^{-2}(X) \right)^n}{1-2n}$$ where $\kappa(X) = {\sigma_{\max}(X)}/{\sigma_{\min}(X)}$ is the condition number of $X.$
Proof of Theorem \[cor:general-landscape\] {#proof:generalPopulation}
==========================================
The proof of this result builds upon the next three lemmas. We will prove these lemmas and before we dive into the proof. Recall that $U \in O(d_1)$ and $V \in O(d_2)$ are any pair of matrices for which $X = U \sigma(X) V = \sum_i \sigma_i(X) U_i V_i^\top.$
\[lemma:stationary1\] The following are true.
1. **Anticorrelation.** The next equalities hold$$\dotp{U_1, w} \dotp{x,V_2} = \dotp{U_1, \bar w}\dotp{\bar x, V_2}\qquad \text{and} \qquad \dotp{U_2, w} \dotp{x,V_1} = \dotp{U_2, \bar w}\dotp{\bar x, V_1}.$$
2. **Singular values.** The singular values of $X$ satisfy $$\arraycolsep=1.4pt\def\arraystretch{1.5}
\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_1(X) = \dotp{U_1, w}\dotp{x, V_1} - \dotp{U_1, \bar w} \dotp{\bar x, V_1} \geq 0,\\ \sigma_2(X) = \dotp{U_2, w}\dotp{x, V_2} - \dotp{U_2, \bar w} \dotp{\bar x, V_2} \geq 0.
\end{array}$$
3. **Correlation.** Assume that $\sigma_2(wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top) > 0,$ then ${\text{span}}\{x,\bar x\} = {\text{span}}\{V_1, V_2\}$, ${\text{span}}\{w,\bar w\} = {\text{span}}\{U_1, U_2\}$, and consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\dotp{w,\bar w} &= \dotp{U_1, w} \dotp{U_1, \bar w} + \dotp{U_2, w}\dotp{U_2, \bar w},\\
\dotp{x,\bar x} &= \dotp{V_1, x} \dotp{V_1, \bar x} + \dotp{V_2, x} \dotp{V_2, \bar x}.
\end{aligned}$$
The first equality in item one follows by observing that $U_1^\top X V_2 = 0$, expanding the expression on the left-hand-side gives the result. The same argument starting from $U_2^\top X V_1 = 0$ gives the other equality. The second item follows by definition.
To prove the last item note that $$\dotp{U_i, w} x - \dotp{U_i,\bar w} \bar x = X^\top U_i = \sigma_i(X) V_i\qquad \forall i \in \{1,2\}.$$ Dividing through by $\sigma_i(X)$ in the previous inequality shows that ${\text{span}}\{x,\bar x\} = {\text{span}}\{V_1, V_2\}$. Therefore, we can write $x = \dotp{x, V_1} V_1 + \dotp{x, V_2} V_2$ and $\bar x = \dotp{\bar x, V_1} V_1 + \dotp{\bar x, V_2} V_2.$ Hence, $$\dotp{x,\bar x} = \left\langle \dotp{x, V_1} V_1 + \dotp{x, V_2} V_2, \dotp{\bar x, V_1} V_1 + \dotp{\bar x, V_2} V_2\right\rangle = \dotp{V_1, x} \dotp{V_1, \bar x} + \dotp{V_2, x} \dotp{V_2, \bar x}$$ An analogous argument shows the statement for $w$ and $\bar w$.
\[lemma:stationary2\] The following hold true.
1. **Maximum correlation**.$$\label{ineq:max_correlation}
\arraycolsep=1.4pt\def\arraystretch{1.5}
\begin{array}{c}
\max\{|\sigma_1 (Y) \dotp{v_1, x}|, |\sigma_2(Y) \dotp{v_2, x}|\} \leq \|Yx\|, \\ \max\{|\sigma_1 (Y) \dotp{u_1, w}|, |\sigma_2(Y) \dotp{u_2, w}|\} \leq \|Y^\top w\|.
\end{array}$$
2. **Objective gap**. $$\label{ineq:subgradient_singular_values} g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) \leq \sigma_1(Y)\sigma_1(X) + \sigma_2(Y) \sigma_2(X).$$
Note that $\|Yx\| \geq \dotp{z, Yx}$ for all $z \in {{\mathbb{S}}}^{d-1}$, then the very first claim follows by testing with $z \in \{\pm U_1, \pm U_2\}.$ An analogous argument gives the statement for $ w.$ Recall that $f$ is convex, consequently $f_\sigma$ is convex and the subgradient inequality gives $$g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) = f_\sigma(X) - f_\sigma(0) \leq \dotp{Y, X} = \sigma_1(Y) \sigma_1(X) + \sigma_2(Y) \sigma_1(X).$$
\[lemma:rank1char\] Assume $\bar w \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 }$ and $\bar x \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}$ are nonzero vectors. Set $X = wx^\top + \bar w \bar x^\top$, then $X$ is a rank $1$ matrix if, and only if, $w = \lambda \bar w$ or $x = \lambda \bar x$ for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}.$
It is trivial to see that if the later holds then $X$ is rank $1.$ Let us prove the other direction. Notice that if any of the vectors is zero we are done, so assume that none of them is. Recall that all the columns of $X$ are span from one vector. Consider the case where $x$ and $\bar x$ have different support (i.e. set of nonzero entries), then it is immediate that $w$ and $\bar w$ have to be multiples of each other.
Now assume that this is not the case, without loss of generality assume that $w \notin {\text{span}}\{\bar w\}$ and $x$ and $\bar x$ are nonzero and their first component is equal to one. Then the first column of $X$ is equal to $w + \bar w$, furthermore the second column is equal to $x_2w + \bar x_2 \bar w$ has to be a multiple of the first one. By assumption $w, \bar w$ are linearly independent therefore $x_2 = \bar x_2.$ Using the same procedure for the rest of the entries we obtain $x = \bar x.$
We are now in good shape to describe the landscape of the function $g.$
To prove that at least one of the conditions hold we will show that if the first two don’t hold then at least one of the other two have two hold. Assume that that the first two conditions are not satisfied, therefore $g(w,x) > g(\bar w, \bar x)$ and $(w,x) \neq (0,0).$ Let us furnished some facts before we prove this is the case. Notice that from we can derive $$0 < \sigma_1(Y) \sigma_1(X) + \sigma_2(Y) \sigma_1(X) \leq 2 \sigma_1(Y{})\sigma_1(X),$$ thus $\sigma_1(Y), \sigma_1(X) > 0.$ On the other hand, since $(w,x)$ is critical inequalities immediately give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma2is0} \begin{split}
&\sigma_1(Y)\dotp{V_1, x} = \sigma_2(Y) \dotp{V_2, x} = 0, \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sigma_1(Y)\dotp{U_1, w} = \sigma_2(Y) \dotp{U_2, w} = 0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ So $\dotp{V_1, x} = 0$ and $\dotp{U_1, w} = 0$, then the first claim in Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] gives. Additionally, this and the second claim in Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\dotp{U_1, \bar w} \dotp{\bar x, V_2} = \dotp{U_2, \bar w}\dotp{\bar x, V_1} = 0,\qquad\text{and}\qquad-\dotp{U_1, \bar w} \dotp{\bar x, V_1} = \sigma_1(X) > 0.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these two gives $\dotp{U_2, \bar w} = \dotp{\bar x, V_2} = 0.$ Then by applying the second claim in Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] we get $\sigma_2(X) = \dotp{U_2, w} \dotp{x , V_2}$. Using Equations we conclude that $\sigma_2(Y)\sigma_2(X) = 0.$
Now we will show that at least one of the conditions holds, depending on the value of $\sigma_2(X),$ let us consider two cases:
**Case 1.** Assume $\sigma_2(X) = 0.$ This means that $X = wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top$ is a rank $1$ matrix. By Lemma \[lemma:rank1char\] we have that $w = \lambda \bar w$ or $x = \lambda \bar x$ for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}.$ Note that if $w = \lambda \bar w$ then $U_1 = \pm \bar w/ \|\bar w\|$, then using Equation \[eq:sigma2is0\] we get that $\lambda \|\bar w\| = 0.$ Which implies that $\lambda = 0,$ and consequently $wx^\top = 0.$ An analogous argument applies when $x = \lambda \bar x.$ By assumption we have that $Yx = 0$ and $Y^\top w =0$. Additionally, since $X = -\bar w \bar x^\top$ we get that that $U_1 = \pm \bar w/ \|\bar w\|$ and $V_1 = \pm\bar x / \|\bar x\|.$ Recall that $Y = U {{\rm diag}}(\sigma (Y)) V^\top,$ then using the fact that $(w,x)$ is critical we conclude $\dotp{w,\bar w} = \dotp{x, \bar x} = 0.$ Implying that property three holds.
**Case 2.** Assume $\sigma_2(X) \neq 0.$ This immediately implies that $\sigma_2(Y) = 0.$ By the third part of Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] we get that $$\dotp{x, \bar x} = \dotp{V_1, x} \dotp{V_1, \bar x} + \dotp{ V_2, x}\dotp{V_2, \bar x} = 0$$and analogously $\dotp{w, \bar w} = 0.$ Moreover, since $w \perp \bar w$ and $x \perp \bar w$ (and none of them are zero by assumption) we get that $(w/\|w\|, x/\|x\|)$ and $(\bar w/\|\bar w\|, \bar x/\|\bar x\|)$ are pairs of left and right singular vectors, with associated singular values $w^\top X x = \|w x^\top \|$ and $\bar w^\top X \bar x = \|\bar w \bar x^\top \|$, respectively. Assume that $\| w x^\top \| \geq \|\bar w \bar x^\top \|,$ thus $0 = w^\top Y x = \|wx^\top\| \sigma_1(Y) > 0,$ yielding a contradiction. Hence the condition four holds true.
Finally, we will prove the reverse statement. Assume that $(\bar w, \bar x)$ minimize $g.$ In this case, the set of points that satisfies the first conditions is the collection of minimizers so they are critical. Clearly $(w,x) = 0$ is always a stationary point, since $\|Y^\top w\| = \|Y x\| = 0$. Now let’s construct a certificate $Y \in \partial f_\sigma(X)$ that ensures criticality for the remaining cases.
Assume that $(w,x)$ that $wx^\top = 0,$ without loss of generality let’s assume that $w = 0.$ Further, assume that there exists $Y \in \partial f_\sigma (w,x)$ such that $Yx = 0$ and $\dotp{x, \bar x} = 0.$ It is immediate that $(w,x)$ is a stationary point. Assume that $(w,x)$ is such that $0 <\|wx^\top\| < \|\bar w \bar x^\top\|,$ $\dotp{w,\bar w} = \dotp{x,\bar x} = 0 $ and there exists $Y \in \partial f_\sigma(X)$ with $\sigma_2(Y) =0.$ By our argument above since $\|wx^\top\| < \|\bar w \bar x^\top\|$, any pair of admissible matrices $U,V$ satisfy $U_1 = \pm \bar w/ \|\bar w\|$ and $V_1 = \pm \bar x/ \|\bar x\|.$ Therefore $$Y x = (\sigma_1(Y) U_1 V_1^\top) x = \pm \frac{\sigma_1(Y)}{\|\bar x\|} \dotp{\bar x, x} U_1 = 0,$$ analogously $Y^\top w = 0.$
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:partial\_derivatives\] {#subsec:proof_lemma_partial_derivatives}
---------------------------------------------
It is well-known that if $(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_d)$ is fixed (i.e. if we conditioned on it), then $$\sum_{i=1}^d a_i b_i s_i \stackrel{(d)}{=}\left(\sum_{i=1}^d (a_i s_i)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} b$$ and $b$ is a standard normal random variable independent of the rest of the data. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
f(s_1, \dots, s_d) & = {\mathbb{E}}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^d a_i b_i s_i \right|\right) = {\mathbb{E}}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left( \left|\sum_{i=1}^d a_i b_i s_i \right| \Big| a_1, \dots, a_d\right) \right)\\ & = {\mathbb{E}}\left(\left(\sum_{i=1}^d (a_i s_i)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} {\mathbb{E}}\left( b \mid a_1, \dots, a_d\right) \right) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} {\mathbb{E}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^d (a_i s_i)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, we need a technical tool in order to procede.
\[theo:leibniz\] Let $U$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\Omega$ be a measure space. Suppose that the function $h : U \times \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfies the following:
1. For all $x \in U$, the function $h(x, \cdot)$ is Lebesgue integrable.
2. For almost all $w \in \Omega$, if we define $h^\omega(\cdot) = f(\cdot, \omega)$ the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial h^\omega}{\partial x_i} (x)$ exists for all $x \in U$.
3. There is an integrable function $\Phi : \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $|\frac{\partial h^\omega}{\partial x_i} (x)| \leq \Phi(\omega)$ for all $x \in U$ and almost every $\omega \in \Omega.$
Then, we have that for all $x \in U$ $$\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i} \int_\Omega h(x,\omega) d\omega = \int_\Omega \frac{\partial h^\omega}{\partial x_i}(x) d\omega.$$
This theorem tell us that we can swap partial derivatives and integrals provided that the function satisfies all the conditions above. Consider $\Omega$ to be the set ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ endow with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra and the multivariate Gaussian measure. Define $h : {\mathbb{R}}^d \times \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ to be given by $$(s , a) \mapsto \left(\sum_{i=1}^d (a_is_i)^2\right)^\frac{1}{2}.$$ Take $s \in {\mathbb{R}}^d \setminus \{0\}$ to be an arbitary element, set $S = \{u \in {\mathbb{R}}^d \mid {{\mathrm{supp}}}(s) \subseteq {{\mathrm{supp}}}(u) \}$, and define $U = B_\epsilon(s)$ with $\epsilon$ small enough such that $U \subseteq S$ and $\inf_{u \in U } \min_{i \in {{\mathrm{supp}}}(s)} |u_i| > 0$. Then it is easy to see that the first two conditions hold, in particular the second condition hold for all $a \neq 0$. Further, for any $x \in U$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{\partial h^a}{\partial s_j}(x)\right| = \left|\frac{a_j^2x_j}{\left(\sum_i^d (a_ix_i)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \right| & \leq \frac{\sup_{u \in U} \|u\|_\infty}{\inf_{u \in U} \min_{i \in {{\mathrm{supp}}}(s)} |u_i|} \frac{\sum_{i \in {{\mathrm{supp}}}(s)} a_j^2}{\left(\sum_{i \in {{\mathrm{supp}}}(s)} a_i^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \\
& \leq \frac{\sup_{u \in U} \|u\|_\infty}{\inf_{u \in U} \min_i|u_i|}{\left(\sum_{i \in {{\mathrm{supp}}}(s)} a_i^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}, \end{aligned}$$ where the last function is integrable with respect to the Gaussian measure. Thus, Theorem \[theo:leibniz\] ensures that the function $f$ is differentiable at every nonzero point. Consequently, for all $s \in {\mathbb{R}}^d \setminus \{0\}$ $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial s_j}(s) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}s_j \; {\mathbb{E}}\frac{a_j^2}{\left(\sum_i^d (a_is_i)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
Approximate critical points of a spectral function family {#app:approximate}
=========================================================
In Section \[sec:population\] we characterize the points for which $0 \in \partial f_P(w,x).$ In order to derive similar results for $f_S$ we will need to understand $\varepsilon$-critical points of $f_P,$ i.e. points $(w,x)$ for which ${{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(w,x)) \leq \varepsilon.$ Just as before we adopt a more general viewpoint and consider spectral functions of the form $g(w,x) = f \circ \sigma (wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top).$
The main result in this section is Theorem \[theo:epsilon\_critical\]. Given the fact that we don’t have second order information in the form of a Hessian, we need to appeal to a different kind of growth condition. Turns out that the natural condition for this problem is $$\label{eq:grow_cond}
g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) \geq \kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}_F \qquad \forall (w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2},$$ for some $\kappa > 0.$ Intuitively this means that the function grows sharply away from minimizers.
Before we dive into the main theorem, let us provide some technical lemmas.
\[lemma:lower\_bound\_singular\_values\] Suppose there exists a constant $\kappa > 0$ such that holds. Then, for any point $(w,x)$ such that $wx^\top \neq \bar w \bar x^\top$ we have $\sigma_1(Y)+\sigma_2(Y) \geq \kappa. $
By definition $\sigma_2(X) \leq \sigma_1(X) \leq {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}_F$. Then, applying gives $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}_F \leq g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) &\leq \sigma_1(Y) \sigma_1(X) + \sigma_2(Y)\sigma_2(X)\\ & \leq (\sigma_1(Y) + \sigma_2(Y)){\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}_F.\end{aligned}$$
Suppose there exists a constant $\kappa > 0$ such that holds. Then any pair $(w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 +d_2} \setminus \{0\}$ satisfies $$\frac{1}{{\min\{{\left \| w \right \|},{\left \| x \right \|}\}}}\left(\kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} - (\sigma_1(Y) + \sigma_2(Y)){\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} \right) \leq {{\rm dist}}(0; \partial g(w,x)).$$
Notice that the result holds trivially for any pair such that $wx^\top = \bar w \bar x^\top.$ Let’s assume that this is not the case. Recall that $\partial g(w,x) = \partial f_\sigma(X) x \times (\partial f_\sigma(X))^\top w.$ Pick $Y \in \partial g(w,x)$ such that ${{\rm dist}}(0, \partial g(w,x)) = \sqrt{\|Y x\|^2 + \|Y^\top w\|^2}.$ Using the convexity of $f_\sigma$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x\|_F \leq g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) & = f_\sigma(X) - f_\sigma(0) \\& \leq \dotp{Y,wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top}\\& \leq \|x\|\|Y^\top w\| + |w^\top Y x|
\leq \|x\|{{\rm dist}}(0, \partial g(w,x)) + |w^\top Y x|,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows by Cauchy-Schwartz. Applying the same argument using $w^\top Yx \leq \|w\|\|Yx\|$ gives $$g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) \leq \min\{\|w\|,\|x\|\}{{\rm dist}}(0, \partial g(w,x)) + |w^\top Y x|.$$ Now, let’s bound the second term on the right-hand-side. Note that $$|\bar w^\top Y \bar x| = |\dotp{Y,wx^\top}| \leq \|Y\|\|wx^\top\| \leq (\sigma_1(Y) + \sigma_2(Y)){\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}.$$ The result follows immediately.
We can now prove the main result of this section, a detailed location description of $\varepsilon$-critical points. This can be thought of as a quantitative version of Corollary \[cor:general-landscape\]. Its proof is however more involved due to the inexactness of the assumptions.
\[theo:epsilon\_critical\] Assume that $\|\bar w\| = \|\bar x\|$ and that there exists a constant $\kappa > 0$ such that holds. Further assume that $\sigma_1(Y)$ is bounded by some numerical constant.[^7] Let $\zeta = (Yx, Y^\top w) \in \partial g(w,x)$, and set $\varepsilon = \|\zeta\|.$ Then if $wx^\top =0$ we have that $$\max\{\|Yx\|, \|Y^\top w\|\} \leq \varepsilon, \qquad \text{and} \qquad \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
|\dotp{w,\bar w}|& \lesssim \varepsilon\|\bar w\| \\
|\dotp{x,\bar x}|& \lesssim \varepsilon\|\bar x\|
\end{array} \right. .$$ On the other hand, if $wx^\top \neq 0$ and $\|(w,x)\| \leq \nu \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|$ for some fixed $\nu > 1$. There exists a constant[^8] $\gamma > 0$ such that if $\varepsilon \leq \gamma\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}$ then ${\left \| wx^\top \right \|} \lesssim {\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}$ and at least one of the following holds
1. $$\max\{{\left \| w \right \|}, {\left \| x \right \|}\}{\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} \lesssim \varepsilon {\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}$$
2. $$\min\{\|w\|, \|x\|\} \lesssim \varepsilon \qquad \text{and} \qquad \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
|\dotp{w,\bar w}|& \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon\|\bar w\| \\
|\dotp{x,\bar x}|& \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon\|\bar x\|
\end{array} \right..$$
3. $$\sigma_2(Y) \lesssim \frac{\varepsilon}{\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}} \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
|\dotp{w,\bar w}|& \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon\|\bar w\| \\
|\dotp{x,\bar x}|& \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon\|\bar x\|
\end{array} \right. .$$
First assume that $wx^\top = 0,$ then it is clear that $\max\{\|Yx\|, \|Y^\top w\|\} = \|\zeta\| \leq \varepsilon$. Without loss of generality assume that $x = 0,$ let $Y = U \sigma(Y) V^\top$ be the singular value decomposition. Since $X = -\bar w \bar x^\top$ then $U_1 = \pm \bar w/ \|\bar w\|$ and $V_1 = \pm \bar x / {\left \| \bar x \right \|}$ and so $$\label{eq:small_innerproduct} \varepsilon \geq \|Y^\top w\| = {\left \| \frac{\sigma_1(Y)}{\|\bar w\|} \dotp{{\bar w}, w}V_1 + z \right \|} \geq \frac{\sigma_1(Y)}{\|\bar w\|} {\left| \dotp{{\bar w}, w} \right|} \geq \frac{\kappa}{2{\left \| \bar w \right \|}} \dotp{{\bar w}, w}$$ where $z$ is orthogonal to $V_1$ and the second inequality follows by Lemma \[lemma:lower\_bound\_singular\_values\]. This proves the first statement in the theorem.
We know move to the “On the other hand” statement, assume $wx^\top \neq 0$ and $\|(w,x)\| \leq \nu \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|$. Notice that the result holds immediately if $(w,x) \in \{(\alpha \bar w, \bar x/\alpha) \mid \alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$. Further, due to Theorem \[cor:general-landscape\] it also holds when $\varepsilon = 0$. Let us assume that none of these two conditions are satisfied.
We will start by showing that ${\left \| wx^\top \right \|} \lesssim {\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}.$ Set $$\delta = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\kappa}(\sigma_1(Y)+\sigma_2(Y)) + 1.$$ We showed in Lemma \[lemma:lower\_bound\_singular\_values\] that $(\sigma_1(Y)+\sigma_2(Y)) \geq \kappa$ and thus $\delta > 1.$
The inequality ${\left \| wx^\top \right \|} \leq \delta {\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}$ holds true.
Seeking contradiction assume that this is not the case. By the previous lemma $$\label{eq:distrel}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}}}\kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} - \frac{\varepsilon}{\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}} \leq (\sigma_1(Y) + \sigma_2(Y))\frac{{\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}} .$$ Notice that $$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}}}\kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} = {\sqrt{2}}\kappa {\left \| \frac{wx^\top}{{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}}} - \frac{\bar w \bar x^\top}{{{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}}}} \right \|} \geq \sqrt{2}\kappa {\left| 1-\frac{1}{\delta} \right|}.$$ If we set $\gamma < \frac{\sqrt{2} \kappa}{2} {\left| 1-\frac{1}{\delta} \right|}$ then we ensure $\frac{\varepsilon}{\max\{\|w\|,\|x\|\}}< \frac{\sqrt{2} \kappa}{2} {\left| 1-\frac{1}{\delta} \right|},$ thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sqrt{2} \kappa {\left| 1-\frac{1}{\delta} \right|}}{2(\sigma_1(Y)+\sigma_2(Y))} &\leq \frac{1}{(\sigma_1(Y)+\sigma_2(Y))}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}}}\kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} - \frac{\varepsilon}{\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}} \right) \\ & \leq \frac{{\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{{\left \| w x^\top \right \|}} < \frac{1}{\delta}.\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging we get $$|\delta -1| < \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\kappa} (\sigma_1(Y)+\sigma_2(Y)),$$ leading to a contradiction.
We now move on to proving that at least one of the three conditions has to hold. To this end, define $$\rho_1 = \frac{\max\{\|w\|,\|x\|\}}{\sqrt{2}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \rho_2 = \frac{1}{\kappa}\max\big\{2\sqrt{2}(1+\delta), 4\sigma_1(Y)\big\} \frac{{\left \| \bar w\bar x^\top \right \|}}{\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}}.$$ Observe that if assume that if $\varepsilon \rho_2 \geq {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}$ then the result holds immediately. Assume from now on that $\varepsilon \rho_2 < {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}.$ Our road map is as follows, we will start by assuming $\min \{\|w\|, \|x\|\} \leq 2\varepsilon/\kappa$ and we will show that this implies the second condition in item two. Then we will move to assume that $\min \{\|w\|, \|x\|\} > 2\varepsilon/\kappa$ and show that item three has to hold.
Before we continue let us list some important facts. By Lemma \[lemma:stationary2\] $$\label{ineq:critical_products}
\max\{\sigma_1(Y)|\dotp{V_1,x}|, \sigma_2(Y)|\dotp{V_2,x}|, \sigma_1(Y)|\dotp{U_1,w}|, \sigma_2(Y) |\dotp{U_2,w}|\} \leq \varepsilon$$ which together with $\sigma_1(Y) > \kappa/2$ implies that $$\label{eq:innerproductsU1w}\max\{{\left| \dotp{U_1, w} \right|},{\left| \dotp{V_1, x} \right|}\} \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{\sigma_1(Y)} \leq \frac{2\varepsilon}{\kappa}.$$ Notice that this implies by Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] $$\label{eq:crossedinnerproducts}|\dotp{U_1, \bar w}\dotp{\bar x, V_2}| = |\dotp{U_1, w} \dotp{x,V_2}| \leq \frac{2\|x\|\varepsilon}{\kappa}\qquad \text{and} \qquad {\left| \dotp{U_2, \bar w}\dotp{\bar x, V_1} \right|} \leq \frac{2\|w\|\varepsilon}{\kappa}.$$ Observe that $$\label{bound_individual_norms}\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\} \leq \|(w,x)\| \leq \nu \|(\bar w, \bar x)\| = \sqrt{2} \nu \min\{\|\bar w\|, \|\bar x\|\}.$$
We can now continue with the proof. We will now assume that $\min \{\|w\|, \|x\|\} \leq 4\delta \varepsilon/\kappa$ and prove that item two holds.
Assume that $\min \{\|w\|, \|x\|\} \leq 4\delta \varepsilon/\kappa.$ Then $$|\dotp{w, \bar w}| \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon \|\bar w\| \qquad \text{ and } \qquad |\dotp{x, \bar x}| \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon \|\bar x\|.$$
Notice $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \dotp{w, \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|}} \right|} \leq {\left| \dotp{w, \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|} - U_1 } \right|} + {\left| \dotp{w, U_1} \right|} \leq \|w\| {\left \| \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|} - U_1 \right \|} + \frac{2\varepsilon}{\kappa}\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows by Cauchy-Schwartz and . A similar argument gives the same bound with ${\left \| \bar w/\|\bar w\| + U_1 \right \|}$ instead. Now we need to make use of the Davis-Kahan Theorem.
Let $A, \widehat A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$ with ${\mathrm{rank}}(A) = 1.$ Let $A = U\sigma(A)V^\top$ and $\widehat A = \widehat U \sigma( \widehat A) \widehat V^\top$ be their singular value decompositions. Then the $$\sin \theta(V_1, \widehat V_1) \leq \frac{2(2\sigma_1(A) + \|A- \widehat A\|_{\mathrm{op}})}{\|A\|^2} \|A-\widehat A\|,$$ the same bound holds for $U_1, \widehat U_1.$
By letting $A = - \bar w \bar x^\top$ and $\widehat A = w x^\top- \bar w \bar x^\top $ in the previous theorem we get $$\begin{aligned}
\min\left\{{\left \| \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|} + U_1 \right \|}, {\left \| \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|} - U_1 \right \|}\right\} & \leq \sqrt{2} \sin \left(\theta(\bar w/\|\bar w\|, U_1 )\right) \\
& \leq 2\sqrt{2} \frac{(2\|\bar w \bar x^\top\| + \|wx^\top\|)}{\|\bar w \bar x^\top\|^2} \|wx^\top\| \\
& \leq 2\sqrt{2}(2 + \delta) \frac{\|wx^\top\|}{\|\bar w \bar x^\top\|} \\
& \leq 2\sqrt{2}(2 + \delta)\nu \frac{\varepsilon}{\|\bar w \|} \end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows since $\|wx^\top\|\leq \varepsilon \max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}$ and . Hence from the previous inequalities we derive $${\left| \dotp{w, \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|}} \right|} \leq \|w\| {\left \| \frac{\bar w}{\|\bar w\|} - U_1 \right \|} + \frac{2\varepsilon}{\kappa} \leq 2\sqrt{2}(2 + \delta) \nu\frac{\|w\|}{\|\bar w \|} \varepsilon + \frac{2 \varepsilon}{\kappa} = \left(2\sqrt{2}(2 + \delta) \nu^2 + \frac{2 }{\kappa}\right)\varepsilon.$$ A completely analogous result holds for $|\dotp{x, \bar x}|.$
Suppose now that $\min\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}> 4\delta \varepsilon/\kappa.$ In the remainder of the proof we will show that in this case, item three has to hold.
The rank of $X = wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top$ is two.
Assume $w = \lambda \bar w$, then $U_1 = \pm w/\|\bar w\|$ and using the same computation as in Equation we get $\lambda \|\bar w\| \leq 2\epsilon/\kappa \leq 4\delta \epsilon/\kappa$ which implies $\min\{\|w\|, \|x\|\} \leq 4\delta \varepsilon/\kappa,$ yielding a contradiction. An analogous argument holds for $x = \lambda \bar x.$ Thus, Lemma \[lemma:rank1char\] implies that $\sigma_2(wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top) > 0.$
\[claim:bounds2Y\] $\sigma_2(Y) < \frac{\varepsilon}{\rho_1}.$
Without loss of generality suppose $\|w\| = \max\{\|w\|,\|x\|\}.$ Assume seeking contradiction that this isn’t true, thus $\sigma_2(Y) \geq \varepsilon/\rho_1$ then Inequality gives $|\dotp{U_2, w}| \leq \rho_1.$ Furthermore, notice that due to Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] we have that $\|w\|^2 = \dotp{U_1,w}^2 + \dotp{U_2, w}^2$ and consequently $|\dotp{U_1,w}| \geq \sqrt{\|w\|^2 - \rho_1^2}.$ Again, due to $$\sigma_1(Y) \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{|\dotp{U_1, w}|} \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\|w\|^2- \rho_1^2}}.$$ In turn this implies $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa \varepsilon \rho_2 < \kappa {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} \leq g(w,x) - g(\bar w, \bar x) & \leq \sigma_1(Y) \sigma_1(X) + \sigma_2(Y)\sigma_2(X) \\
&\leq 2 \sigma_1(Y)\sigma_1(X) \\
& \leq 2\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\|w\|^2- \rho_1^2}} |\dotp{U_1, w}\dotp{x, V_1} - \dotp{U_1, \bar w} \dotp{\bar x, V_1}| \\
& \leq 2\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\|w\|^2- \rho_1^2}} \left({\left \| wx^\top \right \|} + {\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}\right) \\
& \leq \frac{2\sqrt{2}\varepsilon}{\|w\|}\left(1+\delta\right){\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|} \end{aligned}$$ Rearranging we get $$\rho <\frac{2\sqrt{2}(1+\delta)}{\kappa} \frac{{\left \| \bar w\bar x^\top \right \|}}{\max\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}},$$ yielding a contradiction.
We now need to prove an additional claim.
${\left| \dotp{U_2, \bar w} \right|} \leq {\left| \dotp{U_1, \bar w} \right|}$ and ${\left| \dotp{V_2, \bar x} \right|} \leq {\left| \dotp{V_1, \bar x} \right|}$
Seeking contradiction we assume the possible contrary cases.
*Case 1.* Assume ${\left| \dotp{U_2, \bar w} \right|} > {\left| \dotp{U_1, \bar w} \right|}$ and ${\left| \dotp{V_2, \bar x} \right|} > {\left| \dotp{U_1, \bar x} \right|}$, then and imply $$\max\{|\dotp{U_1, w} \dotp{V_1, x}|,|\dotp{U_1, \bar w} \dotp{V_1, \bar x}|\} \leq \frac{2\min\{\|w\|, \|x\|\}\varepsilon}{\kappa}.$$ From which we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa \varepsilon \rho_2 < g(w,x) - g(\bar w , \bar x) \leq 2\sigma_1(Y)\sigma_1(X) \leq 4\sigma_1(Y) \delta \frac{{\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{\max\{\|w\|,\|x\|\}} \varepsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ contradicting the definition of $\rho_2.$
*Case 2.* Assume that ${\left| \dotp{U_2, \bar w} \right|} \leq {\left| \dotp{U_1, \bar w} \right|}$ and ${\left| \dotp{V_2, \bar x} \right|} > {\left| \dotp{V_1, \bar x} \right|}.$ Notice that $\|\bar w\|^2 = \dotp{U_1, \bar w}^2 + \dotp{U_2, \bar w}^2$, hence ${\left| \dotp{U_1, \bar w} \right|} \geq \|\bar w\|/\sqrt{2}$ and similarly ${\left| \dotp{V_2, \bar x} \right|} > \|\bar x\|/\sqrt{2}.$ Thus, $$\frac{\|\bar w\|}{\sqrt{2}} \leq |\dotp{U_1, \bar w}|\leq \frac{2\|x\|\varepsilon}{\kappa|\dotp{\bar x, V_2}| }<\frac{2\sqrt{2}\|x\|\varepsilon}{\kappa\|\bar x\| }.$$ This implies that $$\min\{\|w\|,\|x\|\} \leq \|w\| \leq \delta \frac{{\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{\|x\|} < \frac{4\delta \varepsilon}{\kappa},$$ yielding a contradiction.
Without loss of generality let us assume $\|w\| \leq \|x\|.$
$${\left| \dotp{w, \bar w} \right|} \lesssim \varepsilon {\left \| \bar w \right \|} \qquad \text{and} \qquad {\left| \dotp{x, \bar x} \right|} \lesssim \nu^2 \varepsilon {\left \| \bar x \right \|}.$$
By the previous claim and the fact that $\|\bar w\|^2=\dotp{U_1, \bar w}^2 + \dotp{U_2, \bar w}^2$ we get that $|\dotp{U_1, \bar w}| \geq \|w\|/\sqrt{2}$, combining this with gives $$|\dotp{\bar x, V_2}| \leq \frac{2\sqrt{2}\|x\|\varepsilon}{\kappa \|\bar w\|} \leq \frac{4\delta}{\kappa} \nu \varepsilon$$ Then by Lemma \[lemma:stationary1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \dotp{x,\bar x} \right|} = |\dotp{V_1, x} \dotp{V_1, \bar x} + \dotp{V_2, x}\dotp{V_2, \bar x}| & \leq |\dotp{V_1, x} \dotp{V_1, \bar x}| + |\dotp{V_2, x}\dotp{V_2, \bar x}| \\
& \leq \frac{2\varepsilon}{\kappa}\|\bar x\| + \|x\||\dotp{V_2, \bar x}|\\ & \leq \left(\frac{2}{\kappa} + \frac{4\delta}{\kappa}\nu^2\right)\varepsilon\|\bar x\| \leq \left(\frac{2}{\kappa} + \frac{4\delta}{\kappa}\nu^2\right)\varepsilon\|\bar x\| .\end{aligned}$$ where we used . Notice that the same analysis gives $${\left| \dotp{w,\bar w} \right|} \leq \left(\frac{2}{\kappa} + \frac{2\sqrt{2}\delta}{\kappa}\frac{\|w\|}{\|x\|}\right)\varepsilon\|\bar w\| \leq \left(\frac{2}{\kappa} + \frac{2\sqrt{2}\delta}{\kappa}\right)\varepsilon\|\bar w\|.$$
This last claim finishes the proof of the theorem.
Proofs of Theorem \[theo:sample\_objective\] {#app:Sample}
============================================
In order to prove the theorem we will apply three steps: we will show that the graphs of $\partial f_S$ and $\partial f_P$ are close, then use Theorem \[theo:epsilon\_critical\] to study the $\epsilon$-critical points of $f_P$ and finally conclude about the landscape of $f_S$ by combining the previous two steps. The following two propositions handle the first part.
\[prop:close\_graphs\] Fix two functions $f, g: {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $g$ is $\rho$-weakly convex. Suppose that there exists a point $(\bar w, \bar x)$ and a real $\delta > 0$ such that the inequality $$|f(w,x) - g(w,x)| \leq \delta {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}_F \qquad \text{holds for all }(w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}.$$ Then for any stationary point $(w,x)$ of $g$, there exists a point $(\widehat w, \widehat x)$ satisfying $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\left \| (w,x) - (\widehat w, \widehat x) \right \|} &\leq 2\sqrt{\frac{\delta {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{\rho+\delta}} \\
{\left \| {{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(\widehat w, \widehat x)) \right \|} & \leq \left(\delta + \sqrt{2\delta(\rho + \delta)} \right)\left({\left \| (w,x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w ,\bar x) \right \|}\right).\end{array} \right.$$
The proposition is a corollary of Theorem 6.1 of [@davis2017nonsmooth]. Recall that for a function $l: {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow \overline {\mathbb{R}}$ the Lipschitz constant at $\bar y \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ is given by $${\mathrm{lip}}(l,y) := \limsup_{y \rightarrow \bar y} \frac{|l(y)- l(\bar y)|}{|y - \bar y|}.$$ Set $u(x) = \delta {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}$, and $l(x) = -\delta {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}$. It is easy to see that at differentiable points the gradient of $l(\cdot)$ is equal to $$\nabla l(w,x) = -\frac{\delta}{{\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}_F }\begin{bmatrix}
(wx^\top-\bar w \bar x^\top) x \\
(wx^\top-\bar w \bar x^\top)^\top w
\end{bmatrix} \implies {\left \| \nabla l(w,x) \right \|} \leq \delta\|(w,x)\|$$ Then, since ${\mathrm{lip}}(l;w,x) = \limsup_{(w',x') \rightarrow (w,x)} \|\nabla l(w',x')\|$, we can over estimate $${\mathrm{lip}}(l;w,x) \leq \delta\left( {\left \| (w,x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w , \bar x) \right \|}\right).$$ Thus applying Theorem 6.1 of [@davis2017nonsmooth] we get that for all $\gamma > 0$ there exists $(\widehat w, \widehat x)$ such that $\|(w,x) - (\widehat w, \widehat x)\| \leq 2 \gamma$ and $${{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(\widehat w, \widehat x)) \leq 2\rho \gamma + 2 \delta \frac{{\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{\gamma} + \delta\left({\left \| (\widehat w, \widehat x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w,\bar x) \right \|}\right)$$ By the triangular inequality we get ${\left \| (\widehat w, \widehat x) \right \|} \leq 2\gamma + {\left \| (w,x) \right \|}$ and therefore $${{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(\widehat w, \widehat x)) \leq 2(\rho + \delta) \gamma + 2 \delta \frac{{\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{\gamma} + \delta {\left \| (w,x) \right \|}.$$ Hence setting $\gamma = \sqrt{\frac{\delta {\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}{\rho+\delta}},$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(\widehat w, \widehat x)) & \leq 2\sqrt{\delta(\rho + \delta){\left \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}} +
\delta \left({\left \| (\widehat w, \widehat x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w,\bar x) \right \|}\right)\\
& \leq 2\sqrt{\delta(\rho + \delta)\left({\left \| wx^\top \right \|} + {\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}\right)} +
\delta \left({\left \| (\widehat w, \widehat x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w,\bar x) \right \|}\right)\\
& \leq 2\sqrt{\delta(\rho + \delta)}\left(\sqrt{{\left \| wx^\top \right \|}} + \sqrt{{\left \| \bar w \bar x^\top \right \|}}\right) +
\delta \left({\left \| (\widehat w, \widehat x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w,\bar x) \right \|}\right)\\
& \leq \left(\delta + \sqrt{2\delta(\rho + \delta)} \right)\left({\left \| (w,x) \right \|} + {\left \| (\bar w ,\bar x) \right \|}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\sqrt{a+b} \leq \sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b}$ and $ab \leq (a^2+b^2)/2.$
\[prop:concentration\] There exist numerical constants $c_1, c_2 > 0$ such that for all $(w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$ we have $$\label{concentration}\Big| f_S(w,x) - f_P(w,x)\Big| \lesssim \left( \frac{d_1+d_2 +1}{m} \log\left(\frac{m}{d_1+d_2+1}\right) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \|wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \| \;\;$$ with probability at least $1- 2\exp(-c_1(d_1+d_2+1))$ provided $m \geq c_2(d_1+ d_2 +1).$
The proof of this proposition is almost entirely analogous to the proof of Theorem 4.6 in [@charisopoulos2019composite] (noting that Gaussian matrices satisfy the hypothesis of this result). The proof follows exactly the same up to Equation (4.19) in the aforementioned paper. Where the authors proved that there exists constants $c_1, c_2, c_3, c_4> 0$ such that for any $t \in (0,c_4)$ the following uniform concentration bound holds $$\Big| f_S(w,x) - f_P(w,x)\Big| \leq \frac{3}{2}t\|wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \|_F \;\; \text{for all } (w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$$ with probability at least $1- 2\exp(c_1 (d_1+d_2+1 +1) \log (c_2 /t) - c_3 t^2 m).$ This probability is at least $1-2\exp(-c_3 t^2 m/2)$ provided that $$\label{locura} \frac{d_1+d_2 +1}{m} \leq \frac{c_3t^2}{2c_1\log(c_2/t)}.$$ Set $t = \max\left(\sqrt{\frac{2c_1}{c_3}},c_2\right)\left( \frac{d_1+d_2 +1}{m} \log\left(\frac{m}{d_1+d_2+1}\right) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$. This choice ensures that holds, since $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d_1+d_2+1}{m} \leq \frac{ (d_1+d_2 + 1) \log(m/(d_1+d_2+1))}{m \log \left( \frac{m }{d_1+d_2 +1 } \log^{-1}\left(\frac{m}{d_1+d_2+1}\right) \right)} \leq \frac{c_3 t^2}{2c_1\log(c_2/t)}. \end{aligned}$$ We can ensure that $t \in (0,c_4)$ by setting $m \geq C(d_1+d_2+1)$ with $C$ sufficiently large. This proves the result (after relabeling the constants).
We are finally in position to proof the theorem.
Fix $v \geq 1$ and a fix point $(w,x)$ satisfying $\|(w,x)\| \leq \nu \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|$. Proposition \[prop:concentration\] shows that there exist constants $c_1, c_2 > 0$ such that with probability at least $1- 2\exp(-c_1(d_1+d_2+1))$ we have $$|f_S(w,x) - f_P(w,x)| \leq \tilde {\mathcal{O}}\left(\left(\frac{d_1+d_2+1}{m} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right) \|wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\|_F \qquad \forall (w,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}$$ provided that $m \geq c_2(d_1+d_2+1).$ To ease the notation let us denote $\bar \Delta := \tilde {\mathcal{O}}\left(\left(\frac{d_1+d_2+1}{m} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right).$ Assume that we are in the event in which this holds, it is known that $f_S$ is $\rho$-weakly with high probability provided that $m \geq C (d_1+d_2 +1)$, see Section 3 and Theorem 4.6 in [@charisopoulos2019composite]. Now, assume that $m$ is big enough and we are in the intersection of this two events. This holds with probability $1-c_3\exp(c_1(d_1+d_2+1))$ (for some possibly different constants $c_1,c_3$). Hence by Proposition \[prop:close\_graphs\] there exits a point $(\widehat w, \widehat x)$ such that $$\|(w,x) - (\widehat w, \widehat x) \| \leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{\rho}}\sqrt{\Delta} D_{wx}\qquad \text{and} \qquad {{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(\bar w, \bar x)) \leq C\sqrt{\Delta} D_{wx}$$ where $D_{wx} = \|(w,x)\| + \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|.$
Notice that if $\|(w,x)\| \leq \bar \Delta^\frac{1}{4} \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|$ holds then the result holds immediately. So assume that this inequality is not satisfied. So we can lower bound $$\|(\widehat w, \widehat x)\| \geq \|(w,x)\| - \|(\widehat w, \widehat x) - (w,x)\| \geq \left( 1 - 2{\left(\frac{\bar \Delta}{\rho}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\bar \Delta^{-\frac{1}{4}}\right) \right)\|(w,x)\| \geq \frac{1}{2}\|(w,x)\|$$ where the first inequality follow by applying the triangle inequality and the last inequality follows for $m$ sufficiently large, since we can ensure that for such $m$ the term in the parenthesis is bigger than $1/2$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm dist}}(0, \partial f(\widehat w,\widehat x)) & \leq C {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}\left(\|(w,x)\| + \|(\bar w, \bar x)\|\right)\\
& \leq C {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \Delta^{-\frac{1}{4}}\right)\|(w,x)\| \\
& \leq 2C {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \Delta^{-\frac{1}{4}}\right)\|(\widehat w,\widehat x)\| \\
& \leq 4 C{\Delta}^\frac{1}{4}\|(\widehat w, \widehat x)\|. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, by reducing $\bar \Delta$ if necessary we can guarantee that ${{\rm dist}}(0,\partial f(\widehat w,\widehat x)) \leq \gamma \|(\widehat w, \widehat x)\|$ and consequently Theorem \[theo:epsilon\_critical\] gives that at least one of the following two holds $$\label{last}\max\{\|\widehat w\|, \|\widehat x\| \} \|\widehat w \widehat x^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top \| \lesssim {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\bar x^\top\| \qquad \text{and} \qquad \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
|\dotp{w,\bar w}|& \lesssim \nu^2 {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\| \\
|\dotp{x,\bar x}|& \lesssim \nu^2 {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx}\|\bar x\|
\end{array} \right.$$ Let us prove that this implies the statement of the theorem.
**Case 1.** Assume that the second condition in holds. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \dotp{w,\bar w} \right|} \leq {\left| \dotp{\widehat w, \bar w} \right|} + \|\bar w\| \|\widehat w - w\| \lesssim (\nu^2 + 1) \Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} D_{wx} \|\bar w\| \lesssim (\nu^2 + 1) \Delta^{\frac{1}{4}} \|(w,x)\| \|\bar w\|\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} D_{wx} \lesssim \Delta^{\frac{1}{4}} \|(w,x)\|$ for $m$ big enough. A similar argument yields the result for $|\dotp{w,x}|.$
**Case 2.** On the other hand, if the first condition holds, there exist $e_w \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}, e_x \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_2}$ such that $\widehat w = w + e_w$ and $\widehat x = x + e_x$ with $\|e_w\|, \|e_x\| \leq \Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} D_{wx}.$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|(w,x)\| \| wx^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\| &\leq \|(w,x)\| \| wx^\top - \widehat w \widehat x^\top\| + \|(w,x)\|\|\widehat w \widehat x^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\| \\
& \leq \|(w,x)\| \| wx^\top - \widehat w \widehat x^\top\| + 2\|(\widehat w,\widehat x)\|\|\widehat w \widehat x^\top - \bar w \bar x^\top\| \\
& \lesssim \|(w,x)\| \| wx^\top - (w + e_w) ( x + e_x)^\top\| + {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\bar x^\top\| \\
& \leq \|(w,x)\| \left(\|we_x^\top \| + \|e_w x^\top\|+ \|e_w e_x^\top\|\right) + {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\bar x^\top\| \\
& \leq \|(w,x)\| {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \left(\|w\| + \| x^\top\|+ {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \right) + {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\bar x^\top\| \\
& \lesssim \|(w,x)\| {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \left(\|(w,x)\|+ {\Delta}^\frac{1}{4}\|(w,x)\| \right) + {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\bar x^\top\| \\
& \lesssim \|(w,x)\|^2 {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} + {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \|\bar w\bar x^\top\| \\
& \lesssim (\nu^2 + 1)\|\bar w \bar x^\top\| {\Delta}^\frac{1}{2}D_{wx} \\
& \lesssim (\nu^2+1)\Delta^\frac{1}{4}\|( w, x)\| \|\bar w \bar x^\top\|
.\end{aligned}$$ Proving the desired result.
[^1]: `people.cam.cornell.edu/md825/`
[^2]: This is information-theoretically optimal up to constants [@choudhary2014sparse; @kech2017optimal].
[^3]: We will give a formal definition of $\partial f$ in Section \[sec:notation\].
[^4]: Where $\widetilde {\mathcal{O}}$ hides logarithmic terms.
[^5]: The experiments were run in a 2013 MacBook Pro with 2.4 GHz Intel Core i5 Processor and 8 GB of RAM.
[^6]: It was shown in [@charisopoulos2019composite] that $f_S$ satisfies these assumptions with high probability provided $m \gtrsim (d_1+d_2)$.
[^7]: This is implied for example when $f$ is Lipschitz.
[^8]: Independent of $\nu$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the effect of thermal fluctuations on a probe qubit interacting with a Bose-Einstein condensed (BEC) reservoir. The zero-temperature case was studied in \[Haikka P 2011 A [**84**]{} 031602\], where we proposed a method to probe the effects of dimensionality and scattering length of a BEC based on its behavior as an environment. Here we show that the sensitivity of the probe qubit is remarkably robust against thermal noise. We give an intuitive explanation for the thermal resilience, showing that it is due to the unique choice of the probe qubit architecture of our model.'
address:
- '$^1$ Turku Center for Quantum Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, FIN20014, Turku, Finland'
- '$^2$ SUPA, EPS/Physics, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom'
- '$^3$ Centre for Theoretical Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queens University, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom'
- '$^4$ NEST Istituto Nanoscienze-CNR and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Palermo, via Archirafi 36, I-90123 Palermo, Italy'
author:
- 'P Haikka$^{1}$, S McEndoo$^{1,2}$, G De Chiara$^{3}$, G M Palma$^{4}$ and S Maniscalco$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Robust non-Markovianity in ultracold gases'
---
Introduction
============
Over the past three decades quantum computing has been the holy grail of quantum information sciences [@nielsen]. Lately, there has been a notable shift of focus from studies of circuit based quantum computers, where a long computation involving many qubits is broken down to elementary one- and two-qubit quantum gates, to studies of quantum simulators, where a physical system is modelled using another physical realisation of the original Hamiltonian [@simulations]. One celebrated example of the latter is the simulation of a Bose-Hubbard model in optically trapped ultracold gases. The mapping between the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian and the Hamiltonian describing ultracold atoms in an optical lattice was proposed in 1998 by D. Jaksch [@dieter] and realized experimentally a few years later by the group of I. Bloch [@bloch]. Since this milestone there has been an explosion in studies of systems that can be simulated with ultracold quantum gases [@sanpera; @review; @bloch; @review].
Quantum simulations have been considered in the context of open quantum systems with proposals of simulating the spin-boson model using, for example, a quantum dot coupled to a Luttinger liquid [@recati] or a more general Bose-Einstein condensed (BEC) reservoir [@dieter2]. Both cases realise the independent-boson Hamiltonian with an Ohmic-like spectrum of the reservoir [@independent; @boson]. Another proposal in this direction was presented in Ref. [@massimo], where an impurity atom in a double well potential is immersed in a BEC reservoir, forming a spin-boson model with a reservoir spectral function that can be tuned from sub-Ohmic to Ohmic to super-Ohmic. With a super-Ohmic spectrum the spin-boson model can acquire non-Markovian properties [@us], hence simulating a prototype of a non-Markovian open quantum system model.
Non-Markovian systems have been the subject of intense studies in recent few years, boosted by the recent introductions of several non-Markovianity measures that define and quantify the amount of non-Markovianity in a quantum process [@BLP; @RHP; @fisher]. Fundamental interest in non-Markovian processes stems from the fact that Markovian dynamics is typically only an approximation, which is no longer valid when considering shorter time-scales and/or stronger system-environment couplings. Furthermore, there have been proposals for using non-Markovianity as a resource in the context of quantum metrology [@huelga] and quantum key distribution [@ruggero], to name a couple of examples.
Spin systems coupled to ultracold gases are not only important for quantum simulations, but also because they can be used to probe the ultracold gas: the way a spin decoheres under the action of the ultracold gas may depend crucially on certain properties of the gas. Hence it is possible to recover information about the large and generally inaccessible environment by looking at the spin only. Indeed, the aforementioned independent boson models can be used to probe the Luttinger liquid parameter [@recati] and the density fluctuations of the BEC [@dieter2]. In Ref. [@us] we demonstrated that the non-Markovian properties of the impurity atom in a double well potential give indications of the effective dimensionality of the BEC reservoir. In this work we further consider this model, taking a step towards a more realistic scenario by considering the effect of thermal fluctuations on the sensitivity of the probe qubit. We demonstrate that the double well qubit is remarkably robust against thermal noise and therefore a good candidate for probing ultracold gases.
The model
=========
We consider a qubit model based on a single atomic impurity trapped in a double well potential, where the pseudo-spin states are represented by presence of the impurity atom in the left or the right well of the double well potential. The qubit is immersed in a thermally equilibrated Bose-Einstein condensate reservoir. The Hamiltonian of the total closed system is ($\hbar=1$) \[Ham\] = \_A + \_B + \_[AB]{}, where \[HA\] \_A = d[**x**]{} \^([**x**]{}) ([**x**]{}) is the Hamiltonian of the impurity atom with $\hat{\Psi}({\bf x})$ the impurity field operator and $V_A({\bf x})$ the double well potential formed by an optical lattice, \[HB\] \_B = d[**x**]{} \^([**x**]{}) ([**x**]{}) is the Hamiltonian for the BEC with $\hat{\Phi}({\bf x})$ the condensate field operator, $V_B({\bf x})$ the harmonic trapping potential and $g_B = 4\pi \hbar^2a_B/m_B$ the boson-boson coupling constant, and finally \[HAB\] \_[AB]{} = g\_[AB]{} d[**x**]{} \^([**x**]{}) \^([**x**]{}) ([**x**]{}) ([**x**]{}) is the interaction Hamiltonian with $g_{AB} = 2\pi\hbar^2 a_{AB}/m_{AB}$ the coupling between the impurity atom and the condensate gas. Masses of the impurity atom and the background bosons are $m_{A/B}$, $m_{AB}=(m_A+m_B)/(m_Am_B)$ is their reduced mass and $a_{B/AB}$ are the s-wave scattering lengths for the boson-boson and impurity-boson collisions, respectively.
We would like to stress that the boson-boson scattering length can be manipulated by Feshbach resonances, providing a controllable environment of interacting bosons. The significance of this is twofold: for one, many typical models of open qubit systems assume a non-interacting bosonic environment and it is fundamentally interesting to study interacting models. Secondly, the ability to have experimentally feasible and precise control over the environment is vital for reservoir engineering.
We assume that the BEC is trapped in such shallow potential that it may be considered to be homogenous, while the double well trap for the impurity atom is so deep that tunneling from one well to the other is suppressed. The condensate is treated in the Bogoliubov approximation, assuming weak to moderate boson-boson coupling. After imposing these assumptions on Hamiltonians - the qubit dynamics can be derived without any further approximation. The result is purely dephasing dynamics of the qubit with constant populations and off diagonal elements of the qubit density matrix decaying as |\_[01]{}(t)| = e\^[-(t)]{} |\_[01]{}(0)|. The decoherence factor is \[decoh\] (t) = 8 g\_[AB]{}\^2 n\_0 \_[k]{} (|u\_k| - |v\_k|)\^2 e\^[-k\^2 \^2 /2]{} ( ) \^2 ([k]{} ), where $n_0$ is the condensate density, $|u_k|$ and $|v_k|$ are the $k$-th Bogoliubov mode amplitudes with energy $E_k = \sqrt{ 2 \epsilon_k n_0 g_B + \epsilon_k^2}$, free modes have energy $\epsilon_k = \hbar^2 k^2 /(2m_B)$, $\tau$ is the width of the impurity wavefunction, assumed Gaussian, in each well of the double well and $\beta = 1/k_B T$. The spatial separation between the two wells is $\mathbf{L}$. For a detailed derivation of the decoherence factor see [@massimo; @us].
Non-Markovianity Measure
========================
With the decoherence factor at hand one has a full description of the qubit dynamics. We proved in Ref. [@us] that in this case non-Markovianity is directly connected to the negativity of the decay rate $\gamma(t) = d \Gamma(t) / dt$. In this Section the connection is briefly reviewed and extended to the case of thermal reservoirs. We focus on the approach of Ref. [@BLP], which defines Markovianity to be a property of a dynamical map $\rho(0)\mapsto\rho(t)=\Phi(t,0)\rho(0)$ that monotonically decreases the distinguishability $D[\rho_1,\rho_2]=\frac{1}{2}|\rho_1-\rho_2|$ of any two system states $\rho_{1,2}(t)$. Non-Markovianity is then the ability of a dynamical map to temporarily increase the distinguishability of two states. The temporal change in the distinguishability $\sigma=dD[\rho_1,\rho_2,t]/dt$ can be associated to information flowing from the system to its environment ($\sigma<0$) or back to the system ($\sigma>0$). The amount of non-Markovianity in a quantum process is given by the cumulant of the positive information flux, $\mathcal{N}=\max_{\rho_1,\rho_2}\int_{\sigma<0}ds\,\sigma(s)$, with a maximization done over all possible pairs of states to find the largest amount of information that the system can recover from the environment.
The maximization required in the calculation of the non-Markovianity measure is generally difficult. In the case of pure qubit dephasing, however, it has been proven that the optimising pair is formed by two antipodal states in the equator of the Bloch sphere and in this case the measure can be recovered analytically. One finds easily that information flows back to the qubit from the environment iff the decay rate is negative. Moreover, in the model considered in this article there is at most a single interval of time $a<t<b$ such that $\gamma(t)<0$ and thus we introduce a normalized version of the non-Markovianity measure, which measures the amount of recovered information against the amount that was lost to the environment in the time interval $0<t<a$. Summarizing, the measure we use in this work to study the non-Markovian properties of a qubit dephasing in a BEC environment is = , (t)=<0t. In Ref. [@us] we studied the changes in the non-Markovianity measure induced by different effective dimensions of the reservoir and for a range of different values of the scattering length of the environment, assuming a zero-T environment. We found the existence of a dimension-dependent critical scattering length such that when $0\leq a_B<a_{crit}$ the dynamics of the qubit is Markovian and when $a_B>a_{crit}$ it is non-Markovian. The dependence on the effective dimension of the BEC is such that $a_{crit, 3D}<a_{crit, 2D}<a_{crit, 1D}$, that is, the higher is the dimension the smaller is the critical scattering length. Hence one has at hand a model where the Markovian to non-Markovian crossover can be controlled by changing either the scattering length of the background bosons or by lowering the effective dimension of the BEC. Conversely, one may deduce these properties of the environment by looking at the qubit only, without directly measuring the BEC. In this work we proceed to consider the effect of thermal fluctuations on this result. Thermal fluctuations can, in principle, wash out non-Markovian effects and thus compromise the sensitivity of the probe qubit. Fortunately we find the double well qubit model to have a remarkable robustness against thermal effects, as shown in the next section.
Results
=======
Fig. \[temp\_3D\] shows the decoherence factor $\Gamma(t)$ and decay rate $\gamma(t)$ for a three-dimensional and a one-dimensional $^{87}$Rb condensate with a range of temperatures $T=0$ to $200$ nK and $T = 0$ to $20$ nK respectively. We take the same parameters as in Ref. [@us] and a fixed value $a_B=a_{Rb}$ for the scattering length. In the 1D case the negative part of the decay rate, indicating the existence of non-Markovian effects, decreases in size with increasing temperature until it reaches a critical temperature of around $T = 6.5$ nK, where it vanishes completely. When this happens, the qubit dynamics is Markovian. In the 3D case the negative part of the decay rate splits into two lobes: the low temperature lobe, enclosed by the line corresponding to the zero-T decay rate, and the high temperature lobe, indicated by the high temperature decay rate. The transition between the two lobes, indicated by the decay rate for $T = 50$ nK, corresponds to the transition from the low temperature regime to the high temperature regime. We demonstrate next that the transition from low to high temperatures is also clearly visible in the non-Markovianity measure.
![(Color online) Top: Decoherence factor, $\Gamma_{1D}(t)$ and decay rate, $\gamma_{1D}(t)$ for a one-dimensional environment, for temperature ranging between $0$ K (solid blue line) and $20$ nK (dotted red line). The $T = 6.5$ nK line, shown in dashed green, show the transition from non-Markovian low temperature limit and the Markovian high temperature limit.\
Bottom: Decoherence factor, $\Gamma_{3D}(t)$ and decay rate, $\gamma_{3D}(t)$ for a three-dimensional environment, for temperature ranging between $0$ K (solid blue line) and $200$nK (dotted red line). The $T = 50$ nK line, shown in dashed green, shows the intermediate stage between the low and high temperature limits.[]{data-label="temp_3D"}](Fig1){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The temperature dependence of the non-Markovianity measure $\mathcal{N}$ is shown in Fig. \[temp\] for all three effective dimensions. In the case of a quasi-1D condensate, the system is non-Markovian only for very small temperatures $T\sim1$ nK and for a higher temperature thermal fluctuations wash out memory effects in the qubit dynamics. When the qubit is embedded in a quasi-2D or a 3D condensate, the dynamics is more robust against thermal effects. In these cases the non-Markovianity measure is almost constant for low temperatures when $\coth(\beta E_k/2)\approx1$. As the temperature is raised, the value of the non-Markovianity measure decreases as the system moves towards the high temperature regime, while in the high-T regime the measure increases in value again. The minima in Fig. 2 corresponds to the decay rate moving from the low-T lobe to the hight-T lobe (see Fig. 1). In the high-T regime $\coth(\beta E_k/2)\approx(\beta E_k/2)^{-1}$, and temperature acts as a coefficient for the decoherence factor of Eq. . Consequently the whole dynamics is amplified, leading also to higher values of the non-Markovianity measure.
![(Color online) Non-Markovianity measure $\mathcal{N}$ as a function of temperature for a quasi-1D (blue solid), quasi-2D (green dashed) and 3D (red dotted) environments. Scattering length is fixed at $a_B = a_{Rb}$.[]{data-label="temp"}](Fig2){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Finally, Fig. \[scattering\] shows the non-Markovianity measure $\mathcal{N}$ as a function of the manipulated scattering length of a Bose-Einstein condensate for temperatures $T=0.5$ nK and $T=100$ nK. In both cases we reproduce the main result of Ref. [@us], namely that the qubit system has a transition from Markovian to non-Markovian dynamics with increasing scattering length, and that the critical scattering length depends on the effective dimensionality of the BEC: $a_{crit, 3D}<a_{crit, 2D}<a_{crit, 1D}$. For high temperatures the quasi-1D environment is unable to return information back to the system, leading to purely Markovian dynamics. However, since the quasi-2D and the 3D environments still induce non-Markovian dynamics, the information obtained on the effective dimensionality of the environment by looking at the qubit dynamics is the same. Thus we find our main result: thermal effects do not compromise the ability of the probe qubit to detect information about the effective dimensionality and the scattering length of the environment.
![(Color online) Non-Markovianity measure $\mathcal{N}$ as a function of relative scattering length $a_B/a_{Rb}$ for quasi-1D, quasi-2D and 3D environments with temperatures $T = 0.5$ nK and $T = 100$ nK.[]{data-label="scattering"}](Fig3){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
The remarkable sensitivity of the probe qubit we propose in this paper derives from its general robustness against thermal effects. This, in turn, is due to the very specific qubit architecture we choose. The deep double well potential, in which the impurity atom is trapped, imposes limitations on the contribution of certain Bogoliubov modes to the qubit dynamics. The decoherence function $\Gamma(t)$ is defined as an integral over all modes $k$, however in this model there are two cut-off momenta: $1/\tau$, relates to the size of each harmonic potential in the double well and $1/L$ characterizes to the distance between the minima of the wells, and only excitations corresponding to $1/L < k < 1/\tau$ contribute to the dynamics. For high temperatures the temperature-dependent term $\coth( \beta E_k/2)$ diverges at $E_k = 0$, that is, when $k=0$. However, the lower cut-off frequency excludes the diverging terms and thus prevents non-Markovianity being washed out in the higher temperature regimes. This is a feature specifically due to the spatial nature of the double well qubit, making this model well suited to realistic temperatures.
In summary, the double well probe qubit model provides an ideal system for observing non-Markovianity in an atomic system, and for exploiting the Markovian to non-Markovian crossover to probe the BEC environment. In addition to involving systems that are straightforwardly combined experimentally, it is an example of a system showing a Markovian to non-Markovian crossover in accessible parameter ranges. We have shown here that in addition to the above advantages, this system is also robust to temperature effects, with the measured quantity maintaining its size for temperatures up to and, in some cases, beyond those necessary for experimental realization of these systems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Emil Aaltonen foundation and the Finnish Cultural foundation.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Nielsen M A and Chuang I L 2000 [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press) Buluta I and Nori F 2009 [*Science*]{} [**362**]{} 108 Jaksch D, Bruder C, Cirac J I , Gardiner C W and Zoller P 1998 318 Greiner M, Mandel O, Esslinger T, Hänsch T W and Bloch I 2001 [*Nature*]{} [**415**]{} 39-44 Lewenstein M, Sanpera A, Ahufinger V, Damski B, Sen A and Sen U 2007 [*Advan. Phys*]{} [**56**]{} 243-379 Bloch I, Dalibard J and Zwerger W 2008 885-964 A. Recati, P. O. Fedichev, W. Zwerger, J. von Delft, and P. Zoller Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} 040404 (2005) Bruderer M and Jaksch D 2006 [*New Jour. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 84 Mahan G D 1990 [*Many-Particle Physics*]{} (New York: Plenum Press) Cirone M A, De Chiara G, Palma G M and Recati A 2009 [*New Jour. Phys.*]{} [**11**]{} 103055 Haikka P, McEndoo S, De Chiara G, Palma G M and Maniscalco S 2011 A [**84**]{} 031602 Breuer H-P, Laine E-M and Piilo J 2009 012104 Rivas A, Huelga S and Plenio M B 2012 050403 Lu X-M, Wang X and Sun C P 2010 A [**82**]{} 042103 Chin A W, Huelga S F and Plenio M B [*Preprint*]{} quant-ph/1103.1219v1 Vasile R, Olivares S, Paris M G A and Maniscalco S 2011 A [**83**]{} 042321
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
a true understanding of genetic variations assists us in finding correlating population groups, identifying patients who are predisposed to common diseases and solving rare diseases. Albeit, machine learning algorithms have demonstrated tremendous success in this domain over the last decade but relatively less attention is paid in long-term dependencies and representations learning for classifying and clustering large and high-dimensional datasets. On the other hand, deep learning can better exploit such datasets to build networks that model non-linear relationships among millions of genetic variants. In this paper, we propose an improved variant of Deep Embedding Clustering (DEC) algorithm called Convolutional Deep Embedding Clustering (CDEC) for clustering genetic variants. Recurrent Long-short Term Memory (LSTM) on the other hand, is used for predicting geographic ethnicity from individual’s sample.
we used genotype data from the 1000 Genomes project covering genetic variants of 2504 individuals from 26 different ethnic origins, giving 84 million variants to train and evaluate the CDEC and LSTM networks. Experimental results show the efficiency and effectiveness of our approach. In particular, CDEC can cluster targeted population groups in 22 hours with an Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) of 0.915, a Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) of 0.92 and a Clustering Accuracy (ACC) of 0.89. LSTM network on the other hand, can predict the ethnicity of samples from unknown genetic variants with an accuracy of 95.6%, precision of 95%, recall of 93%, F1 of 93% and an RMSE of only 3.15%.
experimental results with a focus on accuracy and scalability outperforms state-of-the-art approaches with a high-level of clustering and classification accuracy. Overall, our approach is scalable for 5% to 100% of the full human genetic variants.
address:
- ' , , '
- ' , , '
- ' , , , '
- ' , , '
author:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'bmc\_article.bib'
title: Recurrent Deep Embedding Networks for Genotype Clustering and Ethnicity Prediction
---
Introduction {#section1}
============
Structural variants are implicated in numerous diseases and make up the majority of varying nucleotides among human genomes [@6], which is one of the most important benefits of studying human genetic variation is the discovery and description of the genetic contribution to many human diseases [@miller2001understanding].
Thus, a true understanding of genetic variations assists us in finding corresponding population groups from genetic variants and identifying patients who are predisposed to common diseases and solving rare diseases later on. This is an increasingly powerful motivation in light of our growing understanding of the contribution that genes make to the development of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes [@miller2001understanding].
However, these potential uses of genomic information in biomedical practice require access to enough genomics data and efficient analytic methodologies to cope with such dataset consist of millions of genetic variants from thousands of individuals [@2; @3; @4; @5]. The Next Generation Genome Sequencing (NGS) has made such dataset easily available by reducing overheads and time for genomic sequencing leading to the production of such genetic variants in an unprecedented way. The data sets provided by various genomics projects, such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) [^1], International Cancer Genome Consortium [^2], 1000 Genomes Project, The Human Genome Project (HGP) [^3], and Personal Genome Project(PGP) [^4] etc. contributes large-scale data.
The HGP showed that important genetic differences exist between individuals. Inspired by HGP, the 1000 Genomes Project seeks to measure those differences to help medical researchers understand the roles of genetic variants in health and illness. Thus, one of the most important tasks is the analysis of genomic profiles to attribute individuals to specific ethnic populations or the analysis of nucleotide haplotypes for diseases susceptibility [@laitman2013haplotype].
Subsequently, data from the 1000 Genomes project [@6; @10002015global] serves as one of the prime sources to analyze genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at scale for predicting individual’s ancestry with regards to continental and regional origins.
Research [@30] also exposed that population groups from Asia, Europe, Africa, and America can be separated based on their genomic data. However, it is more challenging to accurately predict the haplogroup and the continent of origin, i.e. geography, ethnicity, and language. Another recent research [@30] shows that the Y chromosome lineage can be geographically localized, forming the evidence for clustering the human alleles of the human genotypes. This signifies that clustering individual’s genetic variants are correlated with geographic origin and ancestry.
Since the race depends on ancestry as well, corresponding clusters correlate with the traditional concepts of race. Unfortunately, this correlation is not perfect since genetic variation occurs according to probabilistic principles. Therefore, it does not follow any continuous distribution in different races rather overlaps across (or spills into) different populations.
As a result, an identification of ancestry, or even race, may prove to be useful for biomedical reasons. However, any direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information [@31].
Considering these motivations, in this paper, we will focus on the following research questions and try to answer in an accurate and scalable way:
How are the human genetic variations distributed geographically i.e. among different population groups?
Can we use the genetic profile of individuals to attribute them to specific populations or derive from their nucleotide haplotype the disease susceptibility?
Is individual’s genomic data suitable to predict geographic origin (i.e. the population group for an individual)?
Unfortunately, answering to these question is very challenging since unprecedented increases in such data (i.e. in terms of a number of samples overall and features per sample) is computationally expensive and increasingly becomes the key bottleneck [@1] by contrast. Consequently, these datasets also demand solutions for massively parallel data processing, which imposes extraordinary challenges to machine learning algorithms and bioinformatics approaches [@1].
Albeit, machine learning algorithms are being in use in order to address above challenges by exploiting non-linear relationships between the genetic variants data, existing approaches still fail to model such relationship from very high-dimensional datasets (see ).
To address this issue further, researchers come up with different improved variants of deep learning architectures that can be trained on the genomic data to classify or cluster the genomes of the populations. In particular, a recurrent network such as LSTM is able to handle long sequences though recurrent hidden neurons. Since the current hidden state depends on the previous state and input of current time-step, each hidden neuron can accept preceding information. This way, LSTM can model contextual information dynamically.
On the other hand, unlike classical clustering algorithms (e.g. K-means), deep learning based clustering algorithms such as Deep Embedding Clustering (DEC) [@xie2016unsupervised] can be used to refine clusters with an auxiliary target distribution derived from the current soft cluster assignment and gradually improves the clustering as well as the feature representation.
This way, deep learning based models can learn better feature representations so does perform mapping from data space to a lower-dimensional feature space well. Then cluster assignments can be done using Autoencoders, which iteratively optimizes the clustering objective.
Therefore, these deep architectures help us improve the quality of the training and overall learning for both classification and clustering tasks. Consequently, such trained model can be reused to infer the missing genotypes too.
In this paper, we try to address above questions and computational challenges in a scalable and efficient way. We first, applied Spark and ADAM for pre-processing large-scale and high-dimensional genetic variants data from the 1000 Genomes project. Then we examined how to improve state-of-the-art Deep Embedding Clustering (DEC) algorithm [@xie2016unsupervised] aiming to cluster all the genetic variants at population scale (i.e. determining inter and intra-population groups).
We then performed the pre-training with the stacked convolutional autoencoder (SCAE) reconstruction loss (RL). Optimization is then done using both RL and cluster assignment hardening (CAH) loss jointly. We named this improved variant of DEC as Convolutional Deep Embedding Clustering (CDEC).
On the other hand, we train an LSTM network to more accurately predict the population group for an individual according to the individual’s genomic data. apply
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: \[section2\] describes the motivation behind this work referring to the 1000 Genomes project dataset. chronicles our proposed approach in detail with materials and methods. demonstrates some experimental results, discuss the findings and highlights the limitations of the study. discusses some related works with their emerging use cases and potential limitations. Finally, \[section6\] provides some explanations of the importance and relevance of the study reported and discuss some future works before concluding the paper.
1000 Genomes Project: a Catalog of Human Genetic Variants {#section2}
=========================================================
The data from the 1000 Genomes Project used in this study acts as a deep and large catalog of human genetic variants [@10002015global]. The project aims to determine genetic variants with frequencies above 1% in the populations studied.
Data collection
---------------
The 1000 Genomes project started in 2008 with a consortium consisting of more than 400 life scientists. Phase three of this project finished in September 2014 covering 2504 individuals from 26 populations (i.e. ethnical background) in total [@39]. All the donars were healthy adults of aged 18 years and older.
Population samples were then grouped into 5 super-population groups according to their predominant ancestry. Each of the 26 populations has about 60-100 individuals from Europe, Africa, America and Asia.
- East Asian (EAS): CHB, JPT, CHS, CDX, and KHV
- European (EUR): CEU, TSI, FIN, GBR, and IBS
- African (AFR): YRI, LWK, GWD, MSL, ESN, ASW, and ACB
- American (AMR): MXL, PUR, CLM, and PEL
- South Asian (SAS): GIH, PJL, BEB, STU and ITU.
Extracting genetic variants
---------------------------
Genomic data from every sample was combined to attribute all variants to a region. All individuals were then sequenced using both, whole-genome sequencings (mean depth = 7.4x [^5]) and targeted exome sequencing (mean depth of 65.7x).
In addition, individuals and their first-degree relatives such as adult offsprings were genotyped using high-density SNP microarrays – each genotype comprises all 23 chromosomes and a separate panel file [^6] containing the sample and population information. Table \[table1\] gives an overview of the different releases of the 1000 Genomes project.
1000 Genome release Variants Individuals Populations File format
--------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Phase 3 84.4 million 2504 26 VCF
Phase 1 37.9 million 1092 14 VCF
Pilot 14.8 million 179 4 VCF
: Statistics of the 1000 Genomes Project’s genotype dataset[]{data-label="table1"}
This way, about 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60000 structural variants) have been identified as high-quality haplotypes [@6; @10002015global].
In short, 99.9% of the variants consist of SNPs and short indels. Less important variants – including SNPs, indels, deletions, complex short substitutions and other structural variant classes – have been removed for quality control, which leaves a total of 84.4 million variants.
Data availability
-----------------
The data is made openly available [^7] in Variant Call Format (VCF)[^8]. Then made freely accessible through public data repositories to scientists worldwide. Additionally, the data includes the population’s region for each sample which is used for the predicted category in our approach.
Data from the 1000 Genomes project are widely used to screen variants discovered in exome data from individuals with genetic disorders and in cancer genome projects [@6].
Specific chromosomal data (in VCF format) may have additional information denoting the super-population of the sample or the sequencing platform used. For multiallelic variants, each alternative allele frequency (AF) is presented in a comma-separated list shown in \[mutli\_allelic\_var\_data\].
1 15211 rs78601809 T G 100 PASS AC=3050;AF=0.609026;
AN=5008;NS=2504;DP=32245;EAS_AF=0.504;AMR_AF=0.6772;
AFR_AF=0.5371;EUR_AF=0.7316;SAS_AF=0.6401;AA=t|||;VT=SNP
\*\*It is to be noted that the Allele Frequency (AF) is calculated as the quotient of Allele Count (AC) and Allele Number (AN) and NS is the total number of samples with data, where $*$\_AF denotes the AF for a specific region. On the other hand, AF in the five super-population groups is calculated from allele numbers (range=\[0,1\]).
Materials and Methods {#section3}
=====================
In this section, we describe our proposed approach in detail. First, we describe our feature engineering step we followed to get the training data consisting of feature vectors and labels. Then we chronicle the CDEC and LSTM networks constructions for clustering and classifying genetic variants of different population groups respectively. Finally, we describe the training process and hyper-parameter tuning.
Preprocessing and feature engineering
-------------------------------------
The large-scale data from release 3 of the 1000 Genomes project contributes to 770 GB of data. Since analyzing DNA and RNA sequencing data requires large-scale data processing to interpret the data according to its context, large-scale data processing solutions – such as ADAM-Spark – is used to achieve the scalable genomics data analytics platform with the support for the VCF file format so that we can transform genotype based RDD to Spark DataFrame.
While Sparkling Water[^9] transforms the data between ADAM and Spark. In short, ADAM and Spark are used to pre-process and prepare the input data (i.e. train, test, and validation set) to train Keras-based CDEC and LSTM networks in a faster and scalable way.
Since the genotypic information is required for the clustering and classification analysis, we prepared the features (containing the sample ID, variation ID and the count of the alternate alleles where the majority of variants that we used are SNPs and indels from each sample) as follows.
First, we process the panel file with Spark to extract only the targeted population data and identify the population groups. To be more specific, the panel file contains the sample ID of all individuals, population group, ethnicity, super population group, and the gender as shown in \[table3\].
Sample ID Pop Group Ethnicity Super pop. group Gender
----------- ----------- --------------------------------- ------------------ -------- --
HG00096 GBR British in England and Scotland EUR male
HG00171 FIN Finnish in Finland EUR female
HG00472 CHS Southern Han Chinese EAS male
HG00551 PUR Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico AMR female
: A snapshot from the Panel file from the 1000 Genomes Project
\[table3\]
The ADAM is then used to parse the genetic variants in VCF format, which generates an RDD[^10] of genotype data. Then another round of filtering is performed to extract only the relevant population groups, i.e. the data for individuals and the super population groups.
![a conceptual view of feature extraction from the genetic variants [@smlp][]{data-label="fig4"}](1.png)
Then the filtered genotype object is converted into a Sample Variant object, which contains only the data we’re interested in such as sample ID, which uniquely identifies a particular sample, a variant ID, which uniquely identifies a particular genetic variant, and a count of alternate alleles (only when the sample differs from the reference genome).
Furthermore, since ADMIXTURE’s underlying statistical model does not take linkage disequilibrium (LD) into account, authors of literature [@variantspark] have suggested to remove all the variants with high LD for possible improvement in clustering accuracy. Based on this suggestion, we not only remove all the variants having high LD but also all the incomplete variants in the preprocessing step (we further investigate its consequences in \[section4\]).
The total number of samples (or individuals) has been the determined, before grouping them using their variant IDs, and filtering out variants without support by the samples to simplify the data pre-processing and to better cope with the very large number of variants (in total 84.4 million). Figure \[fig5\] shows the overall processing pipeline of our proposed approach.
Then the frequency of all the alternate alleles is calculated for each variant and all the variants having less than 12 alternate alleles have been excluded leaving about 73 million variants in the analysis. Then from this large collection of variants, we finally acquired required features such as the sample ID, the variant ID for the genetic variants, position id, the RS id, and the count of alternate alleles.
Nevertheless, we group the variants by sample ID and sort them for each sample in a consistent manner using the variant IDs. Finally, this gives us a Spark DataFrame, where a row in the data matrix represents an individual sample and each column represents a specific variant. Whereas the “Region” refers as the class label (i.e., the *response column*). Eventually, this tabular data is in a very sparse vector representation to achieve better performance for the large number of variants when training the model (refer to literature [@34] for details).
Ethnicity prediction using LSTM network
---------------------------------------
In this subsection, we discuss how we model the ethnicity prediction problem using LSTM network. Then we discuss the training procedure.
### Network construction
Given genetic variants of an individual as an input sequence x=[$x_1$, $x_2$, …$x_T$]{}, RNN computes its recurrent hidden state $h_t$ and output vector $y_t$ based on previous hidden state $h_{t−1}$ and current input $x_t$ as follows:
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ h_t = g(Wh_{t-1} + Ux_t) $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ y_t = f(Vh_t) $$$$
where W, U and V correspond to the weight matrices between the current hidden state with previously hidden state, current input, and output respectively. The functions $g(.)$ and $f(.)$ are element-wise activation functions such as a logistic sigmoid function or hyperbolic tangent function. However, this standard RNN can only exploit the preceding context but since current output may not only depend on previous context information but also succeeding context information. To address this issue, we attempted using bidirectional RNN (BRNN) to access both the preceding and succeeding contexts so that both the long-distance correlations among genetic variants with all the input history information can be tracked.
However, during the training phase, gradient parameters is found to be vanished or exploded exponentially in processing long sequences. This problem refrains us from using BRNN to handle long-term dependencies to model the relationships between genetic variants for an individual as a sequence at each time-step.
To address this issue further, we investigated and found that another improved RNN variant called Long short-term memory (LSTM) can be used to deal with both gradient vanishing and exploding problem. In LSTM, all the hidden units of original RNN are replaced by memory blocks, where each memory block contains a memory cell to store input history information and three gates to define how to update the information. These gates are input gate, forget gate and output gate as outlined in \[lstm\_cell\].
![An LSTM cells accepts an input sequence $x_t$ at timestep $t$ and computes the hidden state $h_t$[]{data-label="lstm_cell"}](lstm_cell.png)
This way, LSTM can learn long-distance correlations among genetic variants with all the input history information, which is important for handling sequence data. Then for given genetic variants of an individual can be used as an input sequence x=[$x_1$, $x_2$, …$x_T$]{}. Which further help us compute the modified hidden state $h_t$ as follows:
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ i_t = \sigma(W_ix_i + Uih_{t-1} + V_ic_{t-1}) $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ f_t = \sigma(W_fx_t + Ufh_{t-1} + V_fc_{t-1}) $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ O_t = \sigma(W_ox_i + Uoh_{t-1} + V_oc_{t-1}) $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ O_t = \sigma(W_ox_i + Uoh_{t-1} + V_oc_{t-1}) $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ \tilde{c}_t = tanh(W_cx_t + U_ch_{t-1}) $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ c_t = f^i_t \bigodot c_{t-1} + i_t \bigodot \tilde{c}_t $$$$
$$\label{eq:energy}
$$ h_t = tanh(c_t) $$$$
where $c_t$ stands for a memory cell, $i$ denotes an input gate to control how much new input formation is added to the memory cell, $f$ is a forget gate to control how much existing memory is forgotten, and o is the output gate to control the amount of memory content exposure. The entries of the gating vectors (i.e. $i_t$, $f_t$, $o_t$) lie within the range of \[0, 1\].
Whereas $ \sigma (.) $ and tanh(.) are sigmoid and hyperbolic tangent activation function respectively. The symbol ⊙ denotes element-wise multiplication. This way, LSTM has enabled us in modeling and learning long-term dependencies overlong sequence consisting of genetic variants.
### Network training
Before we start training the LSTM network outlined in \[biral\], we convert the Spark DataFrame into sequence format so that it can be feed into LSTM network. Further, we randomly split the sequence data into train, test and validation sets with 60%, 20%, and 20% ratio for the training, testing and validation purposes respectively.
![Our LSTM network consists of an input layer, 4 LSTM layers, 3 dense layers and an output layer. The input consists of sequences of genetic variants.[]{data-label="biral"}](biral.png)
Assuming the training data consist of $p$ population groups then for each group $x_i$, we have a set $Y(x_i)$ of actual group prediction and a set $G(x_i)$ of predicted population groups generated by the LSTM network.
Therefore, if the set of labels or class of the populations groups is given as $L= \lbrace \ell_0, \ell_1, \dots, \ell_{M-1} \rbrace$, then the true output vector $y$ will be have $N$ elements such that $\mathbf{y}_0, \mathbf{y}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{y}_{N-1} \in L$.
We then start training the LSTM network, which takes only one sequence at each time-step and generates a prediction vector by minimizing the cross-entropy of the true versus predicted distributions $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ of $N$ elements such that $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_0, \hat{\mathbf{y}}_1, \ldots, \hat{\mathbf{y}}_{N-1} \in L$. When training the network, keeping the test set separate from the validation set enables us to learn hyper-parameters for the model as suggested in [@karimdeep].
We use ADADELTA adaptive learning rate algorithm [@37] that automatically combines the benefits of learning rate annealing and momentum training to avoid slow convergence of the LSTM network. The ReLU activation function is used in the LSTM layers for the better regularization and a drop out probability was set to a high value (i.e. 0.9 in our case) to avoid possible overfitting.
In the output layer, Softmax activation function is used for the probability distribution over the classes. This enables us computing the elements of the confusion matrix for our multiclass classification problem as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{cm}
C_{ij} = \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \hat{\delta}(\mathbf{y}_k-\ell_i) \cdot \hat{\delta}(\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k - \ell_j)\end{aligned}$$
where the delta function $\hat{\delta}(x)$ can be defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:delta}
\hat{\delta}(x) = \begin{cases}1 & \text{if $x = 0$}, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Then the confusion matrix formulated in \[cm\] can be reused to compute performance metrics such as weighted precision, weighted recall and weighted f1 measure of the predicted population labels against the true population labels using the following formulas[^11]:
$$\begin{aligned}
Precision_{w} &= PPV_{w}= \frac{1}{N} \sum\nolimits_{\ell \in L} PPV(\ell)
\cdot \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \hat{\delta}(\mathbf{y}_i-\ell) \\
Recall_{w} &= TPR_{w}= \frac{1}{N} \sum\nolimits_{\ell \in L} TPR(\ell)
\cdot \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \hat{\delta}(\mathbf{y}_i-\ell) \\
F1_{w} &= F_{w}(\beta)= \frac{1}{N} \sum\nolimits_{\ell \in L} F(\beta, \ell)
\cdot \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \hat{\delta}(\mathbf{y}_i-\ell)\end{aligned}$$
where $PPV(\ell)$, $TPR(\ell)$ and $F(\beta, \ell)$ are the precision, recall and F1 by labels. Furthermore, we computed the root means square error (RMSE) using \[RMSE\] of the network errors.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{RMSE}
RMSE &= \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} (\mathbf{y}_i - \hat{\mathbf{y}}_i)^2}{N}}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, we applied grid-searching technique with 10-fold cross validation for finding the best hyperparameters. Moreover, to improve the classification results, we applied batch normalization, kept the adaptive rate, and force load balance for replicating the entire training dataset onto every node for faster training.
Finally, when the training is completed, trained model is used to score against test set to measure predicted population groups versus genetic variants producing a confusion matrix for the performance in a multiclass setting using \[cm\].
Genotype clustering using Convolutional Deep Embedded Clustering network
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albeit, K-means clustering algorithm and it’s several variants have been proposed to address issues with higher-dimensional input spaces, they are fundamentally limited to linear embedding. Hence, cannot model non-linear relationships [@28]. Nevertheless, fine-tuning in these approaches are based on only cluster assignment hardening loss. Therefore, a fine-grained clustering accuracy cannot be achieved.
Further, genetic variants data does not come like other numeric or categorical data, hence non-linear embedding is necessary for such a complex dataset and state-of-the-art approaches such as DEC [@xie2016unsupervised] and DBC [@li2017discriminatively] comes as saviors. Our approach is mostly based on DEC but we perform the training in two phases:
- Pretraining with a convolutional autoencoder (CAE) reconstruction loss (RL)
- Optimizing CAE’s RL and K-means’s cluster assignment hardening (CAH) loss jointly.
In other words, the parameter optimization that gets iterated between computing an auxiliary target distribution and minimizing the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence [@kl] optimizing both reconstruction and cluster assignment hardening (CAH) losses jointly to it.
Therefore, the second phase is different from both DEC, which omit the reconstruction loss and use only the CAH loss. However, a recent research [@aljalbout2018clustering] suggest that omitting reconstruction loss during the second phase could lead to worse representations and solutions. Therefore, combining both RL and CAH loss is more reasonable (see \[cdec\_wf\]).
Let’s consider our unlabeled data consists of a set of $n$ data points $\lbrace{\mu_{j}\in X}\rbrace^{n}_{i=1}$ (where $i=1\dots n$ represent genetic variants) features into $k$ clusters (i.e. $k$ population groups), each represented by a centroid $\mu_j$,$j=1\dots k$ [@xie2016unsupervised].
Then in order to avoid the “curse of dimensionality”, we transform the data with a nonlinear mapping function $f_\theta$: X $\rightarrow$ Z, where $\theta$ are learnable parameters and Z is the latent feature space having much smaller dimensionality compared to X. This way, deep architectures are perfect fit to parametrize $f_\theta$.
Then similar to DEC, we also cluster the data points by learning a set of k cluster centers $\lbrace{\mu_{j}\in Z}\rbrace^{k}_{j=1}$ in the feature space Z and the parameters of the deep network that maps data points into Z simultaneously.
![Improving deep embedding clustering based on convolutional autoencoder and optimizing both reconstruction and cluster assignment hardening (CAH) losses jointly. Less bright genetic variants (right side) means reconstruction errors exist.[]{data-label="cdec_wf"}](cae.png)
### Clustering genetic variants with KL divergence
Given an initial estimate of the non-linear mapping $f_\theta$ and the initial cluster centroids $\lbrace{\mu_{j}}\rbrace^{k}_{j=1}$, CDEC performs clustering in an unsupervised way (similar to [@xie2016unsupervised]) that alternates between two steps. In the first step, CDEC computes the soft assignment between the embedded points and the cluster centroids.
The second step updates the deep mapping $f_\theta$ and refines the cluster centroids by learning from current high confidence assignments using an auxiliary target distribution. This process is repeated until a convergence criterion is met. We used student’s t-distribution[@maaten2008visualizing] as a kernel to measure the similarity between embedded point $z_j$ and centroid $\mu_j$ (similar to literature [@xie2016unsupervised]) as follows:
$$q_{ij}=\frac{(1+||z_{i}-\mu_{j}||^{2}/\alpha)^{-\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}}{\sum_{j'}(1+||z_{i}-\mu_{j'}||^{2}/\alpha)^{-\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}}$$
where $z_i$= $f_\theta$ $(x_i)$ $\in$ Z corresponds to $x_i$ $\in$ X after embedding, $\alpha$ is the degrees of freedom of the Student’s t-distribution and $q_{ij}$ is the probability of assigning sample $i$ to cluster $j$ (i.e. soft assignment).
Then CDEC refines the clusters by learning from their high confidence assignments with the help of an auxiliary target distribution so that the model is trained by matching the soft assignment to the target distribution. This is the objective definition as a KL divergence loss between the soft assignments $q_i$ and the auxiliary distribution $p_i$ as follows:
$$L=\text{KL}(P||Q)=\sum_{i}\sum_{j}p_{ij}\log\frac{p_{ij}}{q_{ij}}$$
Since setting the target distributions $P$ is crucial for deep learning based clustering performance, we adopted similar technique proposed in literature [@xie2016unsupervised]: we compute $p_i$ by raising $q_i$ to the second power and then normalizing by frequency per cluster as follows:
$$p_{ij}=\frac{q^{2}_{ij}/f_{j}}{\sum_{j'}q^{2}_{ij'}/f_{j'}}$$
where $f_{j}=\sum_{i}q_{ij}$ are soft cluster frequencies. Once, the KL divergence gets minimized, the next task that we did is optimizing the cluster centers $\lbrace{\mu_{j}\rbrace}$ and $\theta$ using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) with momentum [@sutskever2013importance]. Then the gradients of $L$ with respect to feature-space embedding of each data point $z_i$ and each cluster centroid $\mu_{j}$ are computed as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial z_{i}}&=&\frac{\alpha+1}{\alpha}\sum_{j}\left(1+\frac{||z_{i}-\mu_{j}||^{2}}{\alpha}\right)^{-1}\\
& &\times(p_{ij}-q_{ij})(z_{i}-\mu_{j})\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \mu_{j}}&=&-\frac{\alpha+1}{\alpha}\sum_{i}\left(1+\frac{||z_{i}-\mu_{j}||^{2}}{\alpha}\right)^{-1} \\
& &\times(p_{ij}-q_{ij})(z_{i}-\mu_{j}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The gradients $\partial L$/$\partial z_{i}$ are then used in standard backpropagation to compute the network’s parameter gradient $\partial L$/$\partial \theta$. This iterative process continues until less than tol% of points change cluster assignment between two consecutive iterations for discovering cluster assignments.
### Parameter initialization
Unlike literature [@xie2016unsupervised], we initialize the network using Stacked Convolutional Autoencoder (SCAE) layer by layer. Here each layer being a convolutional autoencoder trained to reconstruct the previous layer’s output after random corruption, which is a two layer network that can be mathematically formulated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{x}\sim Dropout(x)\\
h=g_{1}(W_{1}\tilde{x}+b_{1})\\
\tilde{h}\sim Dropout(h)\\
y=g_{2}(W_{2} \tilde{h}+b_{2})\end{aligned}$$
where Dropout(.) [@srivastava2014dropout] is the dropout operation, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are activation functions for encoding and decoding layer respectively, and $\theta$ = $\lbrace{W_1, b_1, W_2, b_2}\rbrace$ are model hyperparameters parameters.
A greedy layer-wise training is performed by minimizing the least-squares loss $||x-y||^{2}_{2}$. That is after training one layer, we use its output $h$ as the input to the next layer and so on. We use rectified linear units (ReLUs) as activation function in all encoder and decoder pairs, except for $g_2$ of the first pair and $g_1$ of the last pair.
Once this greedy layer-wise training is finished, we concatenate all the encoder and decoder layers in reverse layer-wise training order, to form a deep autoencoder and then finetune it to minimize reconstruction loss. The final result is a multilayer deep convolutional autoencoder with a bottleneck coding layer in the middle.
Then both the encoder and decoder layers are used as the initial mapping between the data space and the feature space. Finally, to initialize the cluster centers, the data is passed through the initialized network to get embedded data points. Then the standard k-means is applied in the feature space Z to obtain k initial centroids $\lbrace{\mu_{j}\in Z}\rbrace^{k}_{j=1}$. Then we feedback both the CAH and reconstruction loses to further fine-tune the clustering.
### Network training
First, we removed the labels before training the CDEC. Then we normalize the data so that $\frac{1}{d}||x_i||^{2}_{2}$ is approximately 1, where d is the dimensionality of the data space point $\lbrace{x_{i}\in Z}\rbrace$. We then set network dimensions to $in–5000–2500–1000–out$ for our dataset, where $in$ is 4239 is the data-space dimension and $out$ is the number of predicted population groups, having 5,000 unit in both encoder and decoder layer and layers are fully connected.
During the greedy layer-wise pre-training, we initialize the network weights using Xavier [@glorot2010understanding] and each layer is pretrained for 100,000 iterations with a dropout rate of 50%. The entire deep convolutional autoencoder is then finetuned for 100,000 iterations without dropout.
For both layer-wise pretraining and end-to-end finetuning of the autoencoder, minibatch size is set to 128, starting learning rate is set to 0.01 to make the training more exhaustive, which is divided by 10 every 10,000 iterations, and weight decay is set to 0. Nevertheless, in the KL divergence minimization phase, we train with a constant learning rate of 0.01 with a convergence threshold of $tol$ = 0.1%.
Since performing cross-validation was not a viable option with this network setting, these parameters are set naively but still, gives reasonably low reconstruction loss. To initialize the centroids, we iterate k-means for 100 times (since apart from $k$, k-means does not have any other tunable hyperparameters) and select the best $k$ value.
Nevertheless, we took the advantage of three methods: Elbow [@elbow], generalizability $G$ and Normalized Mutual Information ($NMI$) for determining the optimal number of clusters to be set prior building the K-means model. Initially, we thought setting up the number of clusters to the number of ground-truth categories and evaluate performance with unsupervised clustering [@xie2016unsupervised]. However, this is less efficient for empirical methods like Elbow.
Thus, we stick with Elbow: we calculated the cost using Within-cluster Sum of Squares ($WCSS$) as a function of the number of clusters (i.e. $k$) for K-means algorithm applied to genotype data based on all the features from 26 population groups. Nonetheless, since Elbow performs better in a classical clustering setting, for evaluating clustering results with different cluster number, $NMI$ [@xie2016unsupervised] is used, which can be formalized as follows:
$$NMI(l, c) = \frac{I(l,c)}{\frac{1}{2}[H(l) + H(c)]}$$
,where $I$ is the mutual information metric and $H$ is then entropy. Then $G$ [@xie2016unsupervised] is defined as the ratio between training and validation loss as follows:
$$G = \frac{L_{train}}{L_{validation}}$$
where $G$ is small when training loss is lower than validation loss, which indicates a high degree of overfitting.
Nevertheless, a good clustering performance is also characterized by high intra-cluster similarity and low inter-cluster similarity for the data points. Therefore, we used the Rand index (RI) which measures the percentage of decisions that are correct to evaluate the clustering quality. The RI was normalized to Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) for values between -1 (independent labeling) and 1 (perfect match) [@25].
This way, the adjusted metric exhibits some random variations centered on a mean score of 0.0 for any number of samples and clusters. Therefore, only an adjusted measure can hence safely be used as a consensus index to evaluate the average stability of clustering algorithms for a given value of $k$ on various overlapping subsamples of the dataset. The following formula is used to calculate the ARI (other state-of-the-art approaches such as VariationSpark [@variantspark] and ADMIXTURE [@ADMIXTURE] also used this metric): $$RI = \frac{TP+TN}{TP+FP+FN+TN}$$
Finally, to evaluate the clustering quality in unsupervised way, clustering accuracy (ACC) [@xie2016unsupervised] metric is calculated as follows:
$$ACC = \operatorname*{max}_{m} \frac{\sum_{i=1}\limits^n 1\Bigl\{l_i=m(c_i)\Bigr\}} {n}$$
where $l_i$ is the ground-truth label and $c_i$ is the cluster assignment produced by the algorithm whereas $m$ ranges over all possible one-to-one mappings between clusters and labels. ACC takes a cluster assignment from an unsupervised algorithm and a ground truth assignment and then finds the best matching between them.
Experiments and Results {#section4}
=======================
In this section, we discuss the evaluation results both quantitatively and qualitatively. Furthermore, a comparative analysis between the state-of-the-art and our approach will be provided in the end.
Experimental setup
------------------
The proof of the concept of our approach is implemented in Spark, ADAM, and Keras. In particular, for the scalable and faster preprocessing of huge number of genetic variants across all the chromosomes (i.e. 820GB of data), we used ADAM and Spark to convert the genetic variants from VCF format to Spark DataFrame. Then we convert Spark DataFrame into NumPy arrays. Finally, we use Keras to implement LSTM and CDEC networks.
Experiments were carried out on a computing cluster (having 32 cores, 64-bit Ubuntu 14.04 OS). Software stack consisting of Apache Spark v2.3.0, H2O v3.14.0.1, Sparkling Water v1.2.5, ADAM v0.22.0 and Keras v2.0.9 with TensorFlow backend. It it to be noted that we used this low number of cores to compare the capability of our approach with the state-of-the-art such as ADMIXTURE [@2] and VariationSpark [@21].
A modified version of Keras based DEC implementation [^12] proposed by Ali F. et al. [@dec2016] is used in our approach. Network training were carried out on a Nvidia TitanX GPU with CUDA and cuDNN enabled to make the overall pipeline faster.
Ethnicity classification analysis
---------------------------------
When the training is completed, our trained LSTM network is used for inferencing that scored against the test set to measure the predicted population groups versus genetic variants. For the demonstration purpose, we extracted genetic variants of only 5 population groups from chromosome 22 genetic variants (having 494,328 allele) allowing 5 class and compare the true labels to the same number of predicted ethnicity labels (i.e. ’ASW’, ’CHB’, ’CLM’, ’FIN’, ’GBR’).
Even this random sample selection gives a good classification accuracy (i.e. 95.09%) as a confusion matrix as shown in . Furthermore, for the full dataset (with all the genetic variants) and with the above experiment setting, our LSTM network can classify the whole population groups with a precision of 94%, a recall of 93% and an F1 measure of 93.50%. We experienced an RMSE of 3.15% which is much better than that of [@karimdeep].
Group ASW CHB CLM FIN GBR Error Support
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
ASW 59 0 1 1 0 0.0328 2/61
CHB 0 103 0 0 0 0.0000 0/103
CLM 3 0 86 3 2 0.0851 8/94
FIN 0 0 86 3 2 0.0202 2/99
GBR 0 0 1 9 81 0.1099 10/91
Total 62 103 174 16 85 0.0491 22/448
: Confusion matrix from LSTM classifier (vertical: actual; across: predicted)[]{data-label="table5"}
The reason for this improvement is that LSTM network was less confused between predicted classes compared to other deep networks such as MLP or DBN one in literature [@karimdeep]. Nevertheless, since all the variants with high LD and incomplete variants were removed in the preprocessing step, this has contributed towards a better classification accuracy. The reason is simple– with that minor factor, we removed some impurities.
Genotype scale clustering analysis
----------------------------------
Before showing the effectiveness of our approach, we first, investigated if our CDEC converges to the optimal number of population groups. We start the training by setting $K=2$ and increased up to 35 and see how CDEC performs the clustering operation.
The finding of optimal number of $K$ can be perceived in \[fig6a\], which plots NMI and G vs. number of clusters. The graph clearly shows that there is a sharp drop of generalizability from 26 to 27 which means that 26 is the optimal number of clusters and to further support this argument, the graph also shows that for 26, we observed the highest NMI of about 0.92.
[.48]{} ![Finding optimal number of clusters using $NMI$ vs $G$ and Elbow[]{data-label="fig6"}](nmi_g.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Finding optimal number of clusters using $NMI$ vs $G$ and Elbow[]{data-label="fig6"}](elbow.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Then we focused on investigating how the K-means converged during the cluster assignment hardening and training. For this, we utilized Elbow method. During the training we calculated the cost metric called Within-cluster Sum of Squares ($WCSS$) as a function of the number of clusters (i.e. $k$). From \[fig6b\], we can observe a drastic fall of WCSS value when number of cluster was around 25 and 26.
Based on this optimal $K$ and with the above experiment setting, CDEC successfully completes clustering of the whole dataset in 22 hours with an ARI of 0.915, an NMI of 0.92 and Clustering Accuracy (CA) of 0.89 as outlined in \[table6\].
\[ht!\]
Approach ARI NMI ACC Time Data Size Algorithm
-------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ----------- --------------------
CDEC 0.915 0.92 0.89 22h 770GB CDEC
VariantSpark 0.82 N/A N/A 30h 770GB K-means
ADMIXTURE 0.25 N/A N/A 35h 770GB Maximum likelihood
: Clustering result comparison[^13][]{data-label="table6"}
VariationSpark on the other hand, requires 30h to finish the overall computation and leverage an ARI of 0.82. On the other hand, ADMIXTURE performs clustering based on the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of individual ancestries from multi-locus SNP genotype datasets and takes considerably high time of about 35h giving an ARI of only 0.25 [@21].
[.48]{} ![Dimensionality reduction and visualization of population clustering of 10 population groups on chromosome 22 data using t-SNE[]{data-label="fig6"}](kmeans.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Dimensionality reduction and visualization of population clustering of 10 population groups on chromosome 22 data using t-SNE[]{data-label="fig6"}](DEC.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
One potential reason behind this low clustering accuracy is MLE-based approaches are limited in their ability to accurately estimate the population mean and standard deviation [@26] for the 1000 Genomes project dataset.
For the demonstration purpose, we further cluster the individuals from chromosome 22 (having with 494,328 allele) allowing 10 clusters and compare the assigned labels to the same number of reported ethnicity labels (i.e. ‘GBR’, ‘FIN’, ‘CHS’, ‘CLM’, ’PUR’, ’IBS’, ’PEL’, ’CDX’, ’ACB’, ’GWD’). This random selection even provided very good clustering compared to the K-means one as shown in tSNE graph in \[fig6\].
Furthermore, to compare our approach with VariationSpark, we also investigate the cluster quality for 5 super-population groups (i.e. EUR, AMR, AFR, EAS, SAS) for each individual to the label assigned by CDEC-based clustering. For this experiment, we use both ARI, ACC and NMI metrics, which resultant an ARI of 0.87, a ACC of 0.86 and an NMI of 0.88. This signifies that our approach has higher accuracy (at least in terms of ARI).
However, this is still low compared to our overall ARI. The reason for such clustering accuracy and quality is that the genotypes data from African (AFR), East Asian (EAS), and American (AMR) super population groups are relatively homogeneous. Nevertheless, similar to literature [@21], European (EUR) and South Asian (SAS) are more mixed so didn’t cluster well. Moreover, EUR is more mixed and consists predominantly of individuals. Finally, we investigate which super-population group contains what percentage of human genetic variants. This study gives an interesting statistics showing that majority of the genotype variants were clustered into EUR (28.32%) and lowest into AMR (12.68%). On the other hand, the distribution for EAS, AFR, and SAS found were 22.25%, 18.65% and 18.10% respectively.
Discussion
----------
Our approach can perform clustering on VCF files from 2504 individuals consist of 84 million variants in just 22h allowing faster clustering for well-characterized cohorts where 20% of the genome is sufficient for the training. Our approach uses ADAM and Spark for allowing in-memory caching and hence 32% and 90% faster compared to VariantSpark and ADMIXTURE respectively.
It has also been observed [@36] that it is quite hard to get an MLP with more than three layers to work well on some data sets such as very high-dimensional numeric (or even image) classification problems, even when pre-training with a DBN. Therefore, we stick with LSTM network to deal with long length sequences consisting of high-dimensional genetic variants while applying classification.
While using CDEC, it gives us an opportunity to pretrain the model using a standard input reconstruction loss function. The clustering operation is then fine-tuned using cluster assignment hardening loss and the clustering centers are updated accordingly. As a result, our clustering method showed better result compared to the state-of-the-art.
Related Work {#section5}
============
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium developed a global reference for human genetic variation for exome and genome sequencing. Later on, biological sequence alignment in distributed computing system as [@15] is an example of using Spark for genome sequence analysis.
Lek M. et al. [@27], described the aggregation and analysis of high-quality protein-coding region and DNA sequence data for 60,706 individuals of diverse ancestries. They calculated the objective metrics of pathogenicity for sequence variants and identified genes subject to strong selection against various classes of mutation.
They have been able to identify as much as 3,230 genes with near-complete depletion of predicted protein-truncating variants, while 72% of these genes have no currently established human disease phenotype. It has also been demonstrated that these data can be used for the efficient filtering of candidate disease-causing variants, and for the discovery of human ’knockout’ variants in protein-coding genes.
One of the commonly used tools is ADMIXTURE [@ADMIXTURE], which performs maximum likelihood estimation of individual ancestries from multilocus SNP genotype datasets. However, this approach cannot cluster genetic variants comfortably, with an ARI of only 0.25. Finally, ADMIXTURE also requires a pre-processing step from VCF to PED format, which is pretty time-consuming.
To address the shortcomings of ADMIXTURE, VariantSpark was proposed by Aidan R. et al. [@21], which provides an interface from MLlib to the standard variant format (VCF) that offers a seamless genome-wide sampling of variants and provides a pipeline for visualizing results from the 1000 Genomes Project and Personal Genome Project (PGP). However, overall clustering accuracy is rather low and VariantSpark does not provide any support for classifying individuals based on the genotypic information.
Thus to overcome these issues, in our previous work [@karimdeep], we applied H2O based K-means with fine-tuning for the population scale clustering and achieved better accuracy. For the classification tasks, we applied H2O-based an MLP classification algorithm that achieved a state-of-the-art classification result.
However, two limitations still remained:
The feature extraction process was based on SPARQL queries which took a long time for the whole chromosome dataset. Moreover, genotype datasets needed to be converted into Resource Description Format (RDF) [@1] which also took a non-trivial amount of effort.
Good performance was obtained for the genotype dataset for a single chromosome due to a low number of latent variables, but for the whole chromosome data, poor results were obtained because of the overfitting issue and the lack of generalization in the training phase.
Conclusion and Outlook {#section6}
======================
In this paper, our Spark and ADAM based data processing is particularly suitable for handling large-scale genomic dataset. Our LSTM model can predict geographic ethnicity successfully and is consistent with all the genotypic dataset consisting of all the chromosomes.
On the other hand, our CDEC clustering approach can cluster a set of data points consisting of genetic variants in a jointly optimized feature space, which can be viewed as an unsupervised extension of semi-supervised self-training. Similar to [@xie2016unsupervised], our CDEC clustering solution also has linear complexity with respect to a number of data points, this allowed us to scale to large datasets (i.e. 770GB).
Nevertheless, a recent research [@27] has shown that the apparent separation between East Asian and other samples reflects a deficiency of Middle Eastern and Central Asian samples in the dataset. It is found that European individuals can be separated into persons of Finnish and non-Finnish ancestry.
Therefore, in future, we intend to provide a more detailed analysis on intra-super-population groups and discuss the homogeneity and heterogeneity among different groups. Secondly, we would like to extend this work by considering other datasets (e.g. PGP) and factors like predicting population groups within larger geographic continents.
Finally, it would be worth exploring whether we can make share representations of the features from both 1000 Genomes project and PGP datasets and cluster them simultaneously using CDEC.
Availability of data and materials {#availability-of-data-and-materials .unnumbered}
==================================
Source codes and some supplementary materials will be made publicly available soon on GitHub at <https://github.com/rezacsedu/VariationDEC>. The 1000 Genomes project dataset was downloaded from <http://www.internationalgenome.org/data> and used in our study.
Funding {#funding .unnumbered}
=======
This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under the Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289. Part of the work was performed at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT, Germany.
Author’s contributions {#authors-contributions .unnumbered}
======================
MRK implemented the algorithms and drafted the manuscript. MC drafted the manuscript and carried out the classification and clustering analysis. ODB carried out the studies of the 1000 Genomes Project. AZ participated in proofreading and performed the statistical analysis. SD and DRS conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This article is based on a workshop paper discussed at the Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’2017) Workshop on Semantic Web Solutions for Large-scale Biomedical Data Analytics (SeWeBMeDA), in Slovenia, May 28-29, 2017. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments which helped us to further extend and improve the draft and come up with this manuscript.
[^1]: <https://cancergenome.nih.gov/>
[^2]: <https://dcc.icgc.org/>
[^3]: <http://humangenes.org/>
[^4]: <http://www.personalgenomes.org/>
[^5]: $x$ is the number of average reads that are likely to be aligned at a given reference bp.
[^6]: <ftp://ftp.1000genomes.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/ftp/release/20130502/integrated_call_samples_v3.20130502.ALL.panel>
[^7]: <ftp://ftp.1000genomes.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/ftp/release/20130502/>
[^8]: <http://www.internationalgenome.org/wiki/Analysis/vcf4.0/>
[^9]: <https://www.h2o.ai/sparkling-water/>
[^10]: Resilient Distributed Dataset
[^11]: <https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/mllib-evaluation-metrics.html>
[^12]: <https://github.com/XifengGuo/DEC-keras>
[^13]: VariationSpark and ADMIXTURE did not report NMI and CA
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the phenomenological viability of string multi-Higgs doublet models, namely a scenario of heterotic $Z_3$ orbifolds with two Wilson lines, which naturally predicts three supersymmetric families of matter and Higgs fields. We study the orbifold parameter space, and discuss the compatibility of the predicted Yukawa couplings with current experimental data. We address the implications of tree-level flavour changing neutral processes in constraining the Higgs sector of the model, finding that viable scenarios can be obtained for a reasonably light Higgs spectrum. We also take into account the tree-level contributions to indirect CP violation, showing that the experimental value of $\varepsilon_K$ can be accommodated in the present framework.'
---
FTUAM 05/18\
IFT-UAM/CSIC-05-49\
[**Phenomenological viability of orbifold models\
with three Higgs families** ]{}
\
[*Departamento de Física Teórica C-XI,\
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain*]{}\
\
Introduction {#intro}
============
The understanding of the observed pattern of quark and lepton masses and mixings remains as one of the most important open questions in particle physics. From experiment, we believe that Nature contains three families of quarks and leptons, with peculiar mass hierarchies. Moreover, there is firm evidence that the flavour structure in both quark and lepton sectors is far from trivial, as exhibited by the current bounds on the quark [@pdg2004] and lepton [@Maltoni:2004ei; @Strumia:2005tc; @Fogli:2005cq] mixing matrices.
The standard model of strong and electroweak interactions (SM) fails in explaining some important issues such as the fermion flavour structure or the number of fermion families we encounter in Nature. Moreover, the mechanism of mass generation for quarks and leptons is still unconfirmed, since the Higgs boson is yet to be discovered in a collider.
Other high-energy motivated theories, such as supersymmetry (SUSY), supergravity (SUGRA), or grand unified theories (GUTs) may repair some shortcomings of the SM (as for instance the hierarchy problem, the existence of particles with distinct spin, or the unification of gauge interactions), but they still fail in providing a clear understanding of the nature of masses, mixings and number of families. In this sense, a crucial ingredient to relate theory and observation is the precise knowledge of how fermions and Higgs scalars interact, in other words, the Yukawa couplings of the fundamental theory.
String theory is the only candidate to unify all known interactions (strong, electroweak and gravitational) in a consistent way, and therefore it must necessarily contain the SM as its low-energy limit. In this sense, string theory must provide an answer to the above mentioned questions. A very interesting method to obtain a four dimensional effective theory is the compactification of the $E_8
\times E_8$ heterotic string [@Gross:1984dd] on six-dimensional orbifolds [@Dixon:1986jc], and this has proved to be a very successful attempt at finding the superstring standard model [@Ibanez:1986tp; @Ibanez:1987sn; @Bailin:1987xm; @Ibanez:1987pj; @Casas:1987us; @Font:1988tp; @Kim:1988dd; @Casas:1988se; @Casas:1988hb; @Font:1988mm; @Casas:1988vk; @Casas:1988wy; @Font:1989aj; @Casas:1989wu; @Katsuki:1989bf; @Kim:1992en; @Aldazabal:1995cf; @Munoz:2001yj; @Abel:2002ih; @Kobayashi:2004ya; @Kobayashi:2005vb; @Buchmuller:2005jr] (other interesting attempts at model building using Calabi-Yau spaces [@Candelas:1985en], fermionic constructions [@Kawai:1986va; @Antoniadis:1986rn], and heterotic M-theory [@Horava:1995qa; @Witten:1996mz], can be found in Refs. [@Greene:1986ar; @Donagi:2004ub; @Braun:2005ux], [@Antoniadis:1987tv; @Faraggi:1989ka; @Cleaver:1998sa; @Cleaver:2001ab; @Chaudhuri:1994cd; @Chaudhuri:1995ve], and [@Donagi:1999ez], respectively). As it was shown in [@Ibanez:1987sn; @Ibanez:1987pj], the use of two Wilson lines [@Dixon:1986jc; @Ibanez:1986tp] on the torus defining a symmetric $Z_3$ orbifold can give rise to SUSY models with $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^n$ gauge group and three families of chiral particles with the correct $SU(3)\times SU(2)$ quantum numbers. These models present very attractive features from a phenomenological point of view. One of the $U(1)$s of the extended gauge group is in general anomalous, and it can induce a Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) $D$-term [@Witten:1984dg; @Dine:1987xk; @Atick:1987gy; @Dine:1987gj] that would break SUSY at very high energies (FI scale $\sim
\mathcal{O}(10^{16-17}$ GeV)). To preserve SUSY, some fields will develop a vacuum expectation value (VEV) to cancel the undesirable $D$-term. The FI mechanism allows to break the gauge group down to $SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ and obtain the mass spectrum of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), plus some exotic matter, as extra singlets, doublets or vector-like triplets, depending on the model, as shown in Refs. [@Casas:1988hb; @Font:1988mm] and [@Casas:1987us].
Orbifold compactifications have other remarkable properties. For instance, they provide a geometric mechanism to generate the mass hierarchy for quarks and leptons [@Hamidi:1986vh; @Dixon:1986qv; @Ibanez:1986ka; @Casas:1989qx; @Casas:1992zt] through renormalisable Yukawa couplings. $Z_n$ orbifolds have twisted fields which are attached to the orbifold fixed points. Fields at different fixed points may communicate with each other only by world sheet instantons. The resulting renormalisable Yukawa couplings can be explicitly computed [@Hamidi:1986vh; @Dixon:1986qv; @Casas:1990hi; @Burwick:1990tu; @Kobayashi:1991rp; @Casas:1991ac] and they receive exponential suppression factors that depend on the distance between the fixed points to which the relevant fields are attached. These distances can be varied by giving different VEVs to the $T$-moduli associated with the size and the shape of the orbifold.
However, the major problem that one encounters when trying to obtain models with entirely renormalisable Yukawas lies at the phenomenological level, and is deeply related to obtaining the correct quark mixing. Summarising the analyses of Refs. [@Casas:1989qx; @Casas:1992zt], for prime orbifolds the space group selection rules and the need for a fermion hierarchy forces the fermion mass matrices to be diagonal at the renormalisable level. Thus, in these cases, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) parameters must arise at the non-renormalisable level. For analyses of non-prime orbifolds see Refs. [@Casas:1989qx; @Casas:1992zt; @Ko:2004ic; @Ko:2005sh].
For example, since the FI breaking generates VEVs for fields of order $\langle\chi_j \rangle\sim 10^{16-17}$ GeV, if one has terms in the superpotential of the type $\frac{1}{M_P^{m}}\,\chi_1\cdot\cdot\cdot\chi_m\,\xi\,\xi\,\xi$, these would produce couplings of order $(M_{FI}/M_P)^{m} $. Therefore, depending on $m$, different values for the couplings might be generated. Obviously, the presence of these couplings is very model-dependent and introduces a high degree of uncertainty in the computation. However, it is important to remark that having the latter couplings is not always allowed in string constructions. First of all, they must be gauge-invariant, something that is not easy to achieve, due to the large number of $U(1)$ charges which are associated to the particles in these models. Even if the couplings fulfil this condition, this does not mean that they are automatically allowed. They must still fulfil the so-called “stringy” selection rules. For example in the $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y\times SO(10)_{hidden}$ model of Ref. [@Casas:1988hb], where renormalisable couplings are present, only a small number of non-renormalisable terms are allowed by gauge invariance. Nevertheless, even the latter terms turn out to be forbidden by string selection rules. Clearly, purely renormalisable Yukawa couplings are preferable, because, in general, due to the arbitrariness of the VEVs of the fields entering the non-renormalisable couplings, the predictivity is lost. Furthermore, as discussed above, higher-order operators such as those induced by the FI breaking are very model-dependent. One possibility of avoiding the necessity of these non-renormalisable couplings is to relax the requirement of a minimal matter content (with just two Higgs doublets) in a $Z_3$ orbifold with two Wilson lines. Since these models naturally contain three families of everything, including Higgses, additional Yukawa couplings will be present, with the possibility of leading to realistic fermion masses and mixings, entirely at the renormalisable level (with a key role being played by the FI breaking) [@Abel:2002ih]. In addition, and given the existence of three families of quarks and leptons, having also three families of Higgses renders these models very aesthetic. In fact, let us recall that experimental data imposes no constraints on the number of Higgs families. Moreover, this non-minimal Higgs content, provided that the extra doublets are light enough to be present at low-energies, also favours the unification of gauge couplings in heterotic string constructions. Due to the FI scale, the gauge couplings may unify at the string scale ($\approx g_{\mathrm{GUT}} \times 5.27\, 10^{17}$ GeV) [@Munoz:2001yj].
Thus, this class of string compactifications is one of the scenarios where one can obtain a SM/MSSM compatible low-energy theory, albeit with an extended Higgs sector. Furthermore it offers a solution to the flavour problem of the SM and MSSM, since the structure of the Yukawa couplings is completely derived from the geometry of the high-energy string construction. Given the increasing experimental accuracy, accommodating the data on quark masses and mixings is not straightforward. In this work, we propose to investigate in detail whether or not it is possible to obtain $Z_3$ orbifold configurations that successfully reproduce the observed flavour pattern in Nature. In this sense, having additional Yukawa couplings presents several advantages, as for example a greater flexibility when fitting the data from the quark masses and mixings.
On the other hand, when working in a multi-Higgs context, we should also take into account the potential appearance of flavour-changing neutral currents (FCNCs) at the tree level, which could contribute to a wide variety of Higgs decays and interactions with other particles [@Georgi:1978ri; @McWilliams:1980kj; @Shanker:1981mj; @Flores:1982pr; @Cheng:1987rs; @Ellis:1986ip; @Drees:1988fc; @Griest:1989ew; @Griest:1990vh; @Haber:1989xc; @Sher:1991km; @Krasnikov:1992gd; @Antaramian:1992ya; @Nelson:1993vc; @Masip:1995sm; @Masip:1995bq; @Aranda:2000zf; @Escudero:2005hk]. Generally, the most stringent limit to these flavour-changing processes is assumed to come from the mass difference of the long- and short-lived neutral kaons, $\Delta m_K=m_{K_L}-m_{K_S}$. A possible way to overcome this problem is by imposing that the Higgs spectrum is heavy enough to suppress the undesired contributions to the neutral meson mass differences. As we will see, the Yukawa couplings of this $Z_3$ scenario exhibit a strongly hierarchical structure, and this property is instrumental in circumventing the FCNC problem without the need for an excessively heavy Higgs sector.
$Z_3$ orbifolds are also very attractive when addressing the lepton sector, and in fact offer an appealing scenario to study the problem of neutrino masses (predicting naturally small Dirac masses, and thus a low see-saw scale). We postpone this analysis to a forthcoming work [@EJMT].
This work is organised as follows. In Section \[yukawa\], we describe the main properties of the Yukawa couplings in $Z_3$ orbifold models. We study the relations between the several orbifold parameters induced from the quark mass hierarchy and from electroweak symmetry breaking. Section \[higgsphenom\] is devoted to a brief overview of the extended Higgs sector. In Section \[yukint\] we present the contributions of neutral Higgs exchange to tree-level FCNCs. The numerical analyses of the orbifold parameter space and FCNCs in association with specific Higgs textures is given in Section \[results\], where we also address the possibility of new contributions to indirect CP violation. Finally, we summarise our results in Section \[conc\].
Yukawa couplings in $\pmb{Z_3}$ orbifold models {#yukawa}
===============================================
In this Section we review some of the most relevant features of the geometrical construction of the $Z_3$ orbifold leading to the computation of the quark mass matrices. We study the correlations of the orbifold parameters arising from the quark mass hierarchy and electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking conditions, and derive useful relations which play an important role in constraining the parameter space.
$\pmb{Z_3}$ orbifold: a brief review {#Z3}
------------------------------------
The $Z_3$ orbifold is constructed by dividing $R^6$ by the $[SU(3)]^3$ root lattice modded by the point group (P) with generator $\theta$, where the action of $\theta$ on the lattice basis is $\theta e_i = e_{i+1}$, $\theta e_{i+1} = -(e_i + e_{i+1})$, with $i=1,3,5$. The two-dimensional sublattices associated to $[SU(3)]^3$ are presented in Fig. \[fig:orbipicture\].
Invariance under the point group reduces the orbifold deformation parameters to nine: the three radii of the sublattices and the six angles between complex planes. The latter parameters correspond to the VEVs of nine singlet fields appearing in the spectrum of the untwisted sector, and which have perturbatively flat potentials. These so-called moduli fields are usually denoted by $T$.
In orbifold constructions, twisted strings appear attached to fixed points under the point group. In the case of the $Z_3$ orbifold there are 27 fixed points under P, and therefore 27 twisted sectors. We will denote the three fixed points of each two-dimensional lattice as in Fig. \[fig:orbipicture\]. In the $Z_3$ orbifold, the general form of the Yukawa couplings between the twisted fields is given by a Jacobi theta function, and their expressions can be found, for example, in the Appendix of Ref. [@Casas:1991ac]. The Yukawa couplings contain suppression factors that depend on the relative positions of the fixed points to which the the fields involved in the coupling are attached, and on the size and shape of the orbifold (i.e. the deformation parameters). Let us first study the situation before taking into account the effect of the FI breaking. Let us suppose that the two non-vanishing Wilson lines correspond to the first and second sublattices. Then, the 27 twisted sectors come in nine sets with three equivalent sectors in each one. The three generations of matter (including Higgses) correspond to changing the third sublattice component ($\circ,\bullet,\times$) of the fixed point, while keeping the other two fixed. Consider for example the following assignments of observable matter to fixed point components in the first two sublattices, $$\begin{aligned}
&Q \, \leftrightarrow \, \circ \,\circ\,
\quad \quad
u^c \, \leftrightarrow \, \circ\,\circ\,
\quad \quad
d^c \, \leftrightarrow \, \times\,\circ\,
\nonumber \\
&L \, \leftrightarrow \, \bullet\,\bullet\,
\quad \quad
e^c \, \leftrightarrow \, \bullet\,\times\,
\quad \quad
\nu^c \, \leftrightarrow \, \times\,\times\,
\nonumber \\
& \quad \quad \quad H^u \, \leftrightarrow \, \circ\,\circ\,
\quad \quad
H^d \, \leftrightarrow \, \bullet\,\circ\,\quad \quad \quad \,.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the up- and down-quark mass matrices are given by [@Abel:2002ih]: $$\label{Z3mass:beforeFY}
\mathcal{M}^u=
g \,N \,A^u\,, \quad \quad
\mathcal{M}^{d}=
g \,N \,\varepsilon_1 \,A^d\,,$$ where $$\label{AuAd:bfFI}
A^u = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_2 & w_6 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_4 \,\varepsilon_5 \\
w_6 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_4 & w_2 \,\varepsilon_5 \\
w_4 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_2 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_6
\end{array}\right)\, , \quad \quad
A^d = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_1 & w_5 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_3 \,\varepsilon_5 \\
w_5 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_3 & w_1 \,\varepsilon_5 \\
w_3 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_1 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_5
\end{array}\right)\,,$$ $g$ is the gauge coupling constant, and $N$ is related to the volume of the $Z_3$ lattice unit cell such that $g\,N \approx 1$. In the above matrices $w_i$ denote the VEVs of the neutral components of the six Higgs doublet fields[^1]. Since we are assuming an orthogonal lattice, i.e. with the six angles equal to zero, only the diagonal moduli ($T_i$), which are related with the radii of the three sublattices[^2], contribute to the Yukawa couplings, through the suppression factors $\varepsilon_i$ $$\label{eiTi}
\varepsilon_i \,\approx\,
3 \,e^{-\frac{2 \pi}{3} T_i}\,\quad \quad i,j=1,3,5\,.$$
Quark mass matrices and Yukawa couplings after the Fayet-Iliopoulos breaking {#yukawa:matrices}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the Introduction, the anomalous $U(1)$ of the extended $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)^n$ gauge group generates a Fayet-Iliopoulos $D$-term which could in principle break SUSY at energies close to the string scale. This term can be cancelled when scalar fields ($C_i$), which are singlets under $SU(3) \times SU(2)$, develop large VEVs ($10^{16-17}$ GeV). The VEVs of these fields ($c_i$), have several important effects. Firstly, they break the original $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)^n$ gauge group down to the (MS)SM $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$. Secondly, they induce very large effective mass terms for many particles (vector-like triplets and doublets, as well as singlets), which thus decouple from the low-energy theory. Even so, the SM matter remains massless, surviving as the zero mass mode of combinations with the other (massive) states. All these effects modify the mass matrices of the low-energy effective theory (see Eq. (\[Z3mass:beforeFY\])), which, for the example studied in [@Abel:2002ih], are now given by[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quark:mass}
\mathcal{M}^u=& \,
g \,N \,a^{u^c} \,A^u \,B^{u^c}\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{M}^d=& \,
g \,N \varepsilon_1 \,a^{d^c}\, A^d \,B^{d^c}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $A^{u,d}$ are the quark mass matrices prior to FI breaking (see Eq. (\[AuAd:bfFI\])), $a^{f}$ is given by $$\label{af:def}
a^{f}\,=\,\frac{\hat c^f_2}{\sqrt{|\hat c_1^f|^2+|\hat c_2^f|^2}}\,,$$ with $f=u^c,d^c$, and $B^f$ is the diagonal matrix defined as $$\label{quark:B}
B^f\,=\, \operatorname{diag}\, (\,\beta^f \,\varepsilon_5,\, 1\,,
\alpha^f/\varepsilon_5\,)\,.$$ Finally $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha:beta:def}
\alpha^f = \varepsilon_5 \sqrt{\frac{|\hat c_1^f|^2+|\hat c_2^f|^2}{
|\hat c_1^f \varepsilon_5|^2+|\hat c_2^f|^2}}\,, \quad \quad
\beta^f = \sqrt{\frac{|\hat c_1^f|^2+|\hat c_2^f|^2}{
|\hat c_1^f|^2+|\hat c_2^f \varepsilon_5|^2}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $\hat c_i^f$ are derived from the VEVs of the heavy fields responsible for the FI breaking as $$\label{hatc:def}
\hat c_1^f \,\equiv \,\varepsilon^{\prime (f)}\, c_1^f\,,\quad \quad
\hat c_2^f \,\equiv \,\varepsilon^{\prime \prime (f)}\,c_2^f\,,$$ where in each case $ \varepsilon^{\prime}$ and $ \varepsilon^{\prime \prime}$ can take any of the following values: $$\label{eprime:def}
\varepsilon^{\prime}\,, \,\, \varepsilon^{\prime \prime}
\equiv
1, \,\varepsilon_1, \,\varepsilon_3, \,\varepsilon_1 \,\varepsilon_3\,.$$ Let us also stress that one should not take $\alpha^f$, $\beta^f$, $\varepsilon_5$ and $a^f$ as independent parameters. In fact, Eqs. (\[af:def\],\[alpha:beta:def\]) imply that $$\label{af:alpha:beta}
a^f\,=\,
\frac{\left( 1-{\alpha^f}^2\right)^{1/2}}{\alpha^f} \,
\frac{\varepsilon_5}{\left( 1-\varepsilon_5^2 \right)^{1/2}}
\,=\,
\left( 1-\frac{1}{{\beta^f}^2}\right)^{1/2} \,
\frac{1}{\left( 1-\varepsilon_5^2 \right)^{1/2}}\,,$$ so that for given values of $\varepsilon_5$ and $\alpha^f$, $\beta^f$ is fixed as $$\label{bf:alpha}
\beta^f\,=\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\varepsilon_5^2
\left(1-\frac{1}{{\alpha^f}^2} \right)}}\,.$$ Eqs. (\[quark:mass\],\[quark:B\]) become more transparent when the terms that encode the flavour structure are explicitly displayed: $$\label{quark:aFI}
A^u B^{u^c}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_2\,\varepsilon_5 \, \beta^{u^c}& w_6 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_4 \, \alpha^{u^c} \\
w_6 \,\varepsilon_5^2 \, \beta^{u^c}& w_4 & w_2\, \alpha^{u^c} \, \\
w_4 \,\varepsilon_5^2 \, \beta^{u^c}& w_2\,\varepsilon_5
& w_6\, \alpha^{u^c}/\varepsilon_5
\end{array}\right), \,\,\,
A^d B^{d^c}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_1\,\varepsilon_5 \, \beta^{d^c}& w_5 \,\varepsilon_5 & w_3 \, \alpha^{d^c} \\
w_5 \,\varepsilon_5^2 \, \beta^{d^c}& w_3 & w_1\, \alpha^{d^c} \, \\
w_3 \,\varepsilon_5^2 \, \beta^{d^c}& w_1\,\varepsilon_5
& w_5\, \alpha^{d^c}/\varepsilon_5
\end{array}\right).$$ Given that the mass matrices are related to the Yukawa couplings as $$\label{quark:yuk:mass}
\mathcal{M}^u = \sum_{i=2,4,6} w_i \,Y^u_i\,, \quad \quad
\mathcal{M}^d = \sum_{i=1,3,5} w_i \,Y^d_i\,,$$ the structure of the Yukawa couplings is easily derived from Eq. (\[quark:aFI\]). For the down sector, the latter read: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Yd:1:5}
Y^d_1 = g N \varepsilon_1 a^{d^c} \,
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\varepsilon_5 \, \beta^{d^c}& 0&0 \\
0 & 0 & \alpha^{d^c} \\
0& \varepsilon_5 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\,,\quad
Y^d_3 = g N \varepsilon_1 a^{d^c} \,
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \alpha^{d^c} \\
0 & 1 & 0\\
\varepsilon_5^2 \, \beta^{d^c}& 0&0
\end{array}
\right)\,,\nonumber $$ $$\begin{aligned}
Y^d_5 = g N \varepsilon_1 a^{d^c} \,
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \varepsilon_5 & 0 \\
\varepsilon_5^2 \, \beta^{d^c}& 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \alpha^{d^c}/\varepsilon_5
\end{array}
\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The Yukawa couplings for the up-type quarks can be also obtained by doing the appropriate replacements: $(\varepsilon_1 a^{d^c}) \to
a^{u^c}$ and $\alpha^{d^c}, \beta^{d^c} \to \alpha^{u^c}, \beta^{u^c}$.
Expanding the eigenvalues of the quark mass matrices up to leading order in $\varepsilon_5$, one can derive the following relation[^4] for the Higgs VEVs in terms of the quark masses[^5] [@Abel:2002ih] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vev:quarkmass}
\text{down-quarks\,:}\,\,\,
&\{w_1,w_3,w_5\} \,(g N \,\varepsilon_1 \,a^{d^c})\,=
\left\{
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_5 \beta^{d^c}} \left(m_d + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_b^2}{m_s}\right), m_s, \frac{m_b \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{d^c}}
\right\}\,, \nonumber\\
\text{up-quarks\,:}\,\,\,
&\{w_2,w_4,w_6\} \, (g N \,a^{u^c})\,=
\left\{
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_5 \beta^{u^c}} \left(m_u + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_t^2}{m_c}\right), m_c, \frac{m_t \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{u^c}}
\right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The most striking effect of the FI breaking is that it enables the reconciliation of the Yukawa couplings predicted by this scenario with experiment. In particular, and as we will see in Section \[quark:orbifold\], the quark spectra and a successful CKM matrix can now be accommodated.
EW symmetry breaking and the orbifold parameter space {#ewsb:orbifold}
-----------------------------------------------------
In addition to the hierarchy constraint imposed by the observed pattern of quark masses, the VEVs must further comply with other constraints as those arising from EW symmetry breaking (EWSB): $$\label{ewz}
w_1^2+w_2^2+w_3^2+w_4^2+w_5^2+w_6^2=2\,M_Z^2/(g^2+g'^2)
\approx (174\text{ GeV})^2\,.$$ In particular, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wmz}
&\frac{1}{(g N a^{u^c})^2}\,\left[
\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_5 \beta^{u^c})^2} \left(m_u + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_t^2}{m_c}\right)^2+
m_c^2 + \left(\frac{m_t \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{u^c}}\right)^2
\right]+
\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{(g N \varepsilon_1 a^{d^c})^2}\,\left[
\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_5 \beta^{d^c})^2} \left(m_d + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_b^2}{m_s}\right)^2+
m_s^2 + \left(\frac{m_b \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{d^c}}\right)^2
\right] \approx (174 \, \text{GeV})^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ We notice that the above condition can always be fulfilled since the quark Yukawa matrix prefactors, $\varepsilon_1$ and $gN$, have not yet been used. At this point, let us introduce a generalised definition for $\tan
\beta$: $$\label{tb}
\tan \beta \,=\, \frac{v_u}{v_d}\,\equiv\,
\frac{\sqrt{w_2^2+w_4^2+w_6^2}}{\sqrt{w_1^2+w_3^2+w_5^2}}\,.$$ Using Eq. (\[vev:quarkmass\]), Eq. (\[tb\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wmbeta}
\tan \beta \,=\,
\varepsilon_1 \frac{a^{d^c}}{a^{u^c}} \,\sqrt{
\frac{
\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_5 \beta^{u^c})^2} \left(m_u + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_t^2}{m_c}\right)^2+
m_c^2 + \left(\frac{m_t \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{u^c}}\right)^2
}{
\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_5 \beta^{d^c})^2} \left(m_d + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_b^2}{m_s}\right)^2+
m_s^2 + \left(\frac{m_b \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{d^c}}\right)^2
}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ From the above equation it becomes manifest that by considering a given value for $\tan \beta$ we are implicitly defining $\varepsilon_1$, for fixed values of $\varepsilon_5$ and $\alpha^f$. This in turn implies that according to Eq. (\[wmz\]), $g\,N$ is in fact a function of $\tan \beta$, $\varepsilon_5$ and $\alpha^f$, and its value, $g\,N \approx 1$, suffers tiny fluctuations (of order 1% - 10%) in order to accommodate the correct EWSB. The latter statements become more transparent noticing that by bringing together Eqs. (\[wmz\]) and (\[wmbeta\]), one can derive useful relations that allow to express $gN$ and $\varepsilon_1$ as a function of the quark masses and orbifold parameters for a given value[^6] of $\tan \beta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{auad:rel}
gN &= \frac{1}{a^{u^c}}\,
\frac{\left( 1+\tan^2 \beta \right)^{1/2}}{\tan \beta}\,\,
\frac{\sqrt{\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_5 \beta^{u^c})^2} \left(m_u + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_t^2}{m_c}\right)^2+
m_c^2 + \left(\frac{m_t \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{u^c}}\right)^2
}}{174\, \text{GeV}}\,, \nonumber \\
& \nonumber \\
\varepsilon_1 gN &=\frac{1}{a^{d^c}}\,
{\left( 1+\tan^2 \beta \right)^{1/2}}\,\,
\frac{\sqrt{\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_5 \beta^{d^c})^2} \left(m_d + \varepsilon_5^5
\frac{m_b^2}{m_s}\right)^2+
m_s^2 + \left(\frac{m_b \varepsilon_5}{\alpha^{d^c}}\right)^2
}}{174\, \text{GeV}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The first equality of Eq. (\[auad:rel\]) provides a clear insight to understanding the smallness of the fluctuations of $g\,N$. Assuming the limit where $\alpha^{u^c},
\varepsilon_5 \ll 1$, $a^{u^c} \sim \varepsilon_5/\alpha^{u^c}$, so that $g\,N \approx m_t /(174$ GeV).
It is also important to comment on the relative size of the VEVs $\hat c_1$ and $\hat c_2$. From the definition of $a^f$ (Eq. (\[af:def\])) we can derive an additional relation $$|c_1^f|\,=\,
\frac{\varepsilon^{\prime \prime (f)}}{\varepsilon^{\prime (f)}}\,
\sqrt{\frac{1-{a^f}^2}{{a^f}^2}}\, |c_2^f|\,,$$ where we have used the definitions of Eqs. (\[hatc:def\],\[eprime:def\]). If, for example, one assumes the VEVs to be of the same order of magnitude, i.e. $c_1 \sim c_2$, then one should further ensure that $$\frac{\varepsilon^{\prime \prime (f)}}{\varepsilon^{\prime (f)}}\,
\sqrt{\frac{1-{a^f}^2}{{a^f}^2}}\, \sim 1\,.$$
To conclude this Section, let us make a few remarks regarding two topics so far not discussed. Firstly, and since it is well known that the CP symmetry is not conserved in nature, it is important to comment on the sources of CP violation present in this class of models. The Yukawa couplings have been defined through real quantities, so that no physical phase appears via the CKM mechanism. However, this need not be the most general scenario. Dismissing for the present time the possibility of spontaneous CP violation, associated with non-trivial phases of the Higgs VEVs, there still remains another source of CP violation, in addition to the one already mentioned in footnote \[CPfoot\]. Should the VEV of the moduli field have a phase, then CP (which is a gauge symmetry of the model) would be spontaneously broken at very high energies. The phases would be fed into $\varepsilon_i$ (thus also appearing in $\alpha^f$), and would be present in the Yukawa couplings. Therefore, in the low-energy theory, CP would be explicitly violated via the usual CKM mechanism [@Acharya:1995ag; @Bailin:1998xx].
It is also relevant to mention the effect of the renormalisation group equations (RGE) on the mass matrices presented in this Section. The flavour structure of Eqs. (\[quark:mass\],\[quark:aFI\]) is associated with a mechanism taking place at a very high energy scale. However, and given the clearly hierarchical structure of the quark mass matrices, one does not expect that RGE running will significantly affect the predictions of the model.
The extended Higgs sector {#higgsphenom}
=========================
As mentioned in the previous sections, in this class of orbifold models, one has replication of families in the Higgs sector. By construction, this scenario contains three generations of $SU(2)$ Higgs doublet superfields, with hypercharge $-1/2$ and $+1/2$, respectively coupling to down- and up- type quarks. $$\label{H:superf}
\widehat{H}_{1(3,5)}=
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\widehat{h}^0_{1(3,5)} \\
\widehat{h}^-_{1(3,5)}
\end{array} \right)\,, \quad \quad
\widehat{H}_{2(4,6)}=
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\widehat{h}^+_{2(4,6)} \\
\widehat{h}^0_{2(4,6)}
\end{array} \right)\,.$$ In Ref. [@Escudero:2005hk], we have studied the general case of SUSY models with Higgs family replication, as is the present case. Hence, we will just summarise here some important features which are relevant for the present analysis. We assume the most general form of the superpotential, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
W &=\,
{\widehat}{Q}\,
(Y_1^d{\widehat}{H}_1+Y_3^d{\widehat}{H}_3+Y_5^d{\widehat}{H}_5){\widehat}{D}^c+
{\widehat}{L}\,(Y_1^e{\widehat}{H}_1+Y_3^e{\widehat}{H}_3+Y_5^e{\widehat}{H}_5){\widehat}{E}^c
\nonumber \\
& +\, {\widehat}{Q}\,
(Y_2^u{\widehat}{H}_2+Y_4^u{\widehat}{H}_4+Y_6^u{\widehat}{H}_6){\widehat}{U}^c+\mu_{12}{\widehat}{H}_1{\widehat}{H}_2+
\mu_{14}{\widehat}{H}_1{\widehat}{H}_4+\mu_{16}{\widehat}{H}_1{\widehat}{H}_6 \nonumber
\\ & + \,\mu_{32}{\widehat}{H}_3{\widehat}{H}_2+\mu_{34}{\widehat}{H}_3{\widehat}{H}_4+
\mu_{36}{\widehat}{H}_3{\widehat}{H}_6+\mu_{52}{\widehat}{H}_5{\widehat}{H}_2+\mu_{54}{\widehat}{H}_5{\widehat}{H}_4+
\mu_{56}{\widehat}{H}_5{\widehat}{H}_6\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\widehat}{Q}$ and ${\widehat}{L}$ denote the quark and lepton $SU(2)_L$ doublet superfields, ${\widehat}{U}^c$ and ${\widehat}{D}^c$ are quark singlets, and ${\widehat}{E}^c$ the lepton singlet. The Yukawa matrices associated with each Higgs superfield, $Y_i^q$, have been already defined in Eq. (\[Yd:1:5\]). In what follows, we take the $\mu_{ij}$ as effective parameters. (Notice that in this context the Giudice-Masiero mechanism [@Giudice:1988yz] to generate the $\mu$-term through the Kähler potential is not available for prime orbifolds such as the $Z_3$ orbifold [@LopesCardoso:1994is; @Antoniadis:1994hg].)
The scalar potential receives the usual contributions from $D$-, $F$- and SUSY soft-breaking terms, which we write below, using for simplicity doublet components. $$\begin{aligned}
V_F\,
=&
\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{\begin{smallmatrix}
{i,j=1,3,5}\\{l=2,4,6}
\end{smallmatrix}} \mu^*_{il}\, \mu_{jl}\, H_i^\dagger\, H_j
+
\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{\begin{smallmatrix}
{i=1,3,5}\\{k,l=2,4,6}
\end{smallmatrix}} \mu^*_{il} \,\mu_{ik}\, H_k^\dagger H_l \,,\nonumber\\
V_D\,
=&\,
\frac{g^2}{8} \,\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{a=1}^{3}
\left[\, \operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1}^6
H_i^\dagger \,\tau^a\, H_i
\right]^2 + \,
\frac{g^{\prime 2}}{8}
\left[\,\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1}^6 \,
(-1)^i\, \left|H_i\right|^2 \,\right]^2\,,\nonumber\\
V_{\text{soft}}\,=&
\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i,j=1,3,5}
(m^2_d)_{ij} \, H_i^\dagger\, H_j
+
\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{k,l=2,4,6}
(m^2_u)_{kl} \, H_k^\dagger H_l\,
-\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{\begin{smallmatrix}
{i=1,3,5}\\{j=2,4,6}
\end{smallmatrix}}
\left[(B\mu)_{ij}\, H_i\, H_j +\text{H.c.}\right]\,.\label{VDVFVS}\end{aligned}$$
After electroweak symmetry breaking, the neutral components of the six Higgs doublets develop VEVs, which we assume to be real, $${\langle h^0_{1(3,5)}\rangle}\,=\,w_{1(3,5)}\,,
\quad \quad \quad
{\langle h^0_{2(4,6)}\rangle}\,=\,w_{2(4,6)}\,,$$ and as usual one can write $$\begin{aligned}
h^0_i \to w_i + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\sigma_i + i \varphi_i\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the purpose of minimising the Higgs potential and computing the tree-level Higgs mass matrices, it proves more convenient to work in the so-called “Higgs basis” [@Georgi:1978ri; @Drees:1988fc], where only two of the rotated fields develop VEVs: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higgs:Ptransf}
&\quad \quad \quad \phi_i = P_{ij} h_j\,,\nonumber\\
& {\langle \phi^0_1\rangle} =\, v_d\,, \quad \quad
{\langle \phi^0_2\rangle} =\, v_u\,.\end{aligned}$$ By construction (cf. Eq. (\[ewz\])), the new VEVs must satisfy $$\label{ewz2}
v_u^2+v_d^2 \,\approx \, (174\,\text{ GeV})^2\,,$$ and we can now define $\tan \beta$ (see Eq.(\[tb\])) in the standard way, $$\label{tb2}
\tan \beta = \frac{v_u}{v_d}\,.$$ In the new basis, the free parameters at the EW scale are $m^2_{ij}$, $b_{ij}$, which has dimensions mass$^2$, and $\tan \beta$ (for a detailed discussion of the Higgs basis, including the definition of the new parameters and of $P_{ij}$, see [@Escudero:2005hk]), and the minimisation equations simply read: $$\label{minima:du}
\begin{array}{ll}
m^2_{11}\,=\,\,
b_{12} \,\tan \beta - \frac{M_Z^2}{2}\,\cos 2 \beta\,, \quad \quad
\quad \quad \quad
&
m^2_{22}\,=\,\,
b_{12} \,\cot \beta + \frac{M_Z^2}{2}\,\cos 2 \beta\,, \\
m^2_{13}\,=\,\,
b_{32} \,\tan \beta \,,
&
m^2_{24}\,=\,\,
b_{14}\, \cot \beta\,, \\
m^2_{15}\,=\,\,
b_{52} \, \tan \beta \,,
&
m^2_{26}\,=\,\,
b_{16} \,\cot \beta \,.
\end{array}$$ After minimising the potential[^7], one can derive the charged, neutral scalar and pseudoscalar mass matrices, and obtain the mass eigenstates and the diagonalisation matrices. For the neutral states (scalars and pseudoscalars), the relation of mass and interaction eigenstates is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higgsmass:diag}
S_R \,\mathcal{M}^2_R \,S_R^\dagger &= \Delta_R^2 =
\operatorname{diag}({m^s_i}^2)\,, \quad i=1,\ldots,6\,,
\nonumber\\
S_I \,\mathcal{M}^{2}_I \,S_I^\dagger &= \Delta_I^2=
\operatorname{diag}({m^p_i}^2)\,, \quad i=1,\ldots,6\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta_{R,I}^2$ the diagonal scalar and pseudoscalar squared mass eigenvalues (notice that the $i=1$ term for the pseudoscalars corresponds to the unphysical massless would-be Goldstone boson). We recall here that we are working in the Higgs-basis, and that the matrices that diagonalise the mass matrices in the original basis can be related to the latter as $$\label{S:SRIP}
S_{\sigma,\varphi} \,=\,S_{R,I} \,P\,,$$ where $P$ is the matrix appearing in Eq. (\[higgs:Ptransf\]). A detailed study of such an extended Higgs sector, including choice of basis, minimisation of the potential and derivation of the tree-level mass matrices can be found in [@Escudero:2005hk]. It is also important to notice that throughout the analysis, and since our aim is to investigate to which extent FCNCs push the lower bounds on the Higgs masses, we do not consider radiative corrections to the Higgs masses, using the bare masses instead.
Yukawa interactions and tree-level FCNCs {#yukint}
========================================
In the quark and Higgs mass eigenstate basis, the Yukawa interaction Lagrangian reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Yukawa}}=&
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1,3,5} \left[\,
\left(\mathcal{V}_d\right)^{ij}_{ab} \,
h_j^s \, \bar d_{R}^a \,d_{L}^b +
i \left(\mathcal{W}_d\right)^{ij}_{ab} \,h_j^p \,\bar d_{R}^a \,d_{L}^b +
\text{H.c.} \right]\nonumber\\
&
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=2,4,6} \left[
\left(\mathcal{V}_u\right)^{ij}_{ab} \,
h_j^s \, \bar u_{R}^a \,u_{L}^b +
i \left(\mathcal{W}_u\right)^{ij}_{ab} \,h_j^p \,\bar u_{R}^a \,u_{L}^b +
\text{H.c.} \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $a,b$ denote quark flavours, while $i,j=1,\ldots,6$ are Higgs indices, with $s$ ($p$) denoting scalar (pseudoscalar) mass eigenstates. The latter are related to the original states as $h^s=S_\sigma \sigma$, $h^p=S_\varphi
\varphi$, as from Eqs. (\[higgsmass:diag\],\[S:SRIP\]). The scalar (pseudoscalar) coupling matrices $\mathcal{V}$ ($\mathcal{W}$) are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WV}
\left(\mathcal{V}_q\right)^{ij}_{ab} \,=\,&
(S_\sigma^\dagger)_{ij} \, \,
(V_R^q\,\, Y^{q}_i \,\,V^{q\dagger}_L)_{ab}\,, \nonumber \\
\left(\mathcal{W}_q\right)^{ij}_{ab} \,=\,&
(S_\varphi^\dagger)_{ij}\, \,
(V_R^q \,\, Y^{q}_i \,\,V^{q\dagger}_L)_{ab}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $i=1,3,5 \ (2,4,6)$ for $q=d \,(u)$ and $j=1, \ldots, 6$. $Y^q$ denote the Yukawa couplings, whose down-type elements were displayed in Eq. (\[Yd:1:5\]), and $V_{L,R}$ are the unitary matrices that diagonalise the quark mass matrices as $$\label{quarkmass:diag}
V_R^q \,\, \mathcal{M}^q \, \,{V_L^q}^\dagger \,=\,
\operatorname{diag}\,(m^q_i)\,,
\quad \quad q=u,d\,,$$ so that the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix is defined as $$\label{vckm:def}
V_{\text{CKM}}=V_L^u\, {V_L^d}^\dagger\,.$$ We emphasise that the matrices $V_{L,R}$ which diagonalise the quark mass matrices do not, in general, diagonalise the corresponding Yukawa couplings. Hence, both scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs-quark-quark interactions may exhibit a strong non-diagonality in flavour space, which in turn translates in the appearance of FCNCs and CP violation at the tree-level.
Even though a detailed discussion of FCNCs in multi-Higgs doublet models was presented in [@Escudero:2005hk], we summarise here some relevant points, focusing on the neutral kaon sector and investigating the tree-level contributions to $\Delta m_K$. The latter is simply defined as the mass difference between the long- and short-lived kaon masses, $$\Delta m_K = m_{K_L} - m_{K_S} \simeq 2 \left|
\mathcal{M}^K_{12}\right|\,.$$ The contribution to $\mathcal{M}^K_{12}$ associated with the exchange of scalar Higgses (with masses $m^s_j$) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MK12:sigma}
\left. \mathcal{M}^K_{12}\right|^\sigma \,=\,&\,
\frac{1}{8} \operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{\begin{smallmatrix}
{j=1-6}
\end{smallmatrix}} \frac{1}{(m^s_j)^2}
\left\{ \left[\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1,3,5} \left(
{\mathcal{V}_d}^{ij*}_{12}+{\mathcal{V}_d}^{ij}_{21} \right)
\right]^2 \langle \overline K^0\left| (\bar s d) (\bar s d)
\right| K^0 \rangle \right. \nonumber\\
&+
\left.
\left[\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1,3,5} \left(
{\mathcal{V}_d}^{ij*}_{12}-{\mathcal{V}_d}^{ij}_{21} \right)
\right]^2 \langle \overline K^0\left| (\bar s \gamma_5 d) (\bar s
\gamma_5 d)
\right| K^0 \rangle
\right\}\,, \end{aligned}$$ while the exchange of a pseudoscalar state (with mass $m^p_j$) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MK12:phi}
\left. \mathcal{M}^K_{12}\right|^\varphi \,=\,&\,
\frac{1}{8} \operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{\begin{smallmatrix}
{j=2-6}
\end{smallmatrix}} \frac{1}{(m^p_j)^2}
\left\{ \left[\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1,3,5} \left(
{\mathcal{W}_d}^{ij*}_{21}-{\mathcal{W}_d}^{ij}_{12} \right)
\right]^2 \langle \overline K^0\left| (\bar s d) (\bar s d)
\right| K^0 \rangle \right. \nonumber\\
&+
\left.
\left[\operatornamewithlimits{\sum}_{i=1,3,5} \left(
{\mathcal{W}_d}^{ij*}_{21}+{\mathcal{W}_d}^{ij}_{12} \right)
\right]^2 \langle \overline K^0\left| (\bar s \gamma_5 d) (\bar s
\gamma_5 d)
\right| K^0 \rangle
\right\}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Once all the contributions to $\mathcal{M}^K_{12}$ have been taken into account, the prediction of this orbifold model regarding $\Delta m_K$ should be compared with the experimental value, $(\Delta m_K)_{\text{exp}} \simeq 3.49 \times 10^{-12}$ MeV [@pdg2004]. For the other neutral meson systems, $B_d$, $B_s$ and $D^0$, the computation is analogous. In each case the viability of the model imposes that the obtained results should be compatible with the current bounds: $(\Delta m_{B_d})_{\text{exp}} \simeq 3.304 \times 10^{-13}$ GeV, $(\Delta m_{B_s})_{\text{exp}}>94.8 \times 10^{-13}$ GeV and $\Delta m_{D^0} < 46.07 \times 10^{-12}$ MeV [@pdg2004].
Before proceeding to the numerical analysis, let us briefly comment on the several contributions. First of all, it is widely recognised that, in models with tree-level FCNCs, the most stringent bounds are usually associated with $\Delta
m_K$. For the $Z_3$ orbifold scenario, with hierarchical Yukawa couplings, one expects the bound from $\Delta m_{B_d}$ to be less severe than that of $\Delta m_K$. The same should occur for the $B_s$ mass difference, since in the SM this mixing is already maximal (the only exception occurring if new contributions matched exactly those of the SM, but had opposite sign, in which case a cancellation could take place). The $D^0$ mass difference can be quite challenging to accommodate. As pointed out in [@McWilliams:1980kj; @Cheng:1987rs] and [@D:burdman:datta], models allowing for FCNC at the tree-level may present the possibility of very large contributions to $\Delta m_D$, and the latter could even exceed by a factor 20 those to $\Delta m_K$ [@Cheng:1987rs]. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind the fact that mixing in the $D^0$ sector is very sensitive to the hadronic model used to estimate the transition amplitudes, and there is still a very large uncertainty in deriving its decay constants, etc. Therefore, the constraints on a given model arising from $\Delta m_D$ should not be over-emphasised, and we will adopt this conservative view throughout our discussion.
Another interesting issue[^8] is that of rare decays. It has been argued that, again when no theory for the full Yukawas is available, some rare decays become very sensitive to flavour changing contributions induced by Higgs exchange at the tree-level [@Sher:1991km]. In the present model, the Yukawas are well-defined, not only for the quark, but also for the lepton sector. In a forthcoming work [@EJMT], we will analyse in detail the lepton sector of this class of orbifold constructions, taking also into account the potentially most constraining decay modes, as $\mu \to e \gamma$, $B_d \to K \mu \tau$ and $B_s \to \mu \tau$.
Additionally, and given the existence of flavour violating neutral Higgs couplings, and the possibility of having complex Yukawa couplings, it is natural to have tree-level contributions to CP violation. In the kaon sector, indirect CP violation is parameterised by $\varepsilon_K$, and defined as $$\varepsilon_K \,=\, -\frac{e^{i \pi/4}}{\sqrt{2}} \,
\frac{\operatorname{Im} \left[\mathcal{M}^K_{12} \,
\lambda_u^2\right]}{|\lambda_u|^2 \, \Delta m_K}\,,$$ where $\lambda_u$ is defined from CKM elements as $\lambda_u= V^*_{us}
V_{ud}$. From experiment one has $\varepsilon_K = (2.284 \pm 0.014) \times 10^{-3}$ [@pdg2004]. In this case, and since we are in the presence of tree-level, rather than 1-loop interactions, the new contributions to $\varepsilon_K$ are expected to be quite large, even if the amount of CP violation associated with the CKM matrix (for instance parameterised by $J_{\text{CP}}$ [@Jarlskog:1985ht]) is far smaller than the value derived from usual SM fits - $J_{\text{CP}} \sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-5})$ [@pdg2004].
Numerical results {#results}
=================
In the present scenario, most of the observables addressed in the previous Section receive their dominant contributions from tree-level processes. This situation strongly diverges from the usual scenarios of both SM and MSSM, where FCNCs only occur at the 1-loop level. Given the increasing experimental accuracy, it is important to investigate to which extent the present scenario is compatible with current experimental data.
We divide the numerical approach in two steps. Firstly, we focus on the string sector of the model, and for each point in the space generated by the free parameters of the orbifold ($\varepsilon_5, \alpha^f$), we derive the up- and down-quark mass matrices[^9] and compute the CKM matrix. This procedure allows us to investigate the several regimes of parameters that translate into viable quark spectra, and discuss the implications of the relations between the several parameters. At this early stage, we consider only real values for the orbifold parameters. Further imposing the conditions associated with EWSB given in Eq. (\[wmz\]), and fixing a value[^10] for $\tan
\beta$, one can then determine the values of $g\,N$ and $\varepsilon_1$ (cf. Eqs. (\[wmbeta\],\[auad:rel\])). Another possible approach would be to scan over the space generated by the moduli ($T_i$) and the VEVs of the $SU(3) \times SU(2)$ singlet fields ($c_i$), but this would translate in less straightforward relations between the orbifold parameters and the experimental data. A secondary step requires specifying the several Higgs parameters, which must obey the minimum criteria of Eq. (\[minima:du\]). Finally, the last step comprehends the analysis of how each of the Yukawa patterns constrains the Higgs parameters in order to have compatibility with the FCNC data. In particular, we want to investigate how heavy the scalar and pseudoscalar eigenstates are required to be in order to accommodate the observed values of $\Delta m_K$, $\Delta m_{B_d}$, etc.
Quark Yukawa couplings and the CKM matrix {#quark:orbifold}
-----------------------------------------
As discussed in [@Abel:2002ih], there are three regimes for the values of $\alpha^f $ and $\beta^f $, depending on the specific orbifold configuration :
\(a) $\alpha^f \sim \varepsilon_5$ and $\beta^f \sim 1$;
\(b) $\alpha^f \approx \varepsilon_5$ and $\beta^f \approx 1/\varepsilon_5$;
\(c) $\alpha^f \sim 1$ and $\beta^f \sim 1$.
In any case, it is clear from Eq. (\[alpha:beta:def\]) that $\alpha^f$ and $\beta^f$ must obey, by construction, the following bounds: $$\varepsilon_5 \lesssim \alpha^f \lesssim 1\,,
\quad \quad \quad
1 \lesssim \beta^f \lesssim \frac{1}{\varepsilon_5}\,.$$ In what follows we investigate whether each point in the orbifold parameter space can be associated with a consistent quark spectrum and mixings. For given values of the input quark masses, one fixes the ratio of the several Higgs VEVs, which in turn allows to reconstruct the full quark mass matrices, and obtain the mass eigenstates and CKM matrix. In particular, throughout this analysis we shall focus on four sets of input quark masses, whose values are listed in Table \[set:ae\].
Set $m_u$ $m_d$ $m_c$ $m_s$ $m_t$ $m_b$
----- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
A 0.004 0.008 1.35 0.13 180 4.4
B 0.0035 0.008 1.25 0.1 178 4.5
C 0.0035 0.004 1.15 0.08 176 4.1
D 0.004 0.006 1.2 0.105 178 4.25
: Sets of input quark masses (in GeV) used in the numerical analysis.[]{data-label="set:ae"}
Throughout, we require the CKM matrix elements to lie within the following ranges [@pdg2004]: $$\label{vckm:exp:limits}
V_\text{CKM}\,=\,\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.9739 - 0.9751 & 0.221 - 0.227 & 0.0029 - 0.0045\\
0.221 - 0.227 & 0.9730 - 0.9744 & 0.039 - 0.044\\
0.0048 - 0.014 & 0.037 - 0.043 & 0.9990 - 0.9992
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ Regarding the effect of the orbifold parameters on quark mixing, let us notice that both $\varepsilon_5$ and $\alpha^{u^c}$ are crucial in obtaining the Cabibbo angle. As expected, the down-sector parameters are those directly responsible for the mixings between generations, and their role is particularly relevant in determining $V_{td}$ ($\alpha^{d^c}$ - and to a lesser extent, also $\alpha^{u^c}$), $V_{ts}$, $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$. Once these elements are fixed in accordance with experiment, the others are usually also in agreement. Finally, let us recall that from choosing a concrete value for $\tan
\beta$, and complying with the bound on $M_Z$ from EW symmetry breaking, Eqs. (\[wmz\],\[wmbeta\]), one is implicitly fixing for each set of $\{\varepsilon_5, \alpha^f, \beta^f\}$, the values of $\varepsilon_1$ and $g\,N$.
In Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\], we present the correlation between the orbifold parameters, for the four sets of input quark masses given in Table \[set:ae\]. We only present points that are associated with viable quark masses and that are in agreement with current bounds on $|V_{\text{CKM}}|$ (from Eq. (\[vckm:exp:limits\])).
-- --
-- --
Rather than scatter plots, in Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\] we present sets of points. This is due to having very narrow intervals of fluctuation for all the parameters. As an example, let us mention that for constant values of $\varepsilon_5$, $\alpha^{d^c}$ and $\beta^f$, $\alpha^{u^c}$ is fixed within a $2\%$ interval. >From Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\] it is clear that for a given set of Higgs VEVs (determined by the associated set of input quark masses - Table \[set:ae\]) the allowed orbifold parameter space is very constrained. This is a direct consequence of the increasing accuracy in the experimental determination of the $V_\text{CKM}$. In each set (A–D), moving outside the displayed ranges would translate in violating the experimental bounds on (at least) one of the CKM matrix elements. Larger values of $\varepsilon_5$ would also (typically) be associated with an up-quark mass below the current accepted range. Regarding the values of $\beta^f$, these are constrained to be $\beta^f \approx 1$ throughout the allowed parameter space (cf. Eq. (\[bf:alpha\])). From the direct inspection of Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\], together with the fact that $\beta^f \approx 1$, it appears that at least two regimes for $\alpha^f$ are present. For the up sector, one would suggest that the orbifold configuration is such that $\alpha^{u^c}$ is roughly $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_5)$, so that one is faced with regime (a). The same would happen for sets A and B in the down sector, although sets C and D appear to favour a regime with $\alpha^{d^c} \sim 1$, thus suggesting regime (c).
Let us now aim at understanding the behaviour of both $\alpha^{u^c,d^c}$ as a function of $\varepsilon_5$. In Ref. [@Abel:2002ih], several analytical relations for the CKM matrix elements as a function of $\{\varepsilon_5,\alpha^f,\beta^f\}$ were derived. Although those relations were computed for the case of hermitic mass matrices, where $V^f_L = V^f_R$, and are thus not truly valid for the present case, they are quite useful in understanding Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\]. For instance, the Cabibbo angle is given, to a very good approximation, by $$\label{Vus:approx}
V_{us} \approx
-\varepsilon_5^2 \left(\frac{m_t}{m_c} \,\frac{1}{\alpha^{u^c}} -
\frac{m_b}{m_s} \,\frac{1}{\alpha^{d^c}}\right)\,,$$ and the above expression is clearly dominated by the first term on the right-hand side (r.h.s). From Eq. (\[Vus:approx\]), it becomes transparent that the dependence of $\alpha^{u^c}$ on $\varepsilon_5$ should indeed be parabolic, as clearly displayed in Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\]. Regarding $\alpha^{d^c}$, its evolution is strongly influenced by the allowed regions of $\varepsilon_5$ (as dictated by the quark mass regimes taken as input, especially $m_s/m_b$). For sets A and B, the ratio of down-type quark masses is such that the leading term in the analytical expression of $V_{ub}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vub:approx}
V_{ub} &\approx
\left(\frac{m_s}{m_b} \alpha^{d^c}-\frac{m_c}{m_t} \alpha^{u^c}
\right)
- \varepsilon_5 \left(
\frac{m_d}{m_b} \frac{m_t}{m_c} \frac{\alpha^{d^c}}{\alpha^{u^c}
\beta^{d^c}} - \frac{m_u}{m_t} \frac{1}{\beta^{u^c}}\right) +
\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_5^6)
\,,\end{aligned}$$ provides a reasonable understanding of $\alpha^{d^c}
(\varepsilon_5)$. For sets C and D, the situation is more involved, and the second term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[Vub:approx\]) plays an important role. In fact, $\alpha^{d^c}$ receives contributions which display a near-resonant behaviour for the input quark mass ratios in the correspondent $\varepsilon_5$ range. This is the origin of the unexpected positioning of set C in Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\].
We now address the behaviour of $a^{u^c}$ and $a^{d^c}$. By construction, and as clearly seen from Eq. (\[af:alpha:beta\]), once $\varepsilon_5$ and $\alpha^f$ (or equivalently $\varepsilon_5$ and $\beta^f$) are set, one is implicitly fixing $a^{f}$. Moreover, satisfying the EWSB conditions for the VEVs, together with imposing a given value of $\tan \beta$ also translates in determining $g\,N$ and $\varepsilon_1$. In Fig. \[fig:orbifold:au:auTB:e5\], we plot the values of $a^{u^c}$ and $a^{d^c}$ as a function of $\varepsilon_5$, as determined from Eq. (\[af:alpha:beta\]).
As seen from Fig. \[fig:orbifold:au:auTB:e5\], the behaviour of set C regarding $a^{d^c}$ is slightly misaligned with what one would expect from the analysis of sets A, B and D. Notice however that this is due to the dependence of $a^{d^c}$ on $\alpha^{d^c}$ (cf. Eq. (\[af:alpha:beta\])). Recall from Fig. \[fig:orbifold:alpha:ud:e5\] that for set C, the allowed values of $\alpha^{d^c}$ were somewhat higher than for the other cases, and this is the source of the suppression displayed in Fig. \[fig:orbifold:au:auTB:e5\], set C.
In Fig. \[fig:orbifold:e1:adTB:e5\], we present the values of $\varepsilon_1$ as a function of $\varepsilon_5$ for the four sets of quark masses, and distinct regimes of $\tan \beta$.
>From Fig. \[fig:orbifold:e1:adTB:e5\] we can also verify that the values of $\varepsilon_1$ are, in general, larger than those of $\varepsilon_5$. The “misaligned” behaviour of set C is again a consequence of the effects already discussed. Regarding the actual value of $g\,N$ it suffices to mention that for the orbifold parameter space here investigated, and for the values of $\tan \beta$ here selected, one has $1.03\,\lesssim g\,N \lesssim \,1.16$.
Since we now have the relevant information, we can further compute the value of the lattice’s diagonal moduli, $T_1$ and $T_5$, as defined in Eq. (\[eiTi\]). The value of $T_5$ is unambiguously determined. Nevertheless, and since the determination of $\varepsilon_1$ is a direct consequence of complying with the EWSB conditions for a fixed value of $\tan \beta$, its determination varies accordingly. In Fig. \[fig:orbifold:T5:T1:e5\] we display the diagonal moduli as a function of $\varepsilon_5$, for $\tan \beta=$3, 5, 10 and 20.
-- --
-- --
>From Fig. \[fig:orbifold:T5:T1:e5\], it is manifest that for the parameter space investigated, the values of the diagonal moduli, $T_1$ and $T_5$, are never degenerate. This confirms our original assumption (see footnote \[Tifoot\]) that distinct moduli are indeed required to accommodate the experimental data. Although we have allowed for non-degenerate $T_i$, this remains quite a restrictive choice. We recall that we still have six additional degrees of freedom, namely the angles between the complex planes, which we have taken as zero in the present analysis.
To conclude the study of the orbifold parameter space, let us just plot the values of the Higgs VEVs, again as a function of $\varepsilon_5$. As an illustrative example, depicted in Fig. \[fig:orbifold:ctw:e5\], we take $\tan \beta=5$.
-- --
-- --
It is interesting to comment that in the up-sector, the VEVs exhibit a clearly hierarchical pattern, $w_2<w_4<w_6$ while in the down-type VEVs we encounter a not so definite pattern, with $w_3<w_5<w_1$. This is a direct consequence of the relations given in Eq. (\[vev:quarkmass\]).
Finally, let us summarise our analysis of the orbifold parameter space by commenting on the relative number of input parameters and number of observables fitted. Working with the six Higgs VEVs ($w_i$), and the orbifold parameters $\varepsilon_1$, $\varepsilon_5$, $\alpha^{u^c}$ and $\alpha^{d^c}$, one can obtain the correct EWSB ($M_Z$), as well as the correct quark masses and mixings (six masses and three mixing angles).
Tree-level FCNCs in neutral mesons
----------------------------------
The present orbifold model does not include a specific prediction regarding the Higgs sector. For instance, we have no hint regarding the value of the several bilinear terms, nor towards their origin. Concerning the soft breaking terms, the situation is identical. Since the FI $D$-term, which could have broken SUSY at the string scale, was cancelled, one must call upon some other mechanism to ensure that supersymmetry is indeed broken in the low-energy theory. In the absence of further information, we merely assume that the structure of the soft breaking terms is as in Eq. (\[VDVFVS\]), taking the Higgs soft breaking masses and the $B \mu$-terms as free parameters (provided that the EW symmetry breaking and minimisation conditions are verified).
Before proceeding, it is important to stress that the Higgs spectrum (i.e. the scalar and pseudoscalar physical masses) cannot be a direct input when investigating the occurrence of FCNCs. In some previous studies of FCNCs in multi-Higgs doublets models (see for example [@Cheng:1987rs]) the bounds were derived for the diagonal entries in the scalar and pseudoscalar mass matrices. However, this approach neglects mixings between the several fields $R_i, I_i$, and excludes the exchange of some scalar and pseudoscalar states.
Although it is possible to begin the analysis from the original basis (where all neutral Higgses develop VEVs), we prefer to define the Higgs parameters on the Higgs-basis, relying on the minima conditions (and associated inequalities) to ensure that we are on the presence of true minima. Therefore, the parameters that must be specified are: $$\tan \beta\,, \quad m^2_{ij}\,, \quad b_{ij}\,,$$ entering in Eq. (\[minima:du\]). In the absence of orbifold predictions for the Higgs sector parameters, and motivated by an argument of simplicity, we begin our analysis by considering textures for the above parameters as simple as possible.
To avoid rewriting the Higgs soft-breaking masses, we adopt the following parameterisation: $$\label{higgs:tx:mud}
m^{(d)}_{ij} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\otimes&\otimes &\otimes \\
\otimes & x_3 & y \\
\otimes & y & x_{5}
\end{array}\right)\times {1 \text{TeV}}\,,
\quad
m^{(u)}_{kl}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\otimes&\otimes &\otimes \\
\otimes & x_4 & y \\
\otimes & y & x_{6}
\end{array}\right)\times {1 \text{TeV}}\,,
\quad
\sqrt{b_{ij}}=b \times {1 \text{TeV}}\,.$$ In the above, $m^{d(u)}$ should be understood as the $i,j=1,3,5$ ($k,l=2,4,6$) submatrices of the $6\times6$ matrix that encodes the rotated soft-breaking Higgs masses in the Higgs basis (see [@Escudero:2005hk]). The symbol $\otimes$ denotes an entry which is fixed by the minima equations of Eq. (\[minima:du\]). This parametrisation allows to easily define the Higgs sector via six dimensionless parameters. We begin by taking a near-universality limit for the Higgs-sector textures introduced in Eq. (\[higgs:tx:mud\]). Regarding the value of $\tan \beta$, and if not otherwise stated, we shall take $\tan \beta=5$ in the subsequent analysis. We first consider the following four cases, presenting the associated scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs spectra:
- $x_3=x_4=0.5\,, x_5=x_6=0.75\,, y=0.1\,, b=0.1\,$
$m^s = \{82.5, 190.6, 493.9, 515.9, 744.4, 760.2\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{186.8, 493.9, 515.9, 744.4, 760.2\}$ GeV.
- $x_3=x_4=0.4\,, x_5=x_6=0.8, y=0.15\,, b=0.2\,$
$m^s = \{84.6, 213.9, 387.4, 560.8, 785.9, 879.1\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{215.2, 387.3, 560.5, 785.9, 878.9\}$ GeV.
- $x_3=x_4=0.75\,, x_5=x_6=1, y=0.25\,, b=0.2\,$
$m^s = \{83.6, 292.9, 733.6, 785.9, 987.6, 1057.0\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{291.1, 733.6, 785.9, 987.6, 1057.0\}$ GeV.
- $x_3=x_4=0.3\,, x_5=x_6=0.8, y=0.1\,, b=0.1\,$
$m^s = \{79.4, 121.5, 296.9, 354.3, 794.6, 808.8\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{114.8, 296.9, 353.7, 794.6, 808.8\}$ GeV.
In Fig. \[fig:dmk\] we plot the ratio $\Delta m_K/(\Delta m_K)_{\text{exp}}$ versus $\varepsilon_5$, for cases (a)-(d). We considered $\tan \beta=5$ and, since the other sets of input quark masses were in general associated to smaller FCNC effects, we take the quarks masses as in “set B” (Table \[set:ae\]). Once again, all the points displayed comply with the bounds from the CKM matrix.
>From Fig. \[fig:dmk\] it is clear that it is quite easy for the orbifold model to accommodate the current experimental values for $\Delta m_K$. Even though the model presents the possibility of important tree-level contributions to the kaon mass difference, all the textures considered give rise to contributions very close to the experimental value. Although (a) and (b) are not in agreement with the measured value of $\Delta m_K$, their contribution is within order of magnitude of $(\Delta m_K)_{\text{exp}}$. As seen from Fig. \[fig:dmk\], with a considerably light Higgs spectrum (i.e. $m_{h^0_i} < 1$ TeV), one is safely below the experimental bound, as exhibited by cases (c) and (d). This is not entirely unexpected given the strongly hierarchical structure of the Yukawa couplings (notice from Eq. (\[Yd:1:5\]) that $Y^d_{21}$ is suppressed by $\varepsilon_5^2$).
One important aspect clearly manifest in Fig. \[fig:dmk\], and which has been overlooked in some previous analyses, is that the Higgs mixings can be as relevant as the Higgs eigenvalues in determining the contributions to $\Delta m_K$. This is patent in the comparison of curves (c) and (d). From a naïve inspection of the Higgs spectra associated to each case, one would expect that (c) would induce a much stronger suppression to the model’s contribution to $\Delta
m_K$. Nevertheless, case (d), with a spectrum quite similar to case (b), and indeed much lighter than that of (d), but with much smaller mixings, is the one associated with the strongest suppression of $\Delta m_K$.
It is also important to comment on the effect of changing $\tan \beta$ regarding the contributions to the kaon mass difference. For the specific case of texture (c), let us investigate the effect of varying $\tan \beta$. We take the quark masses as in set B, and while keeping the Higgs parameters fixed, $\tan \beta$ is taken in the range $3 \lesssim \tan \beta \lesssim 9.5$. As it becomes clear from Fig. \[fig:dmk:tb\], larger values of $\tan \beta$ produce increasingly larger contributions to $\Delta m_K$. This is a direct consequence of the fact that, due to larger off-diagonal terms in the Higgs mass matrices, the mixing is larger, and the corresponding eigenstates become lighter. Even though the masses of the heaviest states remain stable, the intermediate states become lighter, and the FCNC contributions are less suppressed. Close to $\tan \beta$=10, it is no longer possible to find physical minima of the Higgs potential, and tachyonic states emerge. This effect has been already pointed out in the general analysis of [@Escudero:2005hk].
### $\pmb{B_d}$ and $\pmb{B_s}$ meson mass difference
For the several parameterisations of the Higgs sector used for the analysis of $\Delta m_K$, we display in Fig. \[fig:dmbd\] the contributions of Higgs textures (a)-(d) to the ${B_d}$ mass difference.
[c]{}
As one would expect, given the structure of the mass matrices (and thus the Yukawa couplings), the present model generates very small contributions to $\Delta m_{B_d}$. All the textures analysed, even those associated with excessive contributions to $\Delta m_K$ are in good agreement with the experimental data on the $B_d$ mass difference. Notice that the behaviour of the textures is now quite distinct: as an example, texture (b), which generated the second largest contribution to the $\Delta m_K$ is now the one associated with the strongest suppression. This stems from the fact that the leading contributions are now given by distinct Higgses, whose couplings to the quarks need not be identical.
Likewise, in Fig. \[fig:dmbs\] we plot the contributions to the ${B_s}$ mass difference. In this case experiment only provides a lower bound, so that any ratio larger than 1 is in agreement with current data.
[c]{}
As we would expect from the discussion of Section \[yukint\], this model’s contributions to $\Delta m_{B_s}$ are well above the current limit.
### $\pmb{D^0-\bar D^0}$ mass difference
The cases (a)-(d) considered in the previous subsections generate contributions to $\Delta m_D$ that exceed the experimental bounds by at least a factor 10. As discussed in Section \[yukint\], this is not surprising, nor excessively worrying. Nevertheless, and for the sake of completing the analysis, let us consider four additional Higgs patterns, in order to derive a bound on the mass of the heaviest Higgs boson that would render the model compatible with the data from the $D^0$ sector.
The new Higgs textures are defined as follows:
- $x_3=x_4=0.75\,, x_5=2.5\,, x_6=7.5\,, y=0.5\,, b=0.5\,$
$m^s = \{84.2, 672.7, 704.9, 1414, 2573, 7501\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{673.1, 704.9, 1414, 2573, 7501\}$ GeV.
- $x_3=x_4=0.5\,, x_5=5\,, x_6=7.5\,, y=0.5\,, b=0.1\,$
$m^s = \{82.7, 201.4, 492.4, 516.4, 5000, 7500\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{197.9, 492.4, 516.4, 5000, 7500\}$ GeV.
- $x_3=x_4=1\,, x_5=x_6=7.5\,, y=0.5\,, b=0.5\,$
$m^s = \{82.3, 378.5, 958.9, 1578, 7483, 7518\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{379.2, 958.9, 1578, 7484, 7518\}$ GeV.
- $x_3=x_4=3\,, x_5=x_6=7\,, y=1\,, b=0.5\,$
$m^s = \{84.1, 1032, 2964, 3059, 6984, 7022\}$ GeV;
$m^p = \{1031, 2964, 3059, 6984, 7022\}$ GeV.
For the cases (e) to (h) we present in Fig. \[fig:dmd\] the contributions to $\Delta m_D$.
[c]{}
Compatibility with experiment can be obtained for any of the sets (e), (g) or (h), thus suggesting that one of the Higgses (a state mostly dominated by an up-type Higgs field) must be at least of around 7.5 TeV. Notice that no major hierarchy is required from the Higgs spectrum - case (e) is an excellent example of the latter statement, in the sense that one obtains states softly ranging from 600 to 7500 GeV. One may wonder if such a choice of Higgs soft-breaking terms may lead to a fine-tuning problem. In [@Escudero:2005hk], it was pointed out that for non-degenerate VEVs, soft-breaking terms above the few TeV range typically induced a fine tuning stronger than 1%. Nevertheless, we again stress that these values for the Higgs masses (as derived from the $D^0$ mass difference analysis) should not be interpreted from a very strict point of view.
Tree-level CP violation: $\pmb{\varepsilon_K}$
----------------------------------------------
Finally, we turn our attention to the issue of CP violation. So far, we have seen that accommodating the several $\Delta F=2$ observables is not an excessively hard task (especially if we choose to set aside the $D^0$ sector). Nevertheless, a successful model of particle physics must also comply with the observed CP violation in the kaon sector. As we mentioned in Section \[yukint\], we will only consider the specific contribution of the present model to indirect CP violation in the kaon sector ($\varepsilon_K$). Therefore, we now assume $\varepsilon_5$ (and thus $\alpha^f$) to be a complex quantity, and parameterise it as $\varepsilon_5 = |\varepsilon_5| \, e^{i \phi}$.
In Fig. \[fig:ek\] we present the tree-level contributions to $\varepsilon_K$ (normalised by its experimental value) as a function of $|\varepsilon_5|$. We take the input quark masses as in set B, fix $\tan \beta=5$, and analyse the Higgs textures associated with cases (c), (d) and (e). For each texture, the phase is assumed to be $\phi_c=4.0 \times 10^{-4}$, $\phi_d=2.5 \times 10^{-4}$ and $\phi_e=2.5 \times 10^{-3}$. These phases are taken as illustrative examples; we choose values that for a specific set of input quark masses (set B, in this case) and a given Higgs texture (c)-(e) simultaneously succeed in generating an amount of $\varepsilon_K$ close to the value experimentally measured (range delimited by dotted grey lines in Fig. \[fig:ek\]), and still have a compatible CKM. One should bare in mind that once $\arg \varepsilon_5$ (and thus $\arg \alpha^f$) is no longer a small number, it will significantly affect the computation of the Yukawa couplings, and thus the CKM matrix.
[c]{}
We have considered one texture that accommodates all FCNC observables, namely texture (e), which already has a somewhat heavy Higgs spectrum. In this case, the phase required to saturate $(\varepsilon_K)_{\text{exp}}$ is $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$. Since we do not wish to view the $D^0$ sector as a very stringent constraint, we also consider two other Higgs patterns, (c) and (d), which only succeed in complying with both kaon and $B$-meson data. In these cases, the phases necessary to obtain $(\varepsilon_K)_{\text{exp}}$ are now $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$, as one would expect, since a lighter set of Higgs bosons typically enhances the contributions.
In the range of parameters analysed in this plot, the amount of CP violation stemming from the CKM matrix is $J_{CP} \sim
\mathcal{O}(10^{-8} - 10^{-6})$, i.e. at least one order of magnitude below the SM value that is associated with the observed $\varepsilon_K$ [@pdg2004]. The possibility of obtaining an orbifold configuration that saturates the observed value of $\varepsilon_K$ and at the same time allows to reproduce the $J_{CP}$ required by the unitarity triangle fits should not be discarded. It is clear that the phase of $\varepsilon_5$ must be quite large, and such values would push us to distinct areas of the orbifold parameter space. It is worth emphasising that there are still other sources of CP violation in addition to the one we have studied in this Section. As mentioned in footnote \[CPfoot\], a more complicated choice of the VEVs $c_i$ could lead to physical phases in the quark masses matrices, which would in turn contribute to the physical CKM phase.
Conclusions {#conc}
===========
In this work we have investigated whether it is possible to find abelian $Z_3$ orbifold configurations that are associated with an experimentally viable low-energy scenario.
This class of models provides a beautiful geometric mechanism for the generation of the fermion mass hierarchy. The Yukawa couplings are explicitly calculable, and thus a solution to the elusive flavour problem of the SM and MSSM can in principle be obtained.
We have concentrated here in $Z_3$ orbifold compactifications with two Wilson lines, which naturally include three families for fermions and Higgses. The fact that additional Yukawas are present opens the possibility of obtaining realistic fermion masses and mixings, entirely at the renormalisable level (with a key role being played by the FI breaking). We have surveyed the parameter space generated by the free orbifold parameters, and we have verified that one can find configurations that obey the EW symmetry breaking conditions, and can account for the correct quark masses and mixings.
On the other hand, having six Higgs doublets (and thus six quark Yukawa couplings) poses the potential problem of having tree-level FCNCs. By assuming simple textures for the Higgs free parameters, we have verified that the experimental data on the neutral kaon mass difference, as well as on $\Delta m_{B_d}$ and $\Delta m_{B_s}$ can be easily accommodated for a quite light Higgs spectra, namely $m_{h^0_i} \lesssim 1$ TeV. The data from the $D^0$ sector proves to be a more difficult challenge, requiring a Higgs spectrum of at least 7 TeV, but we again stress that, in view of the theoretical and experimental uncertainties associated with the $D^0$ sector, this constraint should not be over-emphasised.
CP violation can be also embedded into the low-energy theory. Although CP is a gauge symmetry of the full theory, it can be spontaneously broken at the string scale, if the VEVs of the moduli have a non-vanishing phase. We have parameterised these effects by assuming the presence of a phase in $\varepsilon_5$, and we have verified that one can also obtain a value for $\varepsilon_K$ in agreement with current experimental data.
The presence of a fairly light Higgs spectrum, composed by a total of 21 physical states, may provide abundant experimental signatures at future colliders, like the Tevatron or the LHC. In fact, flavour violating decays of the form $h_i \to q \bar q$, or $h_i \to l^+ l^-$ may provide the first clear evidence of this class of models. $Z_3$ orbifold compactifications with two Wilson lines are equally predictive regarding the lepton sector. This analysis, especially that of the neutrino sector, will be addressed in a forthcoming work [@EJMT].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of N. Escudero was supported by the “Consejería de Educación de la Comunidad de Madrid - FPI program”, and “European Social Fund”. C. Muñoz acknowledges the support of the Spanish D.G.I. of the M.E.C. under “Proyectos Nacionales” BFM2003-01266 and FPA2003-04597, and of the European Union under the RTN program MRTN-CT-2004-503369. The work of A. M. Teixeira is supported by “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia” under the grant SFRH/BPD/11509/2002, and also by “Proyectos Nacionales” BFM2003-01266. The authors are all indebted to KAIST for the hospitality extended to them during the final stages of this work, and also acknowledge the financial support of the KAIST Visitor Program.
[99]{} S. Eidelman [et al.]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], “Review of particle physics”, Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{} (2004) 1. M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, “Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations”, New J. Phys. [**6**]{} (2004) 122 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0405172\]. A. Strumia and F. Vissani, “Implications of neutrino data circa 2005”, Nucl. Phys. B [**726**]{} (2005) 294 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503246\]. G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Palazzo, “Global analysis of three-flavor neutrino masses and mixings”, arXiv:hep-ph/0506083. D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. J. Martinec and R. Rohm, “The heterotic string”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{} (1985) 502; “Heterotic string theory. 1. The free heterotic string”, Nucl. Phys. B [**256**]{} (1985) 253; “Heterotic string theory. 2. The interacting heterotic string”, Nucl. Phys. B [**267**]{} (1986) 75. L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Strings on orbifolds. 1”, Nucl. Phys. B [**261**]{} (1985) 678; “Strings on orbifolds. 2”, Nucl. Phys. B [**274**]{} (1986) 285. L. E. Ibáñez, H. P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, “Orbifolds and Wilson lines”, Phys. Lett. B [**187**]{} (1987) 25. L. E. Ibáñez, J. E. Kim, H. P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, “Orbifold compactifications with three families of $SU(3) \times SU(2)
\times U(1)^n$”, Phys. Lett. B [**191**]{} (1987) 282. D. Bailin, A. Love and S. Thomas, “A three generation orbifold compactified superstring model with realistic gauge group”, Phys. Lett. B [**194**]{} (1987) 385. L. E. Ibáñez, J. Mas, H. P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, “Heterotic strings in symmetric and asymmetric orbifold backgrounds”, Nucl. Phys. B [**301**]{} (1988) 157. J. A. Casas, E. K. Katehou and C. Muñoz, “U(1) charges in orbifolds: anomaly cancellation and phenomenological consequences”, Nucl. Phys. B [**317**]{} (1989) 171. A. Font, L. E. Ibáñez, H. P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, “Degenerate orbifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B [**310**]{} (1988) 109. J. E. Kim, “The strong CP problem in orbifold compactifications and an $SU(3)
\times SU(2) \times U(1)^n$ model”, Phys. Lett. B [**207**]{} (1988) 434. J. A. Casas and C. Muñoz, “Three generation $SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)_Y \times U(1)$ orbifold models through Fayet-Iliopoulos terms”, Phys. Lett. B [**209**]{} (1988) 214. J. A. Casas and C. Muñoz, “Three generation $SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ models from orbifolds”, Phys. Lett. B [**214**]{} (1988) 63. A. Font, L. E. Ibáñez, H. P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, “Yukawa couplings in degenerate orbifolds: towards a realistic $SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)$ superstring”, Phys. Lett. B [**210**]{} (1988) 101 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**213**]{} (1988) 564\].
J. A. Casas and C. Muñoz, “Yukawa couplings in $SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ orbifold models”, Phys. Lett. B [**212**]{} (1988) 343. J. A. Casas and C. Muñoz, “Restrictions on realistic superstring models from renormalization group equations”, Phys. Lett. B [**214**]{} (1988) 543. A. Font, L. E. Ibáñez, F. Quevedo and A. Sierra, “The construction of ’realistic’ four-dimensional strings through orbifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B [**331**]{} (1990) 421. J. A. Casas M. Mondragon and C. Muñoz, “Reducing the number of candidates to standard model in the $Z_3$ orbifold”, Phys. Lett. B [**230**]{} (1989) 63. Y. Katsuki, Y. Kawamura, T. Kobayashi, N. Ohtsubo, Y. Ono and K. Tanioka, “Z(N) orbifold models”, Nucl. Phys. B [**341**]{} (1990) 611. H. B. Kim and J. E. Kim, “An orbifold compactification with three families from twisted sectors”, Phys. Lett. B [**300**]{} (1993) 343 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9212311\]. G. Aldazabal, A. Font, L. E. Ibáñez and A. M. Uranga, “Building GUTs from strings”, Nucl. Phys. B [**341**]{} (1990) 611 \[arXiv:hep-th/9508033\]. C. Muñoz, “A kind of prediction from superstring model building”, JHEP [**0112**]{} (2001) 015 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0110381\]. S. A. Abel and C. Muñoz, “Quark and lepton masses and mixing angles from superstring constructions”, JHEP [**0302**]{} (2003) 010 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0212258\]. T. Kobayashi, S. Raby and R. J. Zhang, “Searching for realistic 4d string models with a Pati-Salam symmetry: Orbifold grand unified theories from heterotic string compactification on a Z(6) orbifold”, Nucl. Phys. B [**704**]{} (2005) 3 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0409098\]. T. Kobayashi and C. Muñoz, “More about soft terms and FCNC in realistic string constructions”, arXiv:hep-ph/0508286. W. Buchmuller, K. Hamaguchi, O. Lebedev and M. Ratz, “The supersymmetric standard model from the heterotic string”, arXiv:hep-ph/0511035. P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger and E. Witten, “Vacuum configurations for superstrings”, Nucl. Phys. B [**258**]{} (1985) 46. H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye, “Construction of four-dimensional fermionic string models”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} (1986) 1832 \[Erratum-ibid. [**58**]{} (1987) 429\]; “Construction of fermionic string models in four-dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B [**288**]{} (1987) 1. I. Antoniadis, C. P. Bachas and C. Kounnas, “Four-dimensional superstrings”, Nucl. Phys. B [**289**]{} (1987) 87. P. Horava and E. Witten, “Heterotic and type I string dynamics from eleven dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B [**460**]{} (1996) 506 \[arXiv:hep-th/9510209\]; “Eleven-dimensional supergravity on a manifold with boundary”, Nucl. Phys. B [**475**]{} (1996) 94 \[arXiv:hep-th/9603142\]. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**471**]{} (1996) 135 \[arXiv:hep-th/9602070\]. B. R. Greene, K. H. Kirklin, P. J. Miron and G. G. Ross, “A superstring inspired standard model”, Phys. Lett. B [**180**]{} (1986) 69; “A three generation superstring model. 1. Compactification and discrete symmetries”, Nucl. Phys. B [**278**]{} (1986) 667; “A three generation superstring model. 2. Symmetry breaking and the low-energy theory”, Nucl. Phys. B [**292**]{} (1987) 606. R. Donagi, Y. H. He, B. A. Ovrut and R. Reinbacher, “The spectra of heterotic standard model vacua”, JHEP [**0506**]{} (2005) 070 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411156\]. V. Braun, Y. H. He, B. A. Ovrut and T. Pantev, “A heterotic standard model”, Phys. Lett. B [**618**]{} (2005) 252 \[arXiv:hep-th/0501070\]; “A standard model from the E(8) x E(8) heterotic superstring”, JHEP [**0506**]{} (2005) 039 \[arXiv:hep-th/0502155\]; “The exact MSSM spectrum from string theory”, arXiv:hep-th/0512177. I. Antoniadis, J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin and D. V. Nanopoulos, “GUT model building with fermionic four-dimensional strings”, Phys. Lett. B [**205**]{} (1988) 459; “An improved SU(5) X U(1) model from four-dimensional string”, Phys. Lett. B [**208**]{} (1988) 209 \[Addendum-ibid. B [**213**]{} (1988) 562\]; “The flipped SU(5) X U(1) string model revamped”, Phys. Lett. B [**231**]{} (1989) 65. A. E. Faraggi, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. Yuan, “A standard like model in the 4-d free fermionic string formulation”, Nucl. Phys. B [**335**]{} (1990) 347. G. B. Cleaver, A. E. Faraggi and D. V. Nanopoulos, “String derived MSSM and M-theory unification”, Phys. Lett. B [**455**]{} (1999) 135 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9811427\]. G. B. Cleaver, A. E. Faraggi, D. V. Nanopoulos and J. W. Walker, “Phenomenology of non-Abelian flat directions in a minimal superstring standard model”, Nucl. Phys. B [**620**]{} (2002) 259 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0104091\]. S. Chaudhuri, S. W. Chung, G. Hockney and J. D. Lykken, “String consistency for unified model building”, Nucl. Phys. B [**456**]{} (1995) 89 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9501361\]. S. Chaudhuri, G. Hockney and J. D. Lykken, “Three Generations in the Fermionic Construction”, Nucl. Phys. B [**469**]{} (1996) 357 \[arXiv:hep-th/9510241\]. R. Donagi, B. A. Ovrut, T. Pantev and D. Waldram, “Standard models from heterotic M-theory”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**5**]{}, 93 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/9912208\].
E. Witten, “Some properties of O(32) superstrings”, Phys. Lett. B [**149**]{} (1984) 351. M. Dine, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Fayet-Iliopoulos terms in string theory”, Nucl. Phys. B [**289**]{} (1987) 589. J. J. Atick, L. J. Dixon and A. Sen, “String calculation of Fayet-Iliopoulos D terms in arbitrary supersymmetric compactifications”, Nucl. Phys. B [**292**]{} (1987) 109. M. Dine, I. Ichinose and N. Seiberg, “F terms and D terms in string theory”, Nucl. Phys. B [**293**]{} (1987) 253. S. Hamidi and C. Vafa, “Interactions on orbifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B [**279**]{} (1987) 465. L. J. Dixon, D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec and S. H. Shenker, “The conformal field theory of orbifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B [**282**]{} (1987) 13. L. E. Ibáñez, “Hierarchy of quark-lepton masses in orbifold superstring compactification”, Phys. Lett. B [**181**]{} (1986) 269. J. A. Casas and C. Muñoz, “Fermion masses and mixing angles: a test for string vacua”, Nucl. Phys. B [**332**]{} (1990) 189 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**340**]{} (1990) 280\]. J. A. Casas, F. Gómez and C. Muñoz, “Fitting the quark and lepton masses in string theories”, Phys. Lett. B [**292**]{} (1992) 42 \[arXiv:hep-th/9206083\]. J. A. Casas, F. Gómez and C. Muñoz, “World sheet instanton contribution to Z(7) Yukawa couplings”, Phys. Lett. B [**251**]{} (1990) 99. T. T. Burwick, R. K. Kaiser and H. F. Muller, “General Yukawa couplings of strings on Z(N) orbifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B [**355**]{} (1991) 689. T. Kobayashi and N. Ohtsubo, “Geometrical aspects of Z(N) orbifold phenomenology”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**9**]{} (1994) 87. J. A. Casas, F. Gómez and C. Muñoz, “Complete structure of Z(n) Yukawa couplings,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**8**]{} (1993) 455 \[arXiv:hep-th/9110060\]. P. Ko, T. Kobayashi and J. h. Park, “Quark masses and mixing angles in heterotic orbifold models”, Phys. Lett. B [**598**]{} (2004) 263 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406041\]. P. Ko, T. Kobayashi and J. h. Park, “Lepton masses and mixing angles from heterotic orbifold models”, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 095010 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503029\]. H. Georgi and D. V. Nanopoulos, “Suppression of flavor changing effects from neutral spinless meson exchange in gauge theories”, Phys. Lett. B [**82**]{} (1979) 95. B. McWilliams and L. F. Li, “Virtual effects of Higgs particles”, Nucl. Phys. B [**179**]{} (1981) 62. O. Shanker, “Flavor violation, scalar particles and leptoquarks”, Nucl. Phys. B [**206**]{} (1982) 253. R. A. Flores and M. Sher, “Higgs masses in the standard, multi-Higgs and supersymmetric models”, Annals Phys. [**148**]{} (1983) 95. T. P. Cheng and M. Sher, “Mass matrix ansatz and flavor nonconservation in models with multiple Higgs doublets”, Phys. Rev. D [**35**]{} (1987) 3484. J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, S. T. Petcov and F. Zwirner, “Gauginos and Higgs particles in superstring models”, Nucl. Phys. B [**283**]{} (1987) 93. M. Drees, “Supersymmetric models with extended Higgs sector,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**4**]{} (1989) 3635. K. Griest and M. Sher, “Phenomenology and cosmology of extra generations of Higgs bosons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} (1990) 135. K. Griest and M. Sher, “Phenomenology and cosmology of second and third family Higgs bosons”, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{} (1990) 3834. H. E. Haber and Y. Nir, “Multiscalar models with a high-energy scale”, Nucl. Phys. B [**335**]{} (1990) 363. M. Sher and Y. Yuan, “Rare B decays, rare tau decays and grand unification”, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{} (1991) 1461. N. V. Krasnikov, “Electroweak model with a Higgs democracy”, Phys. Lett. B [**276**]{} (1992) 127. A. Antaramian, L. J. Hall and A. Rasin, “Flavor changing interactions mediated by scalars at the weak scale”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992) 1871 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9206205\]. A. E. Nelson and L. Randall, “Naturally large tan beta”, Phys. Lett. B [**316**]{} (1993) 516 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9308277\]. M. Masip and A. Rasin, “Spontaneous CP violation in supersymmetric models with four Higgs doublets”, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 3768 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9506471\]. M. Masip and A. Rasin, “CP violation in multi-Higgs supersymmetric models”, Nucl. Phys. B [**460**]{} (1996) 449 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9508365\]. A. Aranda and M. Sher, “Generations of Higgs bosons in supersymmetric models”, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 092002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0005113\]. N. Escudero, C. Muñoz and A. M. Teixeira, “FCNCs in supersymmetric multi-Higgs doublet models”, arXiv:hep-ph/0512046. N. Escudero, F. R. Joaquim, C. Muñoz and A. M. Teixeira, work in progress.
J. Giedt, “The KM phase in semi-realistic heterotic orbifold models”, Nucl. Phys. B [**595**]{} (2001) 3 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**632**]{} (2002) 397\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/0007193\]; “CP violation and moduli stabilization in heterotic models”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**17**]{} (2002) 1465 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0204017\]. B. Acharya, D. Bailin, A. Love, W. A. Sabra and S. Thomas, “Spontaneous breaking of CP symmetry by orbifold moduli”, Phys. Lett. B [**357**]{}(1995) 387 \[arXiv:hep-th/9506143\]. D. Bailin, G. V. Kraniotis and A. Love, “CP-violating phases in the CKM matrix in orbifold compactifications”, Phys. Lett. B [**435**]{} (1998) 323 \[arXiv:hep-th/9805111\]. G. F. Giudice and A. Masiero, “A natural solution to the mu problem in supergravity theories”, Phys. Lett. B [**206**]{} (1988) 480. G. Lopes Cardoso, D. Lüst and T. Mohaupt, “Moduli spaces and target space duality symmetries in (0,2) Z(N) orbifold theories with continuous Wilson lines”, Nucl. Phys. B [**432**]{} (1994) 68 \[arXiv:hep-th/9405002\]. I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K. S. Narain and T. R. Taylor, “Effective mu term in superstring theory”, Nucl. Phys. B [**432**]{} (1994) 187 \[arXiv:hep-th/9405024\]. G. Burdman, “Potential for discoveries in charm meson physics”, arXiv:hep-ph/9508349. S. Béjar, J. Guasch and J. Solà, “Production and FCNC decay of supersymmetric Higgs bosons into heavy quarks in the LHC”, JHEP [**0510**]{} (2005) 113 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0508043\]. A. M. Curiel, M. J. Herrero, W. Hollik, F. Merz and S. Peñaranda, “SUSY - electroweak one-loop contributions to flavour-changing Higgs-boson decays”, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 075009 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312135\]. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Top flavour-changing neutral interactions: Theoretical expectations and experimental detection”, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**35**]{} (2004) 2695 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0409342\]. C. Jarlskog, “Commutator of the quark mass matrices in the standard electroweak model and a measure of maximal CP violation”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{} (1985) 1039; “A basis independent formulation of the connection between quark mass matrices, CP violation and experiment”, Z. Phys. C [**29**]{} (1985) 491.
[^1]: For convenience, we adopt a distinct notation from the one originally used in Ref. [@Abel:2002ih]. Instead of denoting the Higgs fields (and the corresponding VEVs) $H^{d,u}_i\, (v_i^{d,u})$, $i=1,2,3$, we use $H_i\, (w_i)$, $i=1,\ldots ,6$, with odd (even) cases referring to down- (up-) quark coupling Higgses.
[^2]: Actually, in Ref. [@Abel:2002ih] it is argued that it is possible to fit the entire fermion data by using only one degenerate radius. In our approach, and given the increasing accuracy in the experimental data, we allow for the more general case of three radii (and thus three moduli).\[Tifoot\]
[^3]: Note that although the $c_i$ are in general complex VEVs, they only introduce a global and therefore unphysical phase in the mass matrix. More complicated examples would in principle give rise to a contribution to the CP phase [@Abel:2002ih]. This mechanism to generate the CP phase through the VEVs of the fields cancelling the FI $D$-term was used first, in the context of non-renormalisable couplings, in Ref. [@Casas:1989qx]. For a recent analysis, see Ref. [@Giedt:2000es].\[CPfoot\]
[^4]: Regarding quark mixing, it is also possible to obtain analytical expressions (up to second order in $\varepsilon_5$) for the several CKM matrix elements, as done in Ref. [@Abel:2002ih].
[^5]: Notice that there is a misprint in these equations in Ref. [@Abel:2002ih], where in the corresponding version of Eq. (\[vev:quarkmass\]) the factor $\varepsilon_5^5$ appeared as $\varepsilon_5^2$.
[^6]: Whenever referring to a parameter whose value was estimated using the EWSB conditions, and which is a function of $\tan \beta$, we will use the designation “EWSB fit”.
[^7]: We have verified that for each of the configurations analysed in this work, we are indeed in the presence of a local minimum with respect to the neutral Higgs scalars. Not only have we imposed the conditions for an extremum, but we also verified that it was a minimum by checking that all the minors of the Hessian matrices were positive definite. In terms of the Higgs spectrum, this is reflected in the absence of charged and neutral tachyonic states. Nevertheless, we do not discard the possibility of a global minimum associated with non-vanishing VEVs for the charged components of the six Higgs doublets.
[^8]: Extended Higgs sectors with flavour violation have other interesting consequences, such as flavour violating Higgs and top-decays. For a discussion of the latter, and the associated experimental signatures at the next generation of colliders, see, for example [@Bejar:2005kv; @Curiel:2003uk; @Aguilar-Saavedra:2004wm], and references therein.
[^9]: It is worth emphasising here that the quark masses appearing in Eq. (\[vev:quarkmass\]) (and in all subsequent relations) are used on the sole purpose of obtaining an approximate determination of the VEVs. Afterwards, the actual values of $m_{q_i}$ are exactly computed.
[^10]: We recall here that $\tan \beta$ is a necessary parameter to specify the Higgs sector, which in turn is mandatory to investigate the issue of FCNCs in the present model.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Studies of the molecular interstellar medium that fuels star formation and supermassive black hole growth in galaxies at cosmological distances have undergone tremendous progress over the past few years. Based on the detection of molecular gas in $>$120 galaxies at $z$=1 to 6.4, we have obtained detailed insight on how the amount and physical properties of this material in a galaxy are connected to its current star formation rate over a range of galaxy populations. Studies of the gas dynamics and morphology at high spatial resolution allow us to distinguish between gas-rich mergers in different stages along the “merger sequence” and disk galaxies. Observations of the most massive gas-rich starburst galaxies out to $z$$>$5 provide insight into the role of cosmic environment for the early growth of present-day massive spheroidal galaxies. Large-area submillimeter surveys have revealed a rare population of extremely far-infrared-luminous gas-rich high-redshift objects, which is dominated by strongly lensed, massive starburst galaxies. These discoveries have greatly improved our understanding of the role of molecular gas in the evolution of massive galaxies through cosmic time.'
author:
- 'Dominik A. Riechers$^1$'
title: Driving the Gaseous Evolution of Massive Galaxies in the Early Universe
---
Introduction
============
Great progress has been made in studies of galaxy evolution out to high redshift over the past years, but there are a number of fundamental questions that remain to be answered. One of the most important remaining issues is to understand whether star formation and the subsequent buildup of stellar mass in galaxies at early cosmic times occurs dominantly through major mergers (e.g., Springel et al. 2005) or through a combination of minor mergers and steady, so-called “cold-mode” accretion (e.g., Dekel et al. 2009). This issue is closely connected to the question how galaxies obtain the (dominantly molecular) gas that fuels star formation, and what their gas mass fractions are. Gas mass fractions, in relation to star formation rates, determine the evolutionary state of a galaxy (e.g., Daddi et al. 2010a; Tacconi et al. 2010). Next to these more general issues, it is important to better understand the physical properties, chemical composition, and dynamics of the star-forming gas in high-$z$ galaxies, which set the initial conditions for star formation (e.g., Riechers et al. 2006a, 2008a; Weiß et al. 2007).
All of these fundamental issues are directly tied to studies of molecular gas in high redshift galaxies. Despite the great progress that has been made in this field over the past 15years, our understanding was ultimately limited by the technical capabilities of past observatories in the centimeter to submillimeter wavelength range, where the most common molecular gas diagnostics can be observed at high redshift. New observatories, such as the Atacama Large sub/Millimeter Array (ALMA) that currently nears completion, will be key to ultimately solve many of the remaining mysteries in this field. This article summarizes some of the most recent (pre-ALMA) progress in the field of molecular gas observations out to high redshift, and how the gas properties entangle with the driving mechanism of star formation in massive high redshift galaxies.
CO Detections at High Redshift: a Brief Summary
===============================================
To date, molecular gas (most commonly CO) has been detected in $>$120 galaxies at $z$$>$1 (see reviews by Solomon & Vanden Bout 2005; Omont 2007; Fig. 1), back to only 870million years after the Big Bang (corresponding to $z$=6.42; e.g., Walter et al. 2003, 2004; Bertoldi et al. 2003; Riechers et al. 2009). The bulk of these galaxies are massive, hosting molecular gas reservoirs of $M_{\rm
gas}$$>$10$^{10}$$M_\odot$, commonly with high gas fractions of (at least) tens of per cent. The sensitivity of past observatories has only allowed us to probe less massive and/or less gas-rich systems with the aid of strong gravitational lensing (e.g., Baker et al. 2004; Coppin et al. 2007; Riechers et al. 2010a, 2011a; Swinbank et al. 2010, 2011).
Approximately 20% of the detected systems are massive, gas-rich optically/near-infrared selected star forming galaxies (SFGs; e.g., Daddi et al. 2010a; Tacconi et al. 2010), and 30% each are far-infrared-luminous, star-bursting quasars (QSOs; e.g., Wang et al. 2010; Riechers 2011b) and submillimeter galaxies (SMGs; e.g., Greve et al. 2005; Tacconi et al. 2008; Fig. 1). The rest of CO-detected high-redshift galaxies are limited samples of galaxies selected through a variety of techniques, such as Extremely Red Objects (EROs), Star-Forming Radio-selected Galaxies (SFRGs), 24$\mu$m-selected galaxies, gravitationally lensed Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs), and radio galaxies (RGs; see Riechers 2011a for a recent summary).
Besides CO, the high-density gas tracers HCN, HCO$^+$, HNC, CN, and H$_2$O were detected towards a small subsample of these galaxies (e.g., Solomon et al. 2003; Riechers et al. 2006b, 2007, 2010b, 2011b; Guelin et al. 2007; Omont et al. 2011).
Luminosity Relations and the Star Formation Law
===============================================
The CO luminosity $L'_{\rm CO}$ is commonly considered to be a measure for the total molecular gas mass $M_{\rm gas}$ in galaxies, and the far-infrared (FIR) luminosity $L_{\rm FIR}$ is considered to be a measure for the star formation rate (SFR; e.g., Solomon & Vanden Bout 2005). Thus, the relation between $L'_{\rm CO}$ or $M_{\rm gas}$ and $L_{\rm FIR}$ or SFR may be considered a spatially integrated version of the Schmidt-Kennicutt “star formation law” between gas surface density and star formation rate surface density (e.g., Kennicutt 1998).
Even in galaxies with luminous active galactic nuclei (AGN), $L_{\rm
FIR}$ is commonly used as a proxy for the star formation rate in the host galaxy. In principle, both the AGN and star formation can heat the dust that gives rise to the continuum flux observed in the FIR, but the characteristic dust temperatures of AGN heating are typically by a factor of a few higher than those of dust heated by young stars. Thus, the warm dust in AGN-starburst systems observed in the rest-frame FIR is commonly thought to be dominated by heating within the host galaxy, in particular in the most intense, dust-enshrouded starbursts. If, however, $L_{\rm FIR}$ were to be dominated by the AGN, one would expect an elevated $L_{\rm FIR}$ for such galaxies in the $L'_{\rm CO}$–$L_{\rm FIR}$ relation. In Figure 2 (right panel), a comparison of the $L'_{\rm CO}$–$L_{\rm FIR}$ relation for nearby and high-$z$ quasars to nearby galaxies, (ultra-)luminous infrared galaxies ((U)LIRGs) and SMGs without dominant AGN is shown (Riechers 2011b). For galaxies with low $L'_{\rm CO}$, there is an indication for an excess in $L_{\rm FIR}$ for quasars relative to other systems; however, there is no evidence for such a trend at high $L'_{\rm
CO}$. This may suggest that, in systems with relatively low gas and dust content, AGN contribute significantly to $L_{\rm FIR}$, but not in systems with high gas and dust content. Thus, for massive high-redshift galaxies, $L_{\rm FIR}$ appears to be a good proxy for the SFR, even in quasars (Riechers 2011b).
Beyond the issue of dust heating, the question occurs if star formation progresses the same way in all types of galaxies. In disk-like spiral galaxies like the Milky Way, star formation takes place in molecular clouds with compact, dense cores, confined by self gravity (e.g., Solomon et al. 1987). In mergers, such as the Antennae (NGC4038/39; Fig. 3), the gas and star formation appear to peak on the galaxy nuclei, but also on relatively large scales in the dense overlap region between the merging galaxies, leading to the formation of so-called super star clusters (e.g., Wilson et al. 2003). Such constellations are also commonly found in the highest-resolution CO studies of high-redshift FIR-luminous massive galaxies (Fig. 3; e.g., Riechers et al. 2008a, 2008b). In the nuclei of ULIRGs, the most extreme nearby starbursts, star formation appears to occur in a dense, intercloud medium, bound by the potential of the galaxy, rather than in virialized clouds (e.g., Downes & Solomon 1998). The differences between starburst and disk galaxies are reflected in the star formation law. When comparing the $M_{\rm gas}$–$L_{\rm IR}$ relation for three largest CO-detected samples at high $z$, i.e., quasars, SMGs, and SFGs, to low redshift galaxies, two interesting trends occur. First, SFGs extend the relation found for nearby spiral galaxies to higher $M_{\rm gas}$. Second, quasars and SMGs extend the trend found for the most intense nearby starbursts and ULIRGs to higher $M_{\rm gas}$. Both trends agree with the same slope, but are offset by 1.1dex in $L_{\rm IR}$. Daddi et al. (2010b) interpret this as evidence for two sequences in this relation for disk galaxies and starbursts, which emerge from the different dynamical timescales of star formation in these systems (Fig. 2, left; see also Genzel et al. 2010). Recent theoretical studies have attempted to understand the different trends based on the underlying conversion factor, $\alpha_{\rm CO}$, from $L'_{\rm CO}$ to $M_{\rm gas}$, and find that the two sequences could only be unified to a single relation when assuming a broad continuum of conversion factors (e.g., Narayanan 2012, this volume).
Gas Dynamics: A “Merger Sequence” of High Redshift Galaxies
===========================================================
The advent of the Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA)[^1] has recently enabled studies of the full gas content, distribution and dynamics of different populations of high-redshift galaxies through observations of CO($J$=1$\to$0) emission (e.g., Riechers et al. 2010a, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e; Ivison et al. 2011). In contrast to previous studies at shorter wavelengths in higher rotational lines of CO, observations of CO $J$=1$\to$0 trace the full amount and extent of the molecular gas, and can be more directly compared to observations in the nearby universe, which are most commonly undertaken in CO $J$=1$\to$0.
One particular aspect of these studies is that they provide deeper insight into the mechanisms that are driving the conversion of gas into stellar mass in the most intensely star-forming galaxies at early cosmic times, such as SMGs. It has been argued in the past that most SMGs are major mergers of two gas-rich galaxies (e.g., Tacconi et al. 2008; Engel et al. 2010). Detailed studies of CO($J$=1$\to$0) emission with the EVLA confirm this picture, and show a range in merger properties and stages (e.g., Riechers et al. 2011c, 2011d; Fig. 4). Indeed, it becomes possible to place SMGs along a “merger sequence” of high redshift galaxies, ranging from systems with two disk-like gas-rich galaxies that are separated by tens of kiloparsec in projection and several hundreds kms$^{-1}$ in velocity over actively merging systems with a single, morphologically and dynamically complex gas distribution to systems that have almost reached coalescence. These early investigations demonstrate that studies of larger samples at higher spatial resolution with the fully upgraded EVLA in the future will allow us to distinguish between different galaxy populations based on the physical properties of their interstellar media. This will yield a more complete understanding of the processes that trigger star formation and black hole activity in the early universe, and their relative importance for the buildup of stellar mass in galaxies as seen at present day.
Cosmic Environments of Massive Starbursts at Very High Redshift
===============================================================
Recent studies have led to the discovery of the long sought-after high-redshift tail of SMGs at $z$$>$4 (e.g., Capak et al. 2008; Daddi et al. 2009). SMGs at the highest redshifts are of particular interest, as they trace some of the most massive and active systems at early cosmic times. In cosmological simulations, such systems are expected to grow in the rare, most overdense regions in the early universe (e.g., Springel et al. 2005). Thus, very high-$z$ SMGs may trace the most distant proto-cluster regions in the universe, which have the potential to grow into the most massive cosmic structures seen at present day. Indeed, following the discovery of a SMG at an unprecedented redshift of $z$=5.298, observational evidence has recently been found for this mode of structure formation in the early universe (Capak et al. 2011; Riechers et al. 2010c; Fig. 5). Deep imaging and spectroscopy of its cosmic environment as part of the Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS) reveals a high overdensity of Lyman-break galaxies at similar redshifts within a co-moving volume of 2Mpc radius around the SMG. The structure of the central proto-cluster encompasses a halo mass of $>$4$\times$10$^{11}$M$_\odot$, which would be consistent with what is expected for the early formation of a present-day galaxy cluster. Clearly, future discovery and studies of SMGs at comparable and higher redshifts are desirable to determine the fraction of the first massive starbursts that are associated with such galaxy overdensities, as necessary to study the effects of environment on galaxy formation within a more general cosmological context.
Herschel: The Lensing Revolution
================================
One of the most intriguing recent discoveries made by the [ *Herschel Space Observatory*]{} is the identification of a rare population of extremely luminous high-redshift starburst galaxies at submillimeter wavelengths ($S_{500\mu m}$$>$100mJy; e.g., Negrello et al. 2010). This population far exceeds the expected number counts of SMGs at the bright end, and is dominated by gravitationally lensed SMGs. This discovery is interesting, because it allows for a very efficient selection of gravitational lenses based on a flux density measurement alone (after rejection of low-redshift contaminants). Also, the natural magnification in size and flux density provided by gravitational lensing have enabled new techniques to better understand the SMG population itself. First, the high expected CO emission line fluxes, paired with recent spectral bandwidth upgrades of radio/millimeter observatories, have yielded a significant number of “blind” CO detections in these and similar sources without any prior constraints on their redshifts (e.g., Riechers 2011b; Frayer et al. 2011; Cox et al. 2011; Harris et al. 2012; Lupu et al. 2012). Second, high-resolution CO imaging studies, in combination with detailed lens modeling, allow us to probe down to structure sizes that would remain inaccessible with current-generation instruments without the aid of gravitational lensing (e.g., Fig. 6; Riechers et al. 2011a; Swinbank et al. 2011; see also Riechers et al. 2008a). Only ALMA will match the sensitivity and resolution of these studies in unlensed galaxies, and will even allow us to probe down to individual molecular cloud scales in lensed systems.
Summary and Outlook
===================
Studies of the molecular interstellar medium in galaxies at cosmological distances have shown great progress in the past few years. These advances were possible due to a combination of improved selection techniques to identify gas-rich galaxies in the early universe and major improvements in instrumentation, which have enabled studies of less extreme galaxy populations than previously possible, and have liberated high redshift molecular line studies from the prerequisite of a precise spectroscopic redshift obtained through other measures (which were a major selection bias in the past). The most recent studies thus finally probe beyond the “tip of the iceberg” of the most far-infrared-luminous galaxies with optical spectroscopic redshifts that were the focus of molecular line studies at high $z$ in the past. These observations also offer a “sneak peek” into the detailed investigations of the physical properties of galaxies at early cosmic times that will become possible with ALMA, once it commences full science operations.
I would like to thank the organizers of “Galaxy Mergers in an Evolving Universe” for the invitation to this diverse and stimulating conference. Also, I would like to thank my collaborators on studies related to this subject, in particular Frank Bertoldi, Peter Capak, Chris Carilli, Asantha Cooray, Pierre Cox, Emanuele Daddi, Roberto Neri, Nick Scoville, Fabian Walter, and Ran Wang. I acknowledge support from NASA through a [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{} grant.\
Baker, A. J., Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Lehnert, M. D., & Lutz, D, 2004, ApJ, 604, 125
Bertoldi, F., et al. 2003, A&A, 409, L47
Capak, P. L., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, L53
Capak, P. L., et al. 2011, Nature, 470, 233
Coppin, K. E. K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 936
Cox, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 63
Daddi, E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1517
Daddi, E., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 713, 686
Daddi, E., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 714, L118
Dekel, A., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451
Downes, D., & Solomon, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615
Engel, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 233
Frayer, D. T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, L22
Gavazzi, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 125
Genzel, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2091
Greve, T. R., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1165
Guelin, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 462, L45
Harris, A. I., et al. 2012, ApJ, submitted
Ivison, R. J., et al.2011, MNRAS, 412, 1913
Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541
Lupu, R. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:1009.5983)
Narayanan, D. 2012, ASPC, this volume
Negrello, M., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 800
Omont, A. 2007, RPPh, 70, 1099
Omont, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, L3
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 650, 604
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 645, L13
Riechers, D. A., et al.2007, ApJ, 666, 778
Riechers, D. A., et al.2008a, ApJ, 686, 851
Riechers, D. A., Walter, F., Carilli, C. L., Bertoldi, F., & Momjian, E. 2008b, ApJ, 686, L9
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1338
Riechers, D. A., Carilli, C. L., Walter, F., & Momjian, E. 2010a, ApJ, 724, L153
Riechers, D. A., Weiß, A., Walter, F., & Wagg, J. 2010b, ApJ, 725, 1032
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2010c, ApJ, 720, L131
Riechers, D. A. 2011a, ASPC, 446, 355
Riechers, D. A. 2011b, ApJ, 730, 108
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 733, L12
Riechers, D. A., et al.2011b, ApJ, 726, 50
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2011c, ApJ, 733, L11
Riechers, D. A., Hodge, J., Walter, F., Carilli, C. L., & Bertoldi, F. 2011d, ApJ, 739, L31
Riechers, D. A., et al. 2011e, ApJ, 739, L32
Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730
Solomon, P., Vanden Bout, P., Carilli, C., & Guelin, M. 2003, Nature, 426, 636
Solomon, P. M., & Vanden Bout, P. A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 677
Springel, V., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629
Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2010, Nature, 464, 733
Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 11
Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 246
Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 781
Walter, F., et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 406
Walter, F., et al.2004, ApJ, 615, L17
Wang, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 699
Weiß, A., et al.2007, A&A, 467, 955
Wilson, C. D., Scoville, N., Madden, S. C., & Charmandaris, V. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1049
[^1]: The Expanded Very Large Array was recently re-named to the Jansky VLA.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Many applications of computational fluid dynamics require multiple simulations of a flow under different input conditions. In this paper, a numerical algorithm is developed to efficiently determine a set of such simulations in which the individually independent members of the set are subject to different viscosity coefficients, initial conditions, and/or body forces. The proposed scheme applied to the flow ensemble leads to need to solve a single linear system with multiple right-hand sides, and thus is computationally more efficient than solving for all the simulations separately. We show that the scheme is nonlinearly and long-term stable under certain conditions on the time-step size and a parameter deviation ratio. Rigorous numerical error estimate shows the scheme is of first-order accuracy in time and optimally accurate in space. Several numerical experiments are presented to illustrate the theoretical results.'
author:
- 'Max Gunzburger[^1]'
- 'Nan Jiang[^2]'
- 'Zhu Wang[^3]'
title: |
An efficient algorithm for simulating\
ensembles of parameterized flow problems
---
Navier-Stokes equations, ensemble simulations, ensemble method
Introduction
============
Numerical simulations of incompressible viscous flows have important applications in engineering and science. In this paper, we consider settings in which one wishes to obtain solutions for several different values of the physical parameters and several different choices for the forcing functions appearing in the partial differential equation (PDE) model. For example, in building low-dimensional surrogates for the PDE solution such as sparse-grid interpolants or proper orthogonal decomposition approximations, one has to first determine expensive approximation of solutions corresponding to several values of the parameters. Sensitivity analysis of solutions is setting in which one often has to determine approximate solutions for several parameter values and/or forcing functions. An important third example is quantifying the uncertainties of outputs from the model equations. Mathematical models should take into account the uncertainties invariably present in the specification of physical parameters and/or forcing functions appearing in the model equations. For flow problems, because the viscosity of the liquid or gas often depends on the temperature, an inaccurate measurement of the temperature would introduce some uncertainty into the viscosity of the flow. Direct measurements of the viscosity using flow meters and measurements of the state of the system are also prone to uncertainties. Of course, forcing functions, e.g., initial condition data, can and usually are also subject to uncertainty. In such cases, due to the lack of of exact information, stochastic modeling is used to describe flows subject to a random viscosity coefficient and/or random forcing. Subsequently, numerical methods are employed to quantify the uncertainties in system output. It is known that uncertainty quantification (UQ), when a random sampling method such as Monte Carlo method is used, could be computationally expensive for large-scale problems because each individual realization requires a large-scale computation but on the other hand, many realizations may be needed in order to obtain accurate statistical information about the outputs of interest. Therefore, for all the examples discussed and for many others, how to design efficient algorithms for performing multiple numerical simulations becomes a matter of great interest.
The ensemble method which forms the basis for our approach was proposed in [@JL14]; there, a set of $J$ solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) with distinct initial conditions and forcing terms is considered. All solutions are found, at each time step, by solving a linear system with one shared coefficient matrix and $J$ right-hand sides (RHS), reducing both the storage requirements and computational costs of the solution process. The algorithm of [@JL14] is first-order accurate in time; it is extended to higher-order accurate schemes in [@J15; @J16]. Ensemble regularization methods are developed in [@J15; @JL15; @TNW16] for high Reynolds number flows, and a turbulence model based on ensemble averaging is developed in [@JKL15]. The ensemble algorithm has also been extended to simulate MHD flows in [@MR16]. Ensemble algorithms incorporating reduced-order modeling techniques are studied in [@GJS16a; @GJS16b]. It is worth mentioning that all the ensemble algorithms developed so far can only deal with simulations subject to different initial conditions and/or body forces, but not other model parameters.
In this paper, we develop a numerical scheme for ensemble-based simulations of the NSE in which not only the initial data and body force function, but also the [*viscosity coefficient*]{}, may vary from one ensemble member to another. Specifically, we consider a set of $J$ NSE simulations on a bounded domain subject to no-slip boundary conditions for which, for $j=1,\ldots,J$, an individual member solves the system $$\label{eq:NSE}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_{j,t}+u_{j}\cdot\nabla u_{j}-\nu_j\triangle u_{j}+\nabla p_{j} &=& f_{j}(x,t) \quad &\text{ in }\Omega\times [0, \infty) \\
\nabla\cdot u_{j} &=& 0 \quad &\text{ in }\Omega \times [0, \infty) \\
u_{j} &=& 0 \quad &\text{ on }\partial\Omega\\
u_{j}(x,0) &=& u_{j}^{0}(x) \quad & \text{ in }\Omega
\end{array}\right.,$$ which corresponds, for each $j$, to a different viscosity coefficient $\nu_j$ and/or distinct initial data $u_{j}^{0}$ and/or body forces $f_{j}$.
Due to the nonlinear convection term, implicit and semi-implicit schemes are invariably used for time integration. For a semi-implicit scheme, the associated discrete linear systems would be different for each individually independent simulation, i.e., for each $j$. As a result, at each time step, $J$ linear systems need to be solved to determine the ensemble, resulting in a huge computational effort. For a fully implicit scheme, the situation is even worse because one would have to solve many more linear systems due to the nonlinear solver iteration. To tackle this issue, we propose a novel discretization scheme that results, at each time step, in a common coefficient matrix for all the ensemble members.
The ensemble-based semi-implicit scheme
---------------------------------------
For clarity, we temporarily suppress the spatial discretization and only consider the ensemble-based implicit-explicit temporal integration scheme $$\label{First-Order}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t}+\overline{u}^{n}\cdot\nabla u_{j}^{n+1}
+(u_{j}^{n}-\overline{u}^{n})\cdot\nabla u_{j}^{n} +\nabla p_{j}^{n+1}\qquad\\
-\overline{\nu}\Delta u_{j}^{n+1}-\left(\nu_j-\overline{\nu}\right)\Delta u_{j}^{n}&=f_{j}^{n+1}\\
\nabla\cdot u_{j}^{n+1}&=0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $\overline{u}^{n}$ and $\overline{\nu}$ are the ensemble means of the velocity and viscosity coefficient, respectively, defined as $$\overline{u}^{n}:=\frac{1}{J}\sum_{j=1}^{J}u_{j}^{n} \qquad \text{and}\qquad \overline{\nu}:=\frac{1}{J}\sum_{j=1}^{J}\nu_{j}.$$ After rearranging the system, we have, at time $t_{n+1}$, $$\label{First-Order-2}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\Delta t}u_{j}^{n+1}+\overline{u}^{n}\cdot\nabla u_{j}^{n+1}
&-\overline{\nu}\Delta u_{j}^{n+1}+\nabla p_{j}^{n+1}\\
&= f_{j}^{n+1}+ \frac{1}{\Delta t}u_{j}^{n} -(u_{j}^{n}-\overline{u}^{n})\cdot\nabla u_{j}^{n}+\left(\nu_j-\overline{\nu}\right)\Delta u_{j}^{n} \\
\nabla\cdot u_{j}^{n+1}&=0.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ It is clear that the coefficient matrix of the resulting linear system will be independent of $j$. Thus, for the flow ensemble, to advance all members of the ensemble one time step, we need only solve a single linear system with $J$ right-hand sides. Compared with solving $J$ individually independent simulations, this approach used with a block solver such as a block generalized CG method [@FOP95; @O80] is much more efficient and significantly reduces the required storage. When the size of the ensemble becomes huge, it can be subdivided into $p$ sub-ensembles so as to balance memory, communication, and computational costs and then can be applied to each sub-ensemble.
The rest of this section is devoted to establishing notation and to providing other preliminary information. Then, in §\[sec:stab\], we prove a conditional stability result for a fully discrete finite element discretization of . In §\[sec:err\], we derive an error estimate for the fully-discrete approximation. Results of the preliminary numerical simulations that illustrate the theoretical results are given in §\[sec:num\] and §\[sec:con\] provides some concluding remarks.
Notation and preliminaries
--------------------------
Let $\Omega$ denote an open, regular domain in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ for $d=2$ or $3$ having boundary denoted by $\partial\Omega$. The $L^{2}(\Omega)$ norm and inner product are denoted by $\|\cdot\|$ and $(\cdot, \cdot)$, respectively. The $L^{p}(\Omega)$ norms and the Sobolev $W^{k}_{p}(\Omega)$ norms are denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{L^{p}}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{W_{p}^{k}}$, respectively. The Sobolev space $W_{2}^{k}(\Omega)$ is simply denoted by $H^{k}(\Omega)$ and its norm by $\|\cdot\|_{k}$. For functions $v(x,t)$ defined on $(0,T)$, we define, for $1\leq m<\infty$, $$\| v \|_{\infty,k} \text{ }:=EssSup_{[0,T]}\| v(\cdot, t)\|_{k}\qquad \text{and}\qquad \|v\|_{m,k} \text{ }:= \Big( \int_{0}^{T}\|v(\cdot, t)\|_{k}^{m}\, dt\Big)
^{1/m} \text{ .}$$ Given a time step $\Delta t$, associated discrete norms are defined as $${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert v
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{\infty,k}=\max\limits_{0\leq n\leq N}\Vert v^{n}\Vert_{k} \qquad \text{and}\qquad
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert v
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{m,k}:= \Big(\sum_{n=0}^{N}||v^{n}||_{k}^{m}\Delta t\Big)^{1/m},$$ where $v^n=v(t_n)$ and $t_n=n\Delta t$. Denote by $H^{-1}(\Omega)$ the dual space of bounded linear functions on $H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)=\{v\in H^{1}\,:\, v=0 \,\mbox{on $\partial\Omega$}\}$; a norm on $H^{-1}(\Omega)$ is given by $$\|f\|_{-1}=\sup_{0\neq v\in H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)}\frac{(f,v)}{\Vert\nabla v\Vert}
\text{ .}$$
The velocity space $X$ and pressure space $Q$ are given by $$X:=[H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)]^{d} \qquad \text{and}\qquad Q:=L_{0}^{2}(\Omega)=\{q\in L^2(\Omega)\,\,:\,\, \int_\Omega q\, d\Omega =0\},$$ respectively. The space of weakly divergence free functions is $$V\text{ }:=\{v\in X\,\,:\,\, (\nabla\cdot v,q)=0\,\,\forall q\in Q\} .$$
A weak formulation of (\[eq:NSE\]) reads: for $j=1,\ldots,J$, find $u_j: \,[0,T]\rightarrow X$ and $p_j:\, [0,T]\rightarrow Q$ for a.e. $t\in(0,T]$ satisfying $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
(u_{j,t},v)+(u_{j}\cdot\nabla u_{j},v)+\nu_j(\nabla u_{j},\nabla v)-(p_{j},\nabla\cdot v) &= (f_{j},v) &\forall v\in X \\
(\nabla\cdot u_{j},q) &= 0 &\forall q\in Q
\end{aligned}\right.$$ with $u_{j}(x,0)=u_{j}^{0}(x)$.
Our analysis is based on a finite element method (FEM) for spatial discretization. However, the results also extend, without much difficulty, to other variational discretization methods. Let $X_{h}\subset X$ and $Q_{h}\subset Q$ denote families of conforming velocity and pressure finite element spaces on regular subdivision of $\Omega$ into simplicies; the family is parameterized by the maximum diameter $h$ of any of the simplicies. Assume that the pair of spaces $(X_h,Q_h)$ satisfy the discrete inf-sup (or $LBB_h$) condition required for the stability of the finite element approximation and that the finite element spaces satisfy the approximation properties $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{v_h\in X_h}\| v- v_h \|&\leq C h^{k+1}\Vert u \Vert_{k+1} &\forall v\in [H^{k+1}(\Omega)]^d \label{Interp1}\\
\inf_{v_h\in X_h}\| \nabla ( v- v_h )\|&\leq C h^k \Vert v\Vert_{k+1}&\forall v\in [H^{k+1}(\Omega)]^d \label{interp2}\\
\inf_{q_h\in Q_h}\| q- q_h \|&\leq C h^{s+1}\Vert p\Vert_{s+1} &\forall q\in H^{s+1}(\Omega), \label{interp3}\end{aligned}$$ where the generic constant $C>0$ is independent of mesh size $h$. An example for which the $LBB_h$ stability condition and the approximation properties are satisfied is the family of Taylor-Hood $P^{s+1}$–$P^{s}$, $s\geq 2$, element pairs. For details concerning finite element methods see [@Cia02] and see [@GR79; @GR86; @Max89; @Layton08] for finite element methods for the Navier-Stokes equations.
The discretely divergence free subspace of $X_{h}$ is defined as $$V_{h}\text{ }:=\{v_{h}\in X_{h}\,\,:\,\,(\nabla\cdot v_{h},q_{h})=0\quad\forall
q_{h}\in Q_{h}\}.$$ Note that, in general, $V_h\not\subset V$. We assume the mesh and finite element spaces satisfy the standard inverse inequality $$\label{inverse}
h\Vert\nabla v_{h}\Vert \leq C_{(inv)}\Vert v_{h}\Vert.
\qquad\forall v_{h}\in X_{h}$$ that is known to hold for standard finite element spaces with locally quasi-uniform meshes [@BS08]. We also define the standard explicitly skew-symmetric trilinear form $$b^{\ast}(u,v,w):=\frac{1}{2}(u\cdot\nabla v,w)-\frac{1}{2}(u\cdot\nabla w,v)$$ that satisfies the bounds [@Layton08] $$\begin{gathered}
b^{\ast}(u,v,w)\leq C \left(\Vert \nabla u\Vert\Vert u\Vert\right)^{1/2}\Vert\nabla v\Vert\Vert\nabla
w \Vert \quad \forall\, u, v, w \in X \label{In1}\\
b^{\ast}(u,v,w)\leq C \Vert \nabla u\Vert\Vert\nabla v\Vert\left(\Vert\nabla
w \Vert\Vert w\Vert\right)^{1/2} \quad \forall\, u, v, w \in X .\label{In2}\end{gathered}$$ We also denote the exact and approximate solutions at $t=t^n$ as $u_{j}^{n}$ and $u_{j, h}^{n}$, respectively.
Stability analysis {#sec:stab}
==================
The fully-discrete finite element discretization of (\[First-Order\]) is given as follows. Given $u_{j,h}^{0}\in X_{h}$, for $n=0,1,\ldots,N-1$, find $u_{j,h}^{n+1}\in X_{h}$ and $p_{j,h}^{n+1}\in Q_{h}$ satisfying $$\label{First-Order-h}
\hspace{-3mm}\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\Big(\frac{u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}}{\Delta t},v_{h}\Big)+b^{\ast}(\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1},v_{h})+b^{\ast}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n}, v_{h})-(p_{j,h}^{n+1},\nabla\cdot v_{h})\\
&\qquad\qquad+\overline{\nu}(\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1},\nabla
v_{h})+\left(\nu_j-\overline{\nu}\right)(\nabla u_{j,h}^{n},\nabla
v_{h})=(f_{j}^{n+1},v_{h})\quad \forall v_{h}\in X_{h}\\
&\big(\nabla\cdot u_{j,h}^{n+1},q_{h}\big)=0 \quad\forall q_{h}\in Q_{h}.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ We begin by proving the conditional, nonlinear, long-time stability of the scheme (\[First-Order-h\]) under a time-step condition and a parameter deviation condition.
\[th:First-Order\] For all $j= 1, \ldots, J$, if for some $\mu$, $0\leq\mu<1$, and some $\epsilon$, $0< \epsilon\leq 2-2\sqrt{\mu}$, the following time-step condition and parameter deviation condition both hold $$\begin{aligned}
C\frac{\Delta t}{\overline{\nu} h}\left\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\right\Vert^{2}
&\leq \frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)} ,
\label{ineq:CFL-h1}
\\
\frac{|\nu_j -\overline{\nu}| }{\overline{\nu}} &\leq \sqrt{\mu},
\label{ineq:CFL-h2}\end{aligned}$$ then, the scheme is nonlinearly, long time stable. In particular, for $j= 1, \ldots, J$ and for any $N\geq1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\|u_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\|u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\|^{2}
+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)
\|\nabla u_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}\\
&\qquad\leq\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\frac{\Delta t}{\overline{\nu}}\|f_{j}^{n+1}\|_{-1}^{2}+ \frac{1}{2}\|u_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}
+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla u_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof is given in Appendix \[proofa1\].
It is seen from that the upper bound in the time-step condition increases as $\epsilon$ decreases. As $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, the bound approaches $1-\sqrt{\mu}$. Because the upper bound for the relative deviation of viscosity coefficient in is bounded by $\sqrt{\mu}$, the two stability conditions are oppositional to each other.
Noting that the condition only depends on known quantities such as the solution at $t_n$ and that the scheme is a one-step method, can be used to adapt $\triangle t$ in order to guarantee the stability for the ensemble simulations.
Error Analysis\[sec:err\]
=========================
In this section, we give a detailed error analysis of the proposed method under the same type of time-step condition (with possibly different constant $C$ on the left hand side of the inequality) and the same parameter deviation condition. Assuming that $X_{h}$ and $Q_{h}$ satisfy the $LBB^{h}$ condition, the scheme is equivalent to: Given $u_{j,h}^{0}\in V_{h}$, for $n=0,1,\ldots,N-1$, find $u_{j,h}^{n+1}\in V_{h}$ such that $$\label{eq: conv}
\begin{aligned}
&\Big(\frac{u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}}{\Delta t},v_{h}\Big)+b^{\ast}(\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1},v_{h})+b^{\ast}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}
^{n},v_{h})\\
&\quad+\overline{\nu}(\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h})+\left(\nu_j-\overline{\nu}\right)(\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h})=(f_{j}^{n+1},v_{h})\quad\forall
v_{h}\in V_{h}.
\end{aligned}$$ To analyze the rate of convergence of the approximation, we assume that the following regularity for the exact solutions: $$\begin{gathered}
u_{j} \in L^{\infty}(0,T;H^{k+1}(\Omega))\cap H^{1}(0,T;H^{k+1}(\Omega))\cap
H^{2}(0,T;L^{2}(\Omega)),\\
p_{j} \in L^{2}(0,T;H^{s+1}(\Omega))\quad \text{and}\quad f_{j} \in L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}(\Omega)).\end{gathered}$$ Let $e_{j}^{n}=u_{j}^{n}-u_{j,h}^{n}$ denote the approximation error of the $j$-th simulation at the time instance $t_n$. We then have the following error estimates.
\[th:errBEFE-Ensemble\] For all $j= 1, \ldots, J$, if for some $\mu$, $0\leq\mu<1$, and some $\epsilon$, $0< \epsilon\leq 2-2\sqrt{\mu}$, the following time-step condition and parameter deviation condition both hold $$\begin{aligned}
C\frac{\Delta t}{\overline{\nu} h}\left\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\right\Vert^{2}
&\leq \frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)} ,\label{conv1}
\\
\frac{|\nu_j -\overline{\nu}| }{\overline{\nu}} &\leq \sqrt{\mu},\label{conv2}\end{aligned}$$ then, there exists a positive constant $C$ independent of the time step such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}&\Vert e_{j}^{N}\Vert^{2}
+ \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla e_{j}^{N}\Vert^{2}\\
&\qquad+\frac{1}{15} \frac{\epsilon} {\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}( 1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu} \Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla e_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
\\
&\leq e^{\frac{CT}{\overline{\nu}^{3}}}
\Big\{\frac{1}{2}\Vert e_{j}^{0}\Vert^{2}
+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla e_{j}^{0}\Vert^{2}
\\
&\quad+C\Delta t^2\frac{\vert \nu_j -\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}+C\overline{\nu}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
+C\frac{\vert \nu_j - \overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
\\
&\quad+Ch^{2k+1}\Delta t^{-1}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}+C h \Delta t {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0} + C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
\\
&\quad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^2{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^4_{4, k+1}+C\nu^{-1}h^{2k}
\\
&\quad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} h^{2s+2}\Vert|p_{j}|\Vert_{2,s+1}^{2}+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} h^{2k+2}\Vert|u_{j,t}|\Vert_{2,k+1}^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^{2}\Vert|u_{j,tt}|\Vert_{2,0}^{2}\Big\}
\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2}h^{2k+2}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{\infty, k+1}^2
+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\overline{\nu}\Delta t {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{\infty, k+1}^2\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{15} \frac{\epsilon} {\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}( 1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu} h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof is given in Appendix \[proofa2\].
In particular, when Taylor-Hood elements ($k=2$, $s=1$) are used, i.e., the $C^{0}$ piecewise-quadratic velocity space $X_{h}$ and the $C^{0}$ piecewise-linear pressure space $Q_{h}$, we have the following estimate.
Assume that $\Vert e_{j}^{0}\Vert$ and $\Vert\nabla e_j^0\Vert$ are both $O(h)$ accurate or better. Then, if $(X_{h},Q_{h})$ is chosen as the $(P_2, P_1)$ Taylor-Hood element pair, we have $$\frac{1}{2}\Vert e_{j}^{N}\Vert^{2}
+\frac{1}{15} \frac{\epsilon} {\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}\Big( 1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\Big)\overline{\nu} \Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla
e_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
\leq C (h^2 + \Delta t^2 +h \Delta t)\text{ .}$$
Numerical experiments {#sec:num}
=====================
In this section, we illustrate the effectiveness of our proposed method and the associated theoretical analyses in §\[sec:stab\] and §\[sec:err\] by considering two examples: a Green-Taylor vortex problem and a flow between two offset cylinders. The first problem has a known exact solution that is used to illustrate the error analysis. The second example does not have an analytic solution but has complex flow structures; it is used to check the stability analysis.
The Green-Taylor vortex problem
-------------------------------
The Green-Taylor vortex flow is commonly used for testing convergence rates, e.g., see [@BBG07; @B05; @Cho68; @JT15; @JL02; @JT15; @Tafti]. The Green-Taylor vortex solution given by $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=-\cos(\omega\pi x)\sin(\omega\pi y)e^{-2\omega^{2}\pi^{2}t/\tau
}\nonumber\\
& v(x,y,t)=\sin(\omega\pi x)\cos(\omega\pi y)e^{-2\omega^{2}\pi^{2}t/\tau
}\label{eq:GreenTaylorVortex}\\
& p(x,y,t)=-\frac{1}{4}(\cos(2\omega\pi x)+\cos(2\omega\pi y))e^{-4\omega
^{2}\pi^{2}t/\tau} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ satisfies the NSE in $\Omega=(0,1)^{2}$ for $\tau=Re$ and initial condition $$u^{0}=\big(-\cos(\omega\pi x)\sin(\omega\pi y), \sin(\omega\pi x)\cos(\omega\pi
y)\big)^{\top}.$$ The solution consists of an $\omega\times\omega$ array of oppositely signed vortices that decay as $t\rightarrow\infty$. In the following numerical tests, we take $\omega=1$, $\nu=1/Re$, $T=1$, $h=1/m$, and $\Delta t/h=2/5$. The boundary condition is assumed to be inhomogeneous Dirichlet, that is, the boundary values match that of the exact solution. We consider an ensemble of two members, $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$, corresponding to two incompressible NSE simulations with different viscosity coefficients $\nu_j$ and initial conditions $u_{j, 0}$. We investigate the ensemble simulations and compare it with independent simulations. For $j=1, 2$, we define by $\mathcal{E}^{E}_j = u_{j}-u_{j, h}$ the approximation error of the $j$-th member of the ensemble simulation and by $\mathcal{E}^{S}_j = u_{j}-u_{j, h}$ the approximation error of the $j$-th independently determined simulation. Here, the superscript “$E$" stands for “ensemble" whereas “$S$" stands for “independent."
#### Case 1
We set the viscosity coefficient $\nu_1=0.2$ and initial condition $u_{1, 0}= (1+\epsilon)u^0$ for the first member $u_1$ and $\nu_2=0.3$ and $u_{2, 0}= (1-\epsilon)u^0$ for the second member $u_2$, where $\epsilon= 10^{-3}$. For this choice of parameters, we have $\vert \nu_j -\overline{\nu}\vert/\overline{\nu} =\frac{1}{5}$ for both $j= 1$ and $j=2$ so that the condition is satisfied. We first apply the ensemble algorithm; results are shown in Table \[tab:t6ensemble\]. It is seen that the convergence rate for $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ is first order.
We next compare the ensemble simulations with independent simulations. To this end, we perform each NSE simulation independently using the same discretization setup. The associated approximation errors are listed in Table \[tab:t6u1\]. Comparing with Table \[tab:t6ensemble\], we observe that the ensemble simulation is able to achieve accuracies close to that of the independent, more costly simulations.
#### Case 2
We now set $\nu_1= 0.01$ and $\nu_2= 0.49$ while keeping the same initial conditions as for Case 1. With this choice of parameters, $\vert \nu_j -\overline{\nu}\vert/\overline{\nu} =\frac{24}{25}$ for both $j= 1$ and $j= 2$, which still satisfies but is closer to the upper limit. The ensemble simulation errors are listed in Table \[tab:t2ensemble\], which shows the rate of convergence for the second member is nearly 1 and for the first member is approaching 1.
The approximation errors for two independent simulations under using the same discretization setup are listed in Table \[tab:t2u1\]. Comparing the ensemble simulation results in Table \[tab:t2ensemble\] with the independent simulations, we find that the accuracy of first member in the ensemble simulation degrades slightly whereas that of the second member in the ensemble simulation improves a bit. Overall, the ensemble simulation is able to achieve the same order of accuracy as the independent simulations.
Flow between two offset cylinders
---------------------------------
Next, we check the stability of our algorithm by considering the problem of a flow between two offset circles [@J15; @JL14; @JL15; @JKL15]. The domain is a disk with a smaller off center obstacle inside. Letting $r_{1}=1$, $r_{2}=0.1$, and $c=(c_{1},c_{2})=(\frac{1}{2}
,0)$, the domain is given by $$\Omega=\{(x,y)\,\,:\,\,x^{2}+y^{2}\leq r_{1}^{2} \,\,\text{ and }\,\, (x-c_{1})^{2}+(y-c_{2})^{2}\geq r_{2}^{2}\}.$$
![Mesh for the flow between two offset cylinders example.[]{data-label="mesh"}](mesh.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
The flow is driven by a counterclockwise rotational body force $$f(x,y,t)=\big(-6y(1-x^{2}-y^{2}), 6x(1-x^{2}-y^{2})\big)^\top$$ with no-slip boundary conditions imposed on both circles. The flow between the two circles shows interesting structures interacting with the inner circle. A Von K$\acute{a}$rm$\acute{a}$n vortex street is formed behind the inner circle and then re-interacts with that circle and with itself, generating complex flow patterns. We consider multiple numerical simulations of the flow with different viscosity coefficients using the ensemble-based algorithm . For spatial discretization, we apply the Taylor-Hood element pair on a triangular mesh that is generated by Delaunay triangulation with $80$ mesh points on the outer circle and $60$ mesh points on the inner circle and with refinement near the inner circle, resulting in $18,638$ degrees of freedom; see Figure \[mesh\].
In order to illustrate the stability analysis, we select two different sets of viscosity coefficients for:
- Case 1: $\nu_1=0.005$, $\nu_2=0.039$, $\nu_3=0.016$
- Case 2: $\nu_1=0.005$, $\nu_2=0.041$, $\nu_3=0.014$.
The average of the viscosity coefficients is $\overline{\nu}= 0.02$ for both cases. However, the stability condition is satisfied in the first case but is not satisfied in the second one, i.e., we have
- Case 1: $\frac{\vert\nu_1-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}=\frac{3}{4}$, $\frac{\vert\nu_2-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}=\frac{19}{20}$, $\frac{\vert\nu_3-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}=\frac{1}{5}$
- Case 2: $\frac{\vert\nu_1-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}=\frac{3}{4}$, $\frac{\vert\nu_2-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}=\frac{21}{20}$, $\frac{\vert\nu_3-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}=\frac{3}{10}$.
The second member of Case 2 has a perturbation ratio greater than 1. Simulations of both cases are subject to the same initial condition and body forces for all ensemble members. In particular, the initial condition is generated by solving the steady Stokes problem with viscosity $\nu=0.02$ and the same body force $f(x, y, t)$. All the simulations are run over the time interval $[0, 5]$ with a time step size $\Delta t= 0.01$. For the stability test, we use the kinetic energy as a criterion and compare the ensemble simulation results with independent simulations using the same mesh and time-step size.
The comparison of the energy evolution of ensemble-based simulations with the corresponding independent simulations is shown in Figures \[egy\_1\] and \[egy\_2\]. It is seen that, for Case 1, the ensemble simulation is stable, but for Case 2, it becomes unstable. This phenomena coincides with our stability analysis since the condition holds for all members of Case 1, but does not hold for the second member of Case 2. Indeed, it is observed from Figure \[egy\_2\] that the energy of the second member in Case 2 blows up after $t=3.7$, then affecting other two members and results in their energy dramatically increase after $t=4.7$.
![For the flow between two offset cylinders, Case 1, the energy evolution of the ensemble (Ens.) and independent simulations (Ind.).[]{data-label="egy_1"}](Case0_T5.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
![For the flow between two offset cylinders, Case 2, the energy evolution of the ensemble (Ens.) and independent simulations (Ind.).[]{data-label="egy_2"}](Case01_T5.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
In this paper, we consider a set of Navier-Stokes simulations in which each member may be subject to a distinct viscosity coefficient, initial conditions, and/or body forces. An ensemble algorithm is developed for the group by which all the flow ensemble members, after discretization, share a common linear system with different right-hand side vectors. This leads to great saving in both storage requirements and computational costs. The stability and accuracy of the ensemble method are analyzed. Two numerical experiments are presented. The first is for Green-Taylor flow and serves to illustrate the first-order accuracy in time of the ensemble-based scheme. The second is for a flow between two offset cylinders and serves to show that our stability analysis is sharp. As a next step, we will investigate higher-order accurate schemes for the flow ensemble simulations.
[99]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Barbato, L. Berselli, and C. Grisanti</span>, *Analytical and numerical results for the rational large eddy simulation model*, J. Math. Fluid Mech., 9 (2007), 44-74.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Berselli</span>, *On the large eddy simulation of the Taylor-Green vortex*, J. Math. Fluid Mech., 7 (2005), S164-S191.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Brenner and R. Scott</span>, *The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods*, Springer, 3rd edition, 2008.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Chorin</span>, *Numerical solution for the Navier-Stokes equations*, Math. Comp., 22 (1968), 745-762.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Ciarlet</span>, *The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems*, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2002.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Y. Feng, D. Owen, and D. Peric</span>, *A block conjugate gradient method applied to linear systems with multiple right hand sides*, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 127 (1995), 203-215.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. Girault and P.-A. Raviart</span>, *Finite Element Approximation of the Navier-Stokes Equations*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 749, Springer, Berlin, 1979.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. Girault and P.-A. Raviart</span>, [*F*inite Element Methods for Navier-Stokes Equations - Theory and Algorithms]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1986.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Gunzburger</span>, *Finite Element Methods for Viscous Incompressible Flows - A Guide to Theory, Practice, and Algorithms*, Academic Press, London, 1989.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Gunzburger, N. Jiang and M. Schneier</span>, *An ensemble-proper orthogonal decomposition method for the nonstationary Navier-Stokes Equations*, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 2016, to appear, arXiv:1603.04777v2 \[math.NA\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Gunzburger, N. Jiang and M. Schneier</span>, *A higher-order ensemble/proper orthogonal decomposition method for the nonstationary Navier-Stokes Equations*, submitted, 2016.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Holman</span>, *Experimental methods for engineers 8th ed.*, McGraw-Hill series in mechanical engineering, 2011
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Jiang and H. Tran</span>, *Analysis of a stabilized CNLF method with fast slow wave splittings for flow problems*, Comput. Meth. Appl. Math., 15 (2015), 307-330.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Jiang</span>, *A higher order ensemble simulation algorithm for fluid flows*, J. Sci. Comput., 64 (2015), 264-288.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Jiang</span>, *A second-order ensemble method based on a blended backward differentiation formula timestepping scheme for time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations*, Numer. Meth. Partial. Diff. Eqs., 33 (2017), 34-61.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Jiang and W. Layton</span>, *An algorithm for fast calculation of flow ensembles*, Int. J. Uncertain. Quantif., 4 (2014), 273-301.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Jiang and W. Layton</span>, *Numerical analysis of two ensemble eddy viscosity numerical regularizations of fluid motion*, Numer. Meth. Partial. Diff. Eqs., 31 (2015), 630-651.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Jiang, S. Kaya, and W. Layton</span>, *Analysis of model variance for ensemble based turbulence modeling*, Comput. Meth. Appl. Math., 15 (2015), 173-188.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. John and W. Layton</span>, *Analysis of numerical errors in large eddy simulation*, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 40 (2002), 995-1020.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W. Layton</span>, *Introduction to the Numerical Analysis of Incompressible Viscous Flows*, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, 2008.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Mohebujjaman and L. Rebholz</span>, *An efficient algorithm for computation of MHD flow ensembles*, Comput. Meth. Appl. Math., 2016, in press, DOI: 10.1515/cmam-2016-0033.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. O’Leary</span>, *The block conjugate gradient algorithm and related methods*, Lin. Alg. Appl. 29 (1980), 292-322.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Powell and D. Silvester</span>, *Preconditioning steady-state Navier–Stokes equations with random data*, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 34(5), 2012, A2482-A2506.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B. Soused[í]{}k and H. Elman</span>, *Stochastic Galerkin methods for the steady-state Navier–Stokes equations*, J. Comput. Phys., 316 (2016), 435-452.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Tafti</span>, *Comparison of some upwind-biased high-order formulations with a second order central-difference scheme for time integration of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations*, Comput. & Fluids, 25 (1996), 647-665.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Takhirov, M. Neda and Jiajia Waters</span>, *Time relaxation algorithm for flow ensembles*, Numer. Meth. Partial. Diff. Eqs., 32 (2016), 757-777.
Proof of Theorem \[th:First-Order\] {#proofa1}
===================================
[Setting $v_{h}=u_{j,h}^{n+1}$ and $q_h = p_{j, h}^{n+1}$ in (\[First-Order-h\]) and then adding two equations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}&-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+ \Delta t b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n}, u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1}) \\
&+
\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}= \Delta t (f_{j}^{n+1},
u_{j,h}^{n+1})-\left( \nu_j - \overline{\nu}\right) \Delta t \left( \nabla u_{j,h}^n, \nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Young’s inequality to the terms on the RHS yields, for $\forall\, \alpha, \beta >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+ \overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{5cm}+ \Delta t b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n})\label{ineq: tri}\\
&\leq\frac{\alpha\overline{\nu}\Delta t}{4} \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1} \Vert^{2}+ \frac{\Delta
t}{ \alpha\overline{\nu}} \Vert f_{j}^{n+1}\Vert_{-1}^{2}+\frac{\beta\overline{\nu}\Delta t}{4} \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1} \Vert^{2}+\frac{(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})^2\Delta t}{\beta\overline{\nu}}\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^n\Vert^2. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Both $\frac{\beta\overline{\nu}\Delta t}{4} \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1} \Vert^{2}$ and $\frac{(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})^2\Delta t}{\beta\overline{\nu}}\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^n\Vert^2$ on the RHS of need to be absorbed into $\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}$ on the LHS. To this end, we minimize $\frac{\beta\overline{\nu}\Delta t}{4}+\frac{(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})^2\Delta t}{\beta\overline{\nu}}$ by selecting $\beta = \frac{2\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert }{\overline{\nu} }$ so that becomes $$\label{ineq:s0}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+ \overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2} \\
&\qquad+ \Delta t b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n})\leq\frac{\alpha\overline{\nu}\Delta t}{4} \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1} \Vert^{2}\\
&\qquad+ \frac{\Delta
t}{ \alpha\overline{\nu}} \Vert f_{j}^{n+1}\Vert_{-1}^{2}
+\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert\Delta t}{2} \Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1} \Vert^{2}+\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert \Delta t}{2}\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^n\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we bound the trilinear term using the inequality and the inverse inequality , obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
&- \Delta t b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n})\\
&\qquad\quad\leq C\Delta t\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert\left(\Vert \nabla ( u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n})\Vert\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert\right)^{1/2}\\
&\qquad\quad\leq C\Delta t\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert(Ch^{-\frac{1}{2}})\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Young’s inequality again gives $$\label{ineq:s1}
\begin{aligned}
&- \Delta t b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n})\\
&\qquad\quad\leq C \frac{\Delta t^{2}}{h} \Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2}
\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+ \frac{1}{4}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\text{ .}
\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into and combining like terms, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-10pt}\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}||^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+ \overline{\nu}\Delta
t \left(1-\frac{\alpha}{4}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}\\
&\quad\leq\frac{\Delta t}{\alpha\overline{\nu}} \Vert f_{j}^{n+1}\Vert_{-1}^{2} + C \frac{\Delta
t^{2}}{h} \Vert\nabla( u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2} \Vert\nabla
u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert \Delta t}{2}\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^n\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ For any $0<\sigma <1$, $$\label{ineq:stable01}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}&\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\\
&+ \overline{\nu}\Delta t \Big(1-\frac{\alpha}{4}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\Big)\left(\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}\right)\\
&+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left((1-\sigma)\Big(1-\frac{\alpha}{4}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\Big)-\frac{C \Delta
t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2}\right) \Vert\nabla
u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\\
&+\overline{\nu} \Delta t \left(\sigma\Big(1-\frac{\alpha}{4}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\Big)-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^n\Vert^2\leq\frac{\Delta t}{ \alpha\overline{\nu}} \Vert f_{j}^{n+1}\Vert
_{-1}^{2}\text{ .}
\end{aligned}$$ Select $\alpha=4-\frac{2(\sigma+1)}{\sigma}\sqrt{\mu}$. Since $\alpha$ is supposed to be greater than $0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma >\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2-\sqrt{\mu}} \in (0,1)\end{aligned}$$ Now taking $\sigma= \frac{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}$, where $\epsilon \in (0, 2-2\sqrt{\mu})$ , becomes $$\label{ineq:stable001}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}&\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\\
&+ \overline{\nu}\Delta t \Big(1-\frac{\alpha}{4}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\Big)\left(\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}\right)\\
&+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \bigg(\Big( (1-\sigma)\frac{\sigma+1}{2\sigma}\sqrt{\mu}-(1-\sigma)\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\Big)
\\&-\frac{C \Delta
t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2}\bigg) \Vert\nabla
u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\\
&+\overline{\nu} \Delta t \Big( \frac{\sigma+1}{2}\sqrt{\mu}-(1+\sigma)\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2\overline{\nu}}\Big)\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^n\Vert^2\leq\frac{\Delta t}{ \alpha\overline{\nu}} \Vert f_{j}^{n+1}\Vert
_{-1}^{2}\text{ .}
\end{aligned}$$ Stability follows if the following conditions hold: $$\begin{gathered}
(1-\sigma)\frac{\sigma+1}{2\sigma}\sqrt{\mu}-(1-\sigma)\frac{1}{2}\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}-\frac{C \Delta t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}
-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2} \geq0\label{cond1}\\
\frac{\sigma+1}{2}\sqrt{\mu}-(1+\sigma)\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2\overline{\nu}}\geq 0.\label{cond2}\end{gathered}$$ Using assumption (\[ineq:CFL-h2\]), we have $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\sigma+1}{2}\sqrt{\mu}-(1+\sigma)\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2\overline{\nu}}
= \frac{2+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}-\frac{|\nu_j-\overline{\nu}|}{2\overline{\nu}}\right)
\geq 0
$$ so that holds. Together with assumption , we then have $$\begin{aligned}
&(1-\sigma)\frac{\sigma+1}{2\sigma}\sqrt{\mu}-(1-\sigma)\frac{1}{2}\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{\overline{\nu}}-\frac{C \Delta t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}
-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2} \\&\qquad
\geq (1-\sigma)\frac{\sigma+1}{2\sigma}\sqrt{\mu}-(1-\sigma)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mu}-\frac{C \Delta t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}
-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2} \\&\qquad
=\frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)}-\frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)}=0
\end{aligned}$$ so that holds. Therefore, assuming that and hold, (\[ineq:stable001\]) reduces to $$\label{ineq:stable02}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}&\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\Vert u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\\
&+
\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)
\left(\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\right)
\leq\frac{\Delta t}{ \overline{\nu}} \Vert f_{j}^{n+1}\Vert_{-1}^{2}\text{
.}
\end{aligned}$$ Summing up (\[ineq:stable02\]) from $n=0$ to $n=N-1$ results in $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2}&\|u_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\|u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n}\|^{2}
+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)
\|\nabla u_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}\\
&\leq\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\frac{\Delta t}{\overline{\nu}}\|f_{j}^{n+1}\|_{-1}^{2}+ \frac{1}{2}\|u_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}
+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla u_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}\text{
.}
\end{split}
\label{eq:sta}$$ This completes the proof of stability. ]{}
Proof of Theorem \[th:errBEFE-Ensemble\] {#proofa2}
========================================
The weak solution of the NSE $u_{j}$ satisfies$$\label{eq:convtrue}
\begin{aligned}
\Big(\frac{u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t}, v_{h}\Big)&+ b^{*}(u_{j}^{n+1},
u_{j}^{n+1}, v_{h})+ \nu_j(\nabla u_{j}^{n+1}, \nabla v_{h})- (p_{j}^{n+1},\nabla\cdot v_{h})\\
&=(f_{j}^{n+1}, v_{h})
+ \text{Intp}(u_{j}^{n+1};v_{h})\text{ , }\quad\forall v_{h}\in V_{h},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\text{Intp}(u_{j}^{n+1};v_{h})= \big(\frac{u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t}-u_{j,t}(t^{n+1}),v_{h}\big)$.
Let $$e_{j}^{n}=u_{j}^{n}-u_{j,h}^{n}=(u_{j}^{n}-I_{h} u_{j}^{n})+(I_{h} u_{j}^{n}-u_{j,h}^{n})=\eta_{j}^{n}+\xi_{j,h}^{n} ,$$ where $I_{h} u_{j}^{n} \in V_{h} $ is the interpolant of $u_{j}^{n}$ in $V_{h}.$ Subtracting (\[eq: conv\]) from (\[eq:convtrue\]) gives$$\begin{aligned}
&\Big(\frac{\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}}{ \Delta t},v_{h}\Big) +\overline{\nu}(\nabla\xi
_{j,h}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h})+(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla (u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^n),\nabla v_{h})\nonumber\\
&\qquad+(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla \xi_{j,h}^n,\nabla v_h)
+b^{*}(u_{j}^{n+1},u_{j}^{n+1},v_{h})-b^{*}(\overline{u}_{h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1},v_{h}) \nonumber\\
&\qquad-b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^n,u_{j,h}
^{n},v_{h})-(p_{j}^{n+1},\nabla\cdot v_{h})\nonumber\\
&\qquad=-(\frac{\eta_{j}^{n+1}-\eta_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t},v_{h}) -\overline{\nu}(\nabla\eta
_{j}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h})-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla\eta
_{j}^{n},\nabla v_{h})
+\text{Intp}(u_j^{n+1};v_{h}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Setting $v_{h}=\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\in V_{h}$ and rearranging the nonlinear terms, we have $$\label{eq:err1}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{1}{2}||\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}||^{2}-\frac{1}{2}||\xi
_{j,h}^{n}||^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\|\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\|^{2}\right)+\overline{\nu}
||\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}||^{2}\\
&\qquad=-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla (u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^n),\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla \xi_{j,h}^n,\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
&\qquad\quad-\overline{\nu}
(\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1},\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla\eta
_{j}^{n},\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
&\qquad\quad-b^{*}(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n,u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^{n},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
&\qquad\quad-b^{*}(u_{j}^{n+1},u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})+b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})+(p_{j}
^{n+1},\nabla\cdot\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
&\qquad\quad-(\frac{\eta_{j}^{n+1}-\eta_{j}^{n}}{ \Delta t},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
+\text{Intp}(u_j^{n+1};\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}).
\end{split}$$ We first bound the viscous terms on the RHS of : $$\label{firstineq}
\begin{aligned}
-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})& (\nabla (u_{j}^{n+1}-u_j^n), \nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\leq \vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert \|\nabla (u_j^{n+1}-u_j^n)\| \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{4C_0}\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}\|\nabla(u_{j}^{n+1}-u_j^n)\|^{2}
+ C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \\
&\leq \frac{\Delta t}{4C_0}\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}} \left(\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \nabla u_{j,t}\|^{2}\, dt\right)+ C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-\overline{\nu}(\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1},\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) &\leq\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\eta_{j}
^{n+1}\| \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\| \\
&\leq \frac{\overline{\nu}}{4C_0}\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\|^{2}+ C_0 \overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla\eta_{j}^{n},\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) &\leq\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert \|\nabla\eta_{j}
^{n+1}\| \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{4C_0}\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\|^{2}
+ C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{ineq:err2}
\begin{aligned}
-(\nu_j-\overline{\nu})(\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n},\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) &\leq\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}
^{n}\| \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{4C_1}\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n}\|^{2}+ C_1\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \\
&\leq
\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n}\|^{2}+ \frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ in which we note that both terms on the RHS of need to be hidden in the LHS of the error equation, thus $C_1= \frac{|\nu_j-\overline{\nu}|}{2\nu}$ is selected to minimize the summation.
Next we analyze the nonlinear terms on the RHS of one by one. For the first nonlinear term, we have $$\label{ineq:err3}
\begin{aligned}
&-b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, u_{j,h}^{n+1}-u_{j,h}^n, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
=&-b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, e_{j}^{n+1}-e_{j}^n, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) +b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^n, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
=&-b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, \eta_{j}^{n+1}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})+b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, \eta_{j}^{n}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
&\quad+b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, \xi_{j}^{n}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})+b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^n, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Using inequality and Young’s inequality, we have the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
-b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, \eta_{j}^{n+1}&, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) \leq C\|\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0} \overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|^{2}\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\|^{2}
+C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-b^*(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n, \eta_{j}^{n}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) &\leq C\|\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0} \overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|^{2}\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\|^{2}
+ C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Because $b^*(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ is skew-symmetric, we have $$\begin{aligned}
b^{\ast}(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n,\xi_{j,h}^{n},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})&=b^{\ast}(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n,\xi
_{j,h}^{n}-\xi_{j,h}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) \\
&=b^{\ast}(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n,\xi_{j,h}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^n)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by inequality , we obtain $$\label{inver}
\begin{aligned}
b^{\ast}(u_{j,h}^n-&\overline{u}_h^n,\xi_{j,h}^{n},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) \\
\leq & \Vert \nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert\Vert \nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
\Vert \nabla (\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^n)\Vert^{1/2}\Vert \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^n\Vert^{1/2}\\
\leq & C\Vert \nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert\Vert \nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert (h)^{-1/2}\Vert \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^n\Vert\\
\leq & \frac{1}{4\triangle t}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+\left(
C\frac{\triangle t}{h}\Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2}\right) \Vert\nabla
\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the last term of , we have $$\begin{aligned}
b^{*}(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n,&u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) \leq C\|\nabla
(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|\|\nabla(u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n})\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\nonumber\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|^{2}\|\nabla (u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n})\|^{2}
+C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \\
&\leq
\frac{C^2 \Delta t}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\|^{2}\left(\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \nabla u_{j,t}\|^{2} \, dt\right)
+C_0\overline{\nu} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Next, we bound the last two nonlinear terms on the RHS of as follows: $$\label{eq:nonlinear}
\begin{aligned}
-&b^{*}(u_{j}^{n+1}, u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
+b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n},u_{j,h}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
& = -b^{*}(e_{j}^{n},u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
-b^{*}(u_{j,h}^{n},e_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
-b^{*}(u^{n+1}_{j}-u_j^{n}, u_{j}^{n+1}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) \\
&= -b^{*}(\eta^{n}_j,u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})-b^{*}(\xi_{j,h}^{n},u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\\
&\qquad -b^{*}(u^{n}_{j,h}, \eta_{j}^{n+1}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})-b^{*}(u^{n+1}_{j}-u^{n}_j,
u_{j}^{n+1}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) ,
\end{aligned}$$ where, with the assumption $u_j^{n+1}\in L^{\infty}(0,T; H^1(\Omega))$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
-b^{*}(\eta_{j}^{n},u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
&\leq
C\|\nabla \eta_{j}^{n}\|\|\nabla u_{j}^{n+1}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\| \\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\|^{2} + C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality , Young’s inequality, and $u_j^{n+1}\in L^{\infty}(0,T; H^1(\Omega))$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
-b^{*}(\xi^{n}_{j,h}, u_{j}^{n+1}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}) &\leq C\| \nabla\xi
^{n}_{j,h} \|^{1/2} \Vert\xi^{n}_{j,h}\Vert^{1/2}\|\nabla
u_{j}^{n+1}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\nonumber\\
&\leq C\| \nabla\xi^{n}_{j,h} \|^{1/2} \Vert\xi^{n}_{j,h}\Vert
^{1/2}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\nonumber\\
&\leq
C\Big(\frac{1}{4\alpha}\|\nabla\xi^{n}_{j,h} \|\|\xi^{n}_{j,h} \| + \alpha\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\Big)\\
&\leq
C\Big(\frac{1}{4\alpha} \big(\frac{\delta}{2}\|\nabla\xi^{n}_{j,h} \|^{2}+\frac{1}{2\delta}\|\xi^{n}_{j,h} \|^2 \big)
+ \alpha\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \Big)\nonumber\\
&\leq
C_0\overline{\nu} \|\nabla \xi^{n}_{j,h} \|^{2}+\frac{C^4}{64C_0^3\overline{\nu}^{3}}\|\xi^{n}_{j,h} \|^{2} + C_0 \overline{\nu} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we set $\alpha= \frac{C_0\overline{\nu}}{C}$ and $\delta= \frac{8C_0^2\overline{\nu}^2}{C^2}$. By Young’s inequality, , and the result from the stability analysis, i.e., $\Vert u_{j,h}^n \Vert^2 \leq C$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
b^{*}(u^{n}_{j,h}, \eta_{j}^{n+1}, \xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
&\leq
C\|\nabla u^{n}_{j,h}\|^{1/2}\Vert u_{j,h}^n\Vert^{1/2}\|\nabla \eta_{j}^{n+1}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\|\|\nabla\eta^{n+1}_{j}\|^{2} + C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
b^{*}(u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n},u_{j}^{n+1},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
&\leq
C\|\nabla (u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n})\|\|\nabla u_{j}^{n+1}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\nonumber\\
\leq & \frac{C^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\|\nabla(u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n})\|^{2} + C_0 \overline{\nu} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \nonumber\\
= & \frac{C^2\Delta t^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\left\|\frac{\nabla u_{j}^{n+1}- \nabla u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t}\right\|^{2} + C_0 \overline{\nu} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \\
= &\frac{C^2\Delta t^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}
\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}} \nabla u_{j,t}
\, dt\right)^{2} d\Omega+ C_0 \overline{\nu} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \nonumber\\
\leq & \frac{C^2 \Delta t}{4C_0} \overline{\nu}^{-1} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \nabla u_{j,t} \|^{2}\, dt
+ C_0 \overline{\nu} \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For the pressure term in , because $\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\in V_{h}$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
(p_{j}^{n+1},\nabla\cdot\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})&=(p_{j}^{n+1}-q_{j,h}^{n+1},
\nabla\cdot\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
&\leq\sqrt{d}\,\|p_{j}^{n+1}-q_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\\
&\leq
\frac{1}{4d\, C_0} \overline{\nu}^{-1}\|p_{j}^{n+1}-q_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} + C_0\,\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\text{ .}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The other terms are bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\Big( \frac{\eta_{j}^{n+1}-\eta_{j}^{n}}{ \Delta t},\xi_{j,h}^{n+1} \Big)
&\leq
C \Big\|\frac{\eta_{j}^{n+1}-\eta_{j}^{n}}{ \Delta t} \Big\| \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\nonumber\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0} \overline{\nu}^{-1}\left \|\frac{\eta_{j}^{n+1}-\eta_{j}^{n}}{ \Delta t} \right\|^{2}
+C_0 \overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0} \overline{\nu}^{-1}\left \|\frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}} \eta_{j,t} \text{ }
dt \right \|^2+C_0 \overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\nonumber\\
&\leq
\frac{1}{4C_0}\frac{C^2}{\overline{\nu}\Delta t}\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \eta_{j,t}\|^{2}\text{ }
dt+C_0 \overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Intp}(u_{j}^{n+1};\xi_{j,h}^{n+1})
&=\left(\frac{u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta
t}-u_{j,t}(t^{n+1}),\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq C\left\|\frac{u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t}-u_{j,t}(t^{n+1})\right\| \|\nabla
\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|\nonumber\\
&\leq
\frac{C^2}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1}\left \|\frac{u_{j}^{n+1}-u_{j}^{n}}{\Delta t}-u_{j,t}(t^{n+1}) \right\|^{2}
+ C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2} \nonumber \\
&\leq
\frac{C^2\Delta t}{4C_0}\overline{\nu}^{-1} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\|u_{j,tt}\|^{2}\, dt
+ C_0\overline{\nu}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
.
\label{lastineq}\end{aligned}$$
Combining -, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{1}{2}||\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}||^{2}-\frac{1}{2}||\xi
_{j,h}^{n}||^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2} \right)+ C_0 \overline{\nu} \Vert \nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^2\nonumber\\
&+ \overline{\nu} \left(1-15C_0-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\left(\Vert\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\Vert\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\overline{\nu} \left((1-\sigma)\left(1-15C_0-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)-\frac{C \Delta
t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2}\right) \Vert\nabla
\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\nonumber\\
&+\overline{\nu} \left(\sigma\left(1-15C_0-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\Vert \nabla \xi_{j,h}^n\Vert^2\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{C}{\overline{\nu}^{3}}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\Delta t\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \nabla u_{j,t}\|^{2} \text{
}dt
+C\overline{\nu}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}\label{eq:err2} \\
&\quad+ C\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla
(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_{h}^n)\Vert^{2}
\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2} \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} \Delta t \Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\nabla u_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\nabla u_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert p_{j}^{n+1}-q_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^{-1}\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\eta_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} \Delta t \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert u_{j,tt}\Vert^{2}dt. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that the generic constant $C$ independent of $\Delta t$ is used on the RHS. It, however, depends on the geometry and mesh due to the use of inverse inequality in .
Similar to the stability analysis, we take $C_0= \frac{1}{15}(1-\frac{\sigma+1}{2\sigma}\sqrt{\mu}) = \frac{1}{15} \frac{\epsilon} {\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}( 1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}) $ with $\sigma=\frac{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}$. Then, becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{1}{2}||\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}||^{2}-\frac{1}{2}||\xi
_{j,h}^{n}||^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\right)+\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}) \overline{\nu} \Vert \nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^2\nonumber\\
&+ \overline{\nu} \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\left(\Vert\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}-\Vert\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert
^{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\overline{\nu} \left(\frac{2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)-\frac{C \Delta
t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2}\right) \Vert\nabla
\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\nonumber\\
&+\overline{\nu} \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\Vert \nabla \xi_{j,h}^n\Vert^2\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{C}{\overline{\nu}^{3}}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\Delta t\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \nabla u_{j,t}\|^{2} \text{
}dt
+C\overline{\nu}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}\label{eq:err21} \\
&\quad+ C\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla
(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_{h}^n)\Vert^{2}
\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2} \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} \Delta t \Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\nabla u_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\nabla u_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert p_{j}^{n+1}-q_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^{-1}\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\eta_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} \Delta t \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert u_{j,tt}\Vert^{2}dt\text{ .} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By the convergence condition , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}&\geq \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\right)\geq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2-\sqrt{\mu}}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon} > 0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\geq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\right)-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\\
&\qquad\qquad\geq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2-\sqrt{\mu}}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}\right)-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2} \geq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}=0\end{aligned}$$ and by the convergence conditions and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2+\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)-\frac{C \Delta
t}{\overline{\nu} h}\Vert\nabla(u_{j,h}^{n}-
\overline{u}_{h}^{n})\Vert^{2}\\
&\qquad\qquad\geq\frac{2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon}{2-\sqrt{\mu}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{2-\sqrt{\mu}}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}\right)-\frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)}\\
&\qquad\qquad\geq \frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)}-\frac{(2-2\sqrt{\mu}-\epsilon)\sqrt{\mu}}{2(\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon)}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Summing (\[eq:err2\]) from $n=1$ to $N-1$ and multiplying both sides by $\Delta t$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\|\xi_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}
-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}+\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu}\Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}
\\
&\qquad+\overline{\nu} \Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}\\
&\leq\frac{1}{2}\|\xi_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}+\overline{\nu} \Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}
+\frac{C\Delta t}{\overline{\nu}^{3}}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\\
&\quad+\Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}
\bigg\{
C\Delta t\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}} \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\| \nabla u_{j,t}\|^{2} \,dt
+C\overline{\nu}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}\\
&\quad+C\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla
(u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_{h}^n)\Vert^{2}
\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}\\
&\quad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t \Vert\nabla (u_{j,h}^n-\overline{u}_h^n)\Vert^{2}
\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\nabla u_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt \\
&\quad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n}\Vert^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\nabla u_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\,dt
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert \\
&\,+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Vert p_{j}^{n+1}-q_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
+C \overline{\nu}^{-1} \Delta t^{-1}\int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert\eta_{j,t}\Vert^{2}\, dt
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} \Delta t \int_{t^{n}}^{t^{n+1}}\Vert u_{j,tt}\Vert^{2}\, dt
\bigg\} \text{ .}\end{aligned}$$ \[eq:err3\] Using the interpolation inequality and the result from the stability analysis, i.e., $\Delta t \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert \nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1} \Vert^2 \leq C$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla\eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}&\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert
\leq C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}\Delta t \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert u_j^{n+1}\Vert^2_{k+1}\Vert^{2}\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert\label{ineq:err4}\\
\leq & C\nu^{-1}h^{2k}\left( \Delta t \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert u_{j}^{n+1}\Vert_{k+1}^4+\Delta t \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla u_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^2 \right)\\
\leq & C\nu^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^4_{4, k+1}+C\nu^{-1}h^{2k}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Applying the interpolation inequalities , , and gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\|\xi_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}+ \overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}
+\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\frac{1}{4}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad +\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu}\Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\nonumber\\
&\leq\frac{1}{2}\|\xi_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}+\overline{\nu} \Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}
+\frac{C\Delta t}{\overline{\nu}^{3}}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}\label{ineq:errlast}
\\
&\quad+ C\Delta t^2\frac{\vert \nu_j -\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}
+C\overline{\nu}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}+C\frac{\vert \nu_j - \overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
\nonumber \\
&\quad+Ch^{2k+1}\Delta t^{-1}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}+C h \Delta t {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
\nonumber\\
&\quad +C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^2{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0} + C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^4_{4, k+1}+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}
\nonumber\\
&\quad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} h^{2s+2}\Vert|p_{j}|\Vert_{2,s+1}^{2}+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} h^{2k+2}\Vert
|u_{j,t}|\Vert_{2,k+1}^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^{2}\Vert|u_{j,tt}|\Vert_{2,0}^{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The next step is the application of the discrete Gronwall inequality (see [@GR79 p. 176]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\|\xi_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}+ \overline{\nu}\Delta t\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right) \|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{N}\|^{2}
+\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\frac{1}{4}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}-\xi_{j,h}^{n}\Vert^{2}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu}\Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\|^{2}\label{ineq:errlast1}\\
&\leq e^{\frac{CT}{\nu^{3}}}
\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}||\xi_{j,h}^{0}||^{2}
+\overline{\nu}\Delta t \left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\|\nabla\xi_{j,h}^{0}\|^{2}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad+C\Delta t^2\frac{\vert \nu_j -\overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}+C\overline{\nu}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
+C\frac{\vert \nu_j - \overline{\nu}\vert^2}{\overline{\nu}}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad+Ch^{2k+1}\Delta t^{-1}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1}+C h \Delta t {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}
+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,k+1} \nonumber\\
& \qquad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^2{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert \nabla u_{j,t}
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2_{2,0}+ C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u_j
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^4_{4, k+1}+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}h^{2k}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} h^{2s+2}\Vert|p_{j}|\Vert_{2,s+1}^{2}+C\overline{\nu}^{-1} h^{2k+2}\Vert
|u_{j,t}|\Vert_{2,k+1}^{2}
+C\overline{\nu}^{-1}\Delta t^{2}\Vert|u_{j,tt}|\Vert_{2,0}^{2}
\bigg\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Recall that $e_{j}^{n}=\eta_{j}^{n}+\xi_{j,h}^{n}$. Using the triangle inequality on the error equation to split the error terms into terms of $\eta_{j}^{n}$ and $\xi_{j,h}^{n}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}&\Vert e_{j}^{N}\Vert^{2}
+\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu} \Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla e_{j}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
\\
&\leq\frac{1}{2}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{N}\Vert^{2}
+\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu} \Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla \xi_{j,h}^{n+1}\Vert^{2}
\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\Vert\eta_{j}^{N}\Vert^{2}
+\frac{1}{15}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}(1-\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2})\overline{\nu} \Delta t\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Vert\nabla \eta_{j}^{n+1}\Vert
^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\Vert\xi_{j,h}^{0}&\Vert^{2}
+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla \xi_{j,h}
^{0}\Vert^{2}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\Vert e_{j}^{0}\Vert^{2}
+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla e_{j}^{0}\Vert^{2}\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2}\Vert\eta_{j}^{0}\Vert^{2}
+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{2}\frac{(2+\epsilon)}{\sqrt{\mu}+\epsilon}-\frac{\vert \nu_j-\overline{\nu}\vert}{2 \overline{\nu}}\right)\overline{\nu}\Delta t \Vert\nabla \eta_{j}^{0}\Vert^{2}\, .
\end{aligned}$$
Applying inequality (\[ineq:errlast1\]), using the previous bounds for $\eta_{j}^{n}$ terms, and absorbing constants into a new constant $C$, completes the proof of Theorem \[th:errBEFE-Ensemble\].
[^1]: Department of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4120 [[email protected]]{}. Research supported by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant FA9550-15-1-0001 and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science grants DE-SC0009324 and DE-SC0016591.
[^2]: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409-0020 [[email protected]]{}.
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 [[email protected]]{}. Research supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation grant DMS-1522672 and the U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-SC0016540.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We congratulate the authors for the interesting paper. The reading has been really pleasant and instructive. We discuss briefly only some of the interesting results given in [@dev] with particular attention to evolution problems. The contribution of the results collected in the paper is useful in a more wide class of applications in many areas of applied mathematics.'
author:
- |
$\text{Mirko D'Ovidio}_1$, $\text{Federico Polito}_2$\
(1) – Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’Ingegneria, *Sapienza* Università di Roma\
Via A. Scarpa 16, 00161 Roma, Italy\
Email address: [email protected]\
(2) – Dipartimento di Matematica *G. Peano*, Università degli Studi di Torino\
Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy\
Email address: [email protected]\
title: 'Discussion on the paper *On Simulation and Properties of the Stable Law* by L. Devroye and L. James'
---
The paper under discussion is a very well-written and interesting review article by Professors Devroye and James [@dev] dealing with known and lesser-known properties of stable laws, with methods of simulation for stable random variates, and with related random variables such as the Mittag–Leffler, Linnik, and Lamperti random variables. The main aim of the paper is to review and to collect in a single place simple procedures (one-liners) to generates random deviates from distributions that are in some way related to stable random variables. This is undoubtedly a very important topic at the basis of many techniques in different scientific fields. One can think for example at simulation of stochastic processes, generation of pseudo random numbers, cryptography, Monte Carlo and MCMC techniques, and so forth. A simple example in which generation of random deviates that are functions of stable random variables is needed, and which can make evident the important of the topic, regards the simulation of trajectories of time-fractional point processes such as the fractional Poisson process [@ors; @laskin; @mainscalas] or the fractional Yule process (fractional pure birth process) [@polito] (or in general of renewal processes with inter-arrival times distribution related to the stable law). The fractional Poisson process for example can be indeed constructed by exploiting its renewal structure. Let us thus consider a sequence of iid positive-Linnik distributed random variables $(T_j)_{j=1}^n$ with parameter $\mu>0$ (also known as Mittag–Leffler random variables in part of the literature, see for example @gerd [@pillai; @jose]) which we consider as random inter-arrival times between occurrences of point events. We have that for each $j=1,\dots,n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{go}
\mathbb{E} \, e^{sT_j} = \mu/(s^\nu+\mu), \qquad \mathbb{P} \{ T_j \in \mathrm dt \}/\mathrm dt = \mu t^{\nu-1} E_{\nu,\nu}
(-\mu t^\nu), \qquad \nu \in (0,1], \: \mu>0, \: t > 0.
\end{aligned}$$ The state probability, that is the probability of attaining level $k$ at time $t$ for the fractional Poisson process $N^\nu(t)$, $t > 0$, easily follows from and reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\{ N^\nu(t) = k \} = (\mu t^\nu)^k E_{\nu,\nu k+1}^{k+1}(-\mu t^\nu), \qquad t > 0, \: k \ge 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\xi,\mu}^\gamma(z)$, for $z,\xi,\mu,\gamma \in \mathbb{C}$, $\Re(\xi)>0$, is the three-parameter generalized Mittag–Leffler function [@kil]. Clearly, the simulation of a trajectory corresponds to the generation of a sequence of independent random variates from positive-Linnik distributions. As suggested by the authors (see @dev but also @dev2 [@dev3]) a positive Linnik random variate can be generated as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}^{1/\nu} S_\nu,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is an exponential random variable of parameter $\mu$ and $S_\nu$ is a completely positively skewed stable random variable independent of $\mathcal{E}$. The stable random variable $S_\nu$ can be in turn generated by using the classical Kanter algorithm. A simulation of trajectories of the fractional Poisson process using the above representation is in fact implemented in @ca, Section 3.
The paper under discussion thoroughly describes simple and useful distributional representations for many different types of random variables, such as stable and strictly stable (symmetric and skewed), shifted Cauchy, Lamperti, Linnik and generalized Linnik, and other less known representation for related random variables. In the following, in order to highlight the usefulness of the relations connecting stable random variables to other related random variables we will outline a possible construction of a subordinated Brownian motion time-changed with a specific skewed stable process. In fact, for us it seems of particular importance the relation appearing in the paper under discussion [@dev] in the section entitled “The strictly stable law: $\alpha>1$”. The authors recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{first}
(S_{\alpha,\rho})_+ \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} (S_{1/\alpha,\alpha\rho})^{-1/\alpha}_+, \qquad \alpha \rho \le 1, \: \alpha (1-\rho) \le 1,
\: \alpha \in (1,2], \: \rho \in [0,1],
\end{aligned}$$ where $(S_{\alpha,\rho})_+ = \max(S_{\alpha,\rho},0)$ is the positive part of the strictly stable random variable $S_{\alpha,\rho}$. An interesting specific case of which we will make use in the following is when $\rho=1/\alpha$. In this case, reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
(S_{\alpha,1/\alpha})_+ \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} (S_{1/\alpha,1})_+^{-1/\alpha} \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} S_{1/\alpha}^{-1/\alpha},
\qquad \alpha \in (1,2]. \label{sssssS}
\end{aligned}$$
Let $B(t)$, $t>0$, be a Brownian motion with generator $\Delta$. Let $L^\alpha_t$, $t>0$ with $\alpha \in (0,1)$ be the inverse of the stable subordinator $S_\alpha(t)$, $t > 0$, independent of $B(t)$. It can be proved that the time-changed process $B(L^\alpha_t)$ is the stochastic solution to the fractional equation $$\frac{\partial^\alpha u}{\partial t^\alpha} = \Delta u \quad \text{ in } \quad D \subseteq \mathbb{R} \label{fracPDE},$$ subject to the Delta initial datum $u_0=\delta$ (see for example [@BM2001; @nane12]). This is to say that $$\mathbb{P}_x (B(L^\alpha_t) \in \Lambda) = \int_\Lambda u(x,y,t) \, \mathrm dy, \qquad x \in D,\: t>0,$$ for some Borel set $\Lambda$. The fractional derivative appearing in must be understood in the sense of Caputo. The process $L^\alpha_t$ is an inverse process in the sense that $$L^\alpha_t = \inf \{s\geq 0\, :\, S_{\alpha}(s) \notin [0, t] \}, \qquad \alpha \in (0,1),$$ where $S_\alpha (s) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} s^{1/\alpha} S_{\alpha}$ and $S_{\alpha} = S_{\alpha, 1}$, but also in the sense that $$L^\alpha_t = M_{\alpha} / t \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} S^{-\alpha}_{\alpha} / t, \qquad \alpha \in (0,1),$$ where $M_\alpha$ is a Mittag–Leffler random variable (see [@dev]).
Let us now consider $\alpha \in (1,2]$. From the fact that $$B\left( \frac{1}{t}\right) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} \frac{1}{t} B(t)$$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
B( M_{1/\alpha}/t) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} B( S^{-1/\alpha}_{1/\alpha}/t) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=}
B(t S_{1/\alpha}^{1/\alpha}) \times S^{-1/{\alpha}}_{1/\alpha} / t
\overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} B(t S_{1/\alpha}^{1/\alpha}) \times M_{1/\alpha} /t.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for $\alpha \in (1,2]$, we have that $$B(L^{1/\alpha}_t) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} \frac{1}{T_t} B(T_t)$$ with $T_t = t \, S_{1/\alpha}^{1/\alpha} \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} \sqrt[\alpha]{ S_{1/\alpha}(t)}$, where $S_{1/\alpha}(t)$ is a stable subordinator such that $$\mathbb{E} \, e^{-\lambda S_{1/\alpha}(t)} = e^{-t \lambda^{1/\alpha}}.$$ Moreover, it holds that $$B(L^{1/\alpha}_t) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} B\left( \frac{1}{T_t} \right).$$ From we also have that $$B(L^{1/\alpha}_t) \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=} B\left( (S_{\alpha,1/\alpha})_+ \, / t\right)$$ which is really interesting in our view, being $\alpha \in (1,2]$. The considerations above and the results collected in [@dev], allow us to consider simulation procedures for the solution to more general fractional equations. Indeed, we can avoid to deal with inverses and work directly with stable processes. Let us consider a Markov process $X$ with infinitesimal generator $A$. It is well-known that time-changes of $X$ given by inverses lead to equations of the form $$f(\partial_t) \, u = A \, u,$$ where $f$ is a well-specified function related to some Bernstein function $g$ (see for example the work [@Toaldo] and the references therein). For the negative definite operator $A$, it is also known that a time-change given by subordination (that is to consider a subordinator as a random time) leads to a time-changed process driven by the equation $$\partial_t \, u = - g(-A) \, u.$$ In this case, the function $g$ is exactly the Bernstein function associated to the time-change, say $\tau_t$, $t>0$, for which $$\mathbb{E} \, e^{-\lambda \tau_t} = e^{-t g(\lambda)}.$$ The semigroup associated with $X_{\tau_t}$ is then a subordinate semigroup.
In our view, the work by Devroye and James turns out to give useful results in many areas of applied mathematics. The results collected in this paper has the potential to not only impact the specific applications mentioned above but also the more general scenario of applied sciences.
[99]{}
Baeumer, B., Meerschaert, Mark M. . 4(4):481–500, 2001.
Beghin, L., Orsingher, E. . *[Electronic Journal of Probability]{}*, 14(61):1790–1826, 2009.
Cahoy, D. O., Uchaikin, V. V., Woyczynski, W. A. . *[Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference]{}*, 140(11):3106–3120, 2010.
Devroye, L. . *[Statistics & probability letters]{}*, 9(4):305–306, 1990.
Devroye, L. . *[Proceedings of the 28th conference on Winter simulation]{}*. IEEE Computer Society, 1996.
Devroye, L., James, L. . To appear in *[Statistical Methods & Applications]{}*, 2014
Gerd C., Schreiber, K. . Chapter 1 in Balakrishnan N., Ibragimov, I.A., Nevzorov, V.B. *[Asymptotic Methods in Probability and Statistics with Applications]{}*, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001.
Jose, K. K., Uma, P., Lekshmi, V. S. Haubold. . *[Proceedings of the third UN/ESA/NASA workshop on the international heliophysical year 2007 and basic space science]{}*, Springer, Berlin, 2010.
Kilbas, A. A., Saigo, M., Saxena, R. K. . *[Integral Transforms and Special Functions]{}*, 15(1):31–49, 2004.
Laskin, N. . *[Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation]{}*, 8(3-4):201–213, 2003.
Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R., Scalas, E. . *[Vietnam Journal of Mathematics]{}*, 32:53–64, 2004.
E. Nane. . pp. 185–198 In Fractional Dynamics and Control. D. Baleanu, J.A.T. Machado, A.C.J. Luo (Editors). Springer (2012).
Orsingher, E, Polito, F. . *[Bernoulli]{}*, 16(3):858–881, 2010.
Pillai, R. N. . *[Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics]{}*, 42(1):157–161, 1990.
Toaldo, B. . arXiv:1308.1327.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The concept of adiabatic quantum pumping in space is extended by adding a tilted potential to probe topologically nontrivial bands. This extension leads to almost perfectly quantized pumping for an arbitrary initial state, including the Bloch state. The underlying physics is that the time variable not only offers a synthetic dimension as in the Thouless pumping, but also assists in the uniform sampling of all momentum values due to the Bloch oscillations induced by the tilt. The quantized drift of Bloch oscillations is determined by a time integral of the Berry curvature, which is effectively an integer multiple of the topological Chern number in the Thouless pumping. This work suggests a straightforward experimental scheme to implement quantized pumping and probe topological invariants.'
author:
- Yongguan Ke
- Shi Hu
- Bo Zhu
- Jiangbin Gong
- Yuri Kivshar
- Chaohong Lee
title: Topological pumping assisted by Bloch oscillations
---
[*Introduction*]{}. Adiabatic quantum pumping via slow and periodic modulation in certain system parameters has been of tremendous theoretical and experimental interests, being investigated with a variety of platforms including electrons [@Thouless1983; @King1993; @Pothier_1992; @switkes1999adiabatic; @blumenthal2007gigahertz; @Xiao2010], photons [@Kraus2012; @ke2016topological; @Tangpanitanon; @zilberberg2018], cold atoms [@salger2009directed; @Lu2016; @lohse2016thouless; @Nakajima2016; @Ke2017; @lohse2018exploring; @Hu2019; @Lin2020], and NV centers in diamond [@Ma2018]. Adiabatic pumping connects the underlying geometrical or topological features of a system with its transport behavior. In practice it is useful in electric current standards [@Pekola2013], gravimetry [@steffen2012digital; @Ke2018], generation of entangled states [@mandel2003controlled; @blanco2018topological; @hu2020topological], and quantum state transfer [@hu2020topological; @Mei2018]. Quantum adiabatic pumping yields both non-quantized transport, such as geometric pumping [@Lu2016], ratchet transport [@Poletti2008; @Salger2013] and edge-state transport [@Kraus2012], and quantized transport such as Thouless pumping [@Thouless1983; @King1993] and its extension in Floquet topological phases [@Ho2012; @zhou2014aspects]. Of particular relevance to this work, the non-quantized geometric pumping in a lattice can be determined by the Berry curvature at a certain momentum value [@Lu2016], whereas the quantized Thouless pumping yields a topological invariant, namely, the Chern number of a band on a 2-dimensional torus formed by the quasi-momentum and the time variable as a second synthetic dimension. Thouless pumping requires a uniformly filled band (either coherently or incoherently), because its quantization arises as a consequence of equal-weight contributions from the Berry curvatures at all momentum values [@Thouless1983; @King1993]. This feature of Thouless pumping makes it possible to dynamically manifest topological band Chern numbers, which are crucial to understand the integer quantum Hall effect and Chern insulators [@Chiu2016; @Bansil2016; @haldane2017nobel]. In a fermionic system, the uniform band occupation could be automatically achieved if the band lies below the fermion surface. For bosons, it becomes highly nontrivial to explore Berry curvatures at all momentum values. In actual quantum pumping experiments where quantum transport is measured (e.g., via the imaging of a cloud of cold atoms), one resorts to some localized initial states to approximate a Wannier state that uniformly fills a band of interest [@aidelsburger2015; @lohse2016thouless; @Nakajima2016; @lohse2018exploring]. Furthermore, in probing Floquet topological insulators as non-equilibrium topological matter [@Oka2009; @Kitagawa2011; @NP2011; @Ho2012; @cayssol2013floquet; @zhou2014aspects; @Ho2014; @Zhou2018; @Loss2016; @Eckardt2017], it is even more involving to experimentally implement the uniform occupation on one particular non-equilibrium quasi-energy band [@Ma2018; @Wang2015].
In this Letter, we propose an experimental-friendly adiabatic pumping scheme to yield quantized transport, without the requirement of uniform band occupation. The obtained pumping is well quantized, regardless of what initial states on a band of interest are prepared. To our knowledge, this surprising possibility was not known until now. The central idea is to exploit a tilted lattice, such that the time variable not only offers a synthetic second dimension, but also assists in the sampling of all momentum values uniformly due to the Bloch oscillations [@bloch1929quantenmechanik; @Nenciu]. Thus, complementing previous efforts in using Bloch oscillations to indirectly help to explore band topology [@Atala2013; @duca2015aharonov; @aidelsburger2015], we show that Bloch oscillations can actually be a powerful tool to probe the topological Chern number of a band. It is also now clear that band topology may induce a quantized drift in Bloch oscillations, an intriguing result not noticed in previous studies of Bloch oscillations versus band structure [@Hartmann2004; @Breid_2006; @Dias2007; @Larson2010; @Witthaut2010; @Ke2015; @Kartashov2016; @Kartashov2016a; @Liu2019].
![Schematic of adiabatic pumping in a time-modulated superlattice with a tilt. The phase $\phi(t)$ is used to modulate the nearest neighboring hopping and the on-site energy, and $\hbar \omega_F$ is the energy shift associated with the tilt. []{data-label="FigLattice"}](Fig1New){width="\columnwidth"}
Our adiabatic pumping scheme is depicted in Fig. \[FigLattice\], using a time-modulated super-lattice with a weak tilt. Certain system parameters are slowly modulated at a frequency $\omega$, $F$ is the energy shift between two neighboring lattice sites due to the tilt, and $\omega_F=F/\hbar$ is half of Bloch oscillation frequency. For virtually all rational fractions $\omega_{F}/\omega=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are co-prime integers, we find that the drift of the system over $q$ modulation cycles is quantized, irrespective of the initial state prepared on a band. As shown below, such a pumping is determined by a one-dimensional time integral of the Berry curvature, which effectively equals to $q$ times of the Chern number manifested by Thouless pumping. This is possible due to the effective sampling of all momentum states via Bloch oscillations. Analogous considerations can be extended to cases with irrational fractions $\omega_F/\omega$, where one recovers a quantized pumping in the long-time average. The Bloch oscillations themselves carry a new aspect here, because they now can experience a net quantized drift due to the underlying band topology.
[*Model*]{}. Without loss of generality, consider a rather simple model adapted from the seminal Rice-Mele model [@Rice1982]: particles are moving in a time-modulated superlattice subjected to an external force, with the following Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ham}
\hat H(t) &=& \sum\limits_j^{} {\left\{\left\{ {J + {\delta _0}\sin [\pi j + \phi(t)]} \right\}\hat a_j^\dag {\hat a_{j + 1}} + h.c.\right\}}\nonumber\\
&& +\sum\limits_j^{} {\left\{ {{\Delta _0}\cos [\pi j + \phi(t) ] + \hbar \omega_F j} \right\}\hat n_j}. \label{Ham}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat a_j^\dag$ creates a boson at the $j$-th site and $\hat n_j=\hat a_j^\dag \hat a_j$ is the density operator. $J$ is the hopping constant. $\delta_0$ and $\Delta_0$ are the amplitudes of modulations in the hopping strength and the onsite energy, respectively. $\hbar \omega_F$ is due to a tilt, which can be realized by applying a magnetic field gradient or aligning the superlattice along the gravity. For convenience, we set $\hbar=1$ by default hereafter. If $F$ is absent, the model reduces to the Rice-Mele model [@Rice1982]. The bipartite superlattice can be created by superimposing a simple standing-wave laser with a second double-frequency one. The phase modulation $\phi(t)=\phi_0+\omega t$ can be realized by tuning the relative phase between two standing-wave lasers and thus the modulation period is given by $T_m=2\pi/\omega$. In the absence of a tilt, the Hamiltonian in momentum space is given by $\hat H(k,t)=h_x \hat \sigma_x+h_y\hat \sigma_y+h_z\hat \sigma_z$, where the effective magnetic field $(h_x,h_y,h_z)=\{2J\cos (k),2{\delta _0}\sin [\phi (t)]\sin(k),{\Delta _0}\cos [\phi (t)]\}$. By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian, $\hat H(k,t)|u^{0}(k,t)\rangle=\varepsilon^{0} (k,t)|u^{0}(k,t)\rangle$, we analytically obtain the instantaneous eigenvalues $\varepsilon_{\pm}^{0}(k,t)=\pm\sqrt{h_x^2+h_y^2+h_z^2}$ and the corresponding eigenstates $|u_{\pm}^{0}(k,t)\rangle$ (see Supplemental Material for more details [@Suppl]). In the presence of a tilt, we can obtain analogous solutions by making a unitary transformation $a_j^\dag=e^{-i\omega_Fjt}b_j^\dag$. The Hamiltonian then becomes $\hat H_{\rm rot}(t) = \hat H_{1} + \hat H_{2}$ with $\hat H_{1} =\sum_j^{} {\left\{ \left\{ {J + {\delta _0}\sin [\pi j + \phi (t)]} \right\}{e^{i\omega_Ft}}\hat b_j^\dag {\hat b_{j + 1}} + h.c.\right\}}$ and $\hat H_{2}=\sum_j^{} {\left\{ {{\Delta _0}\cos [\pi j + \phi (t)]} \right\}\hat n_j}$. That is, the tilt is equivalent to adding a time-dependent phase factor to the hopping term. As such, all the instantaneous bands and eigenstates can be found by replacing $k$ by $k-\omega_Ft$, with the modified eigenstates $|u_{\pm}(k,t)\rangle =|u_{\pm}^{0}(k-\omega_F,t)\rangle$ and modified dispersion relation $\varepsilon_{\pm}(k,t)= \varepsilon_{\pm}^{0}(k-\omega_Ft,t)$. [*Effective topological invariant*]{}. According to the theorem of adiabatic transport, the group velocity for momentum $k$ in the $n$-th band is contributed by two terms, the energy dispersion and the Berry curvature [@Xiao2010], $$\begin{aligned}
v_g(k,t)=\frac{\partial \varepsilon_n(k,t)}{\hbar \partial k}+\mathcal F_n(k,t), \label{Velocity}\end{aligned}$$ where the Berry curvature is given by, $$\mathcal F_n(k,t)=-2 \textrm{Im}\big[\sum\limits_{n'\ne n}\frac{\langle u_n|\partial_k \hat H|u_{n'}\rangle\langle u_{n'}|\partial_t \hat H|u_{n}\rangle}{(\varepsilon_n-\varepsilon_{n'})^2}\big],$$ with $n=\pm$. Note that if $\mathcal F_{\pm}^{0}(k,t)$ denotes the analogous Berry curvature of the gapped Rice-Mele model ($F=0$), then $\mathcal F_{\pm}(k,t)=\mathcal F_{\pm}^{0}(k-\omega_Ft,t)$. For later use, the topological Chern number manifested in Thouless pumping is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C_n=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi/d} \int_0^{q T_m} \mathcal F_n^{0} (k, t)\, dk dt, \label{OC}\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is the size of each unit cell. Because energy bands are periodic in $k$, the first term of group velocity $v_g(k,t)$ oscillates with time. In a static system, the second term vanishes such that the Zak phase plays no role in Bloch oscillations [@Atala2013]. However, due to the periodic modulation via $\phi(t)$ and the adiabatic following of the instantaneous eigenstates, the anomalous velocity due to Berry curvature becomes crucial here. To that end one first explicitly obtains the associated Berry curvature at time $t$ for the two bands, i.e., $$\mathcal F_{\pm}(k,t)= 2J{\delta _0}\omega {\Delta _0}\frac{1-{\cos^2 {{[\phi(t)]}}\cos^2 {{(k - \omega_Ft)}} }}{{{[\varepsilon_{\pm}^{0}(k-\omega_Ft, t)]^3}}}. \label{AnoVelocity}$$
![(a) Berry curvature of the lower band, whose magnitudes are represented by color, is indicated on the plot of $(h_x,h_y,h_z)$ mapped from $(k,t)$, with $(k,t)$ is made to cover the whole Brillouin zone. (b) Same as in (a), but now only $(h_x,h_y,h_z)$ and Berry curvatures at $(k-\omega_F t, t)$ are plotted together. (c) The drift of an initial Bloch state over $q$ modulation cycles versus $k$ for $\omega_F/\omega=10/3$ (the red solid line) and $\omega_F=0$ (the blue dashed-dot line). Other parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, and $\phi_0=0$.[]{data-label="FigCurvature"}](Fig2New){width="\columnwidth"}
Consider then a Bloch state as the initial state under our pumping scheme. To simplify the matters, let us assume $\omega_F/\omega=p/q$ as mentioned above, resulting in an overall period $T_{\rm tot}=q T_m$ ($T_m$ is the modulation period in $\phi$). The amount of pumping at time $\tau$ is simply given by the following semi-classical expression [@Xiao2010], $$\Delta X(\tau)=\int_0^{\tau} v_g(k, t)dt. \label{SemiClass}$$ This expression can be also viewed as the time integral of the quantum flux determined by the group velocity $v_g$. Because the instantaneous energy eigenvalues are periodic functions of time and momentum, in an overall period $T_{\rm tot}$ the integral of the dispersion velocity is exactly zero. Thus only the anomalous velocity due to the Berry curvature can contribute to pumping. One can find the drift over the duration of $T_{\rm tot}$ measured by the size of a unit cell $d$, $$C_{n, \rm {red}}\equiv \frac{\Delta X(q T_m)}{d}=\frac{1}{d}\int_0^{q T_m} \mathcal F_n (k, t)\, dt. \label{SemiClassQuan}$$
Our key observation is that $C_{n,\rm red}$ is almost perfectly quantized as a one-dimensional time integral of the Berry curvature $F_n (k, t) =F_n^{0} (k-\omega_Ft, t)$. Due to the Bloch oscillations at a constant frequency $\omega_F$, all momentum values are uniformly scanned or sampled in this time integral. Anticipating an effectively “ergodic” behavior in such momentum sampling, this integral is hence expected to be independent of the starting value of $\phi$ or equivalently, independent of the initial value of $k$. This physical intuition is perhaps natural for large integers $q$ and $p$ because highly dissimilar frequencies of $\omega$ and $\omega_F$ enhances the uniformity of the sampling. Nevertheless, as our results below show, this $k$-independence of the quantum pumping is practically true even when the two frequencies are on low-order resonances. This being the case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
C_{n,{\rm red}} &\approx & \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi/d} \int_0^{q T_m} \mathcal F_n^{0} (k-\omega_Ft, t)\, dk dt, \ \nonumber \\
&= & \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi/d} \int_0^{q T_m} \mathcal F_n^{0} (k, t)\, dk dt = q C_n. \label{effC}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $C_{n,\rm{red}}$ is effectively quantized, because it is always very close to $q$ times of the topological Chern number in Thouless pumping. More discussions on the near perfect quantization of $C_{n, \rm{red}}$ is presented in Supplementary Material [@Suppl]. Clearly then, compared to the Chern number expression Eq (an integral over a two-dimensional area), $C_{n,\rm{red}}$ defined here as a one-dimensional integral can be regarded as, effectively, a [reduced]{} expression for the Chern number $C_n$ (apart from the factor $q$). Thus we call $C_{n,\rm{red}}$ as a *reduced Chern number*.
If $C_{n}$ is nonzero, there must be a Dirac monopole at the band-crossing point $h_x=h_y=h_z=0$. The Berry curvature represents a fictitious magnetic field due to the Dirac monopole and $C_n$ can be viewed as the magnetic flux of the Dirac monopole (up to a $4\pi$ factor) in the ($h_x, h_y, h_z$) parameter space. For a uniformly filled band, the adiabatic pumping in $\phi(t)$ and the uniform band occupation ensure that an entire surface enclosing the Dirac monopole is fully covered \[see Fig. \[FigCurvature\](a)\]. In our scheme with a tilt and a Bloch state as the initial state, the sampled $(h_x, h_y, h_z)$ and the associated Berry curvatures rotate around the Dirac monopole due to time evolution itself, and effectively it covers the Dirac monopole $q$ times in a common time period of $qT_m$ \[see Fig. \[FigCurvature\](b)\]. Somewhat analogous to Ampere’s law where a current yields a winding magnetic field, here a rotating field induces pumping and hence a current.
To confirm our insights above, Fig. \[FigCurvature\](c) depicts the drift over $T_{\rm tot}=qT_m$ as a function of $k$, the initial value of a Bloch state, for $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\phi_0=0$ and $\delta_0=0.8$. The solid line in Fig. \[FigCurvature\](c) is for $\omega_F/\omega=10/3$, where deviation of $ C_{n, {\rm red}}$ from quantization is not detectable. That is, the ratio of $\Delta X(q T_m)$ to $qd$ is indeed extremely close to unity, hence $C_{n, {\rm red}}$ is extremely close to $q$, for any value of $k$, consistent with $C_n=1$. This is in sharp contrast to the case with $F=0$ \[dashed line in Fig. \[FigCurvature\](c)\], where the geometrical pumping is not quantized and strongly depends on $k$. In Supplementary Material [@Suppl], we have also investigated many other cases with different rational ratios of $\omega_F/\omega$. Even for very-low-order resonances (e.g., $q=2$), the deviation of the pumping from quantization is about one percent only, a precision that is more than sufficient for $C_{n, \rm{red}}$ to serve as an effective topological invariant to detect topological phase transitions. It is also interesting to discuss the cases with irrational $\omega_F/\omega$. The system’s group velocity $v_g$ is then quasi-periodic in time. In essence that represents cases with $q$ approaching infinity. Hence the pumping is not expected to be well quantized for a duration $NT_m$ with a small $N$. Nevertheless, the averaging pumping over a sufficiently long time, i.e., $\frac{\Delta X(N T_m)}{Nd}\big|_{ N\rightarrow \infty}$ is still quantized because of two reasons. First, the Berry curvature part of $v_g$ can now sample all momentum values in a more ergodic fashion. Second, the time integral of the quasi-periodic dispersion velocity over a sufficiently long time vanishes. More details can be found in Supplementary Material [@Suppl].
[*Topological pumping of Gaussian wavepackets*]{}. Given that even an arbitrary Bloch state yields essentially quantized pumping, it becomes obvious that quantized pumping survives for any initial wavepacket prepared on a band of interest. To demonstrate this we consider an initial Gaussian wavepacket localized at momentum $k_0=0$ of the lower energy band. The initial wavefunction at the $j$-th site is hence given by $$\psi_j(0)=\mathcal{N} e^{-\frac{(j-j_0)^2}{4\sigma^2}} u_{-,j} (k_0,0) e^{i k_0 j},$$ Here, $\mathcal{N}$ is a normalization factor, $\sigma$ is the initial wavepacket width, $u_{-,j} (k_0,0)$ represents the instantaneous lower-band spinor eigenstate in the sublattice degree of freedom at time zero. As the bias between the two sublattices increases, this state dominantly occupies the odd lattice sites. Such type of wavepacket can be prepared by applying an additional harmonic trap [@Lu2016]. We then examine the density distribution profile $|\psi_j(t)|^2$ of the time-evolving wavepacket $\psi_j(t)$ and the mean displacement $\Delta X(t)=X(t)-X(0)$ where $X(t)=\sum_j j|\psi_j(t)|^2.$
![Quantized drifting Bloch oscillations for an initial Gaussian wavepacket in two overall periods. (a) Density evolution in real space. (b) Displacement as a function of time. The blue solid line and red dashed line are obtained from quantum dynamics calculations and the semi-classical expression Eq. , respectively. The parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.03$, $\phi_0=0$, $\omega_F/\omega=4/3$, $d=2$, $\sigma=15$, $j_0=101$ and $k_0=0$.[]{data-label="FigGuassian"}](Fig3New){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[FigGuassian\](a) and (b) show the time-evolution of wavefunction profile in real space and the drift of the wavepacket center as a function of time. The parameters are set as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\phi_0=0$, $\omega=0.03$, $\omega_F/\omega=4/3$, $\sigma=15$, $j_0=101$. The frequencies $\omega$ and $\omega_F$ are chosen to be small to ensure adiabatic following. It is seen that the spatial density profile exhibits cosine-like oscillations with additional modulation, which manifest the Bloch oscillations in a time-modulated system. More importantly, a quantized drift of such oscillations is seen at multiples of $3T_m$, as displayed by the blue solid line in Fig. \[FigGuassian\](b). The red dashed line obtained by the semi-classical expression in Eq. perfectly agrees with the one directly obtained by wavepacket dynamics calculations. Though not shown here, we have also checked that in the momentum space, the average momentum of the time-evolving state indeed linearly sweeps the Brillouin zone according to $k=k_0-\omega_Ft$ [@Suppl].
[*Advantages of topological pumping with a tilt*]{}. It is necessary to compare three pumping schemes in a modulated lattice: (i) topological pumping with a tilt, with the initial state being a wavepacket, (ii) the geometric pumping with the same initial state but without a tilt [@Lu2016], and (iii) Thouless pumping where the initial state is a Wannier state [@lohse2016thouless; @Nakajima2016]. In Fig. \[FigComparison\], we show $\Delta X(t)$ and the change in the wavepacket width $\Delta W(t)=W(t)-W(0)$, where the wavepacket width is defined as $W (t)= \sqrt{ \sum_j [j-X(t)]^2|\psi_j(t)|^2}$. In geometric pumping, the transport is not quantized and the wavepacket has insignificant spreading. In Thouless pumping, although the transport is quantized, the wavepacket exhibits serious spreading even at early time during a pumping cycle. In our topological pumping with a tilt, not only the transport is quantized, but also the wavepacket maintains its spatial localization or coherence over a long time [@Suppl], a feature of considerable interest for quantum state transfer [@Mei2018]. To summarize, topological pumping with a tilt has advantageous aspects from both geometrical pumping and Thouless pumping.
[*Concluding remarks*]{}. We have put forward a simple scheme of adiabatic pumping by introducing a small tilt to a lattice on top of other time modulation to system parameters. Quantized pumping (determined by a *reduced Chern number*) can now be readily realized in experiments because it works for arbitrary initial state prepared on a band of interest. As such, there is no longer a need to engineer uniform band occupation as in Thouless pumping. It should be stressed that the resultant pumping is not [*mathematically*]{} quantized, but in practice it is well quantized with remarkable precision, hence highly useful for probing topological phase transitions. It would be interesting to extend our results to disordered or many-body systems. Indeed, probing topological invariants without uniform band filling can be important in topological systems without conventional band structures, such as in disordered topological insulators and interacting topological insulators [@Titum2015; @rachel2018]. Our scheme may be also extended to probe topological invariants in high-dimensional systems.
Y. Ke and S. Hu made equal contributions. This work has been supported by the Key-Area Research and Development Program of GuangDong Province under Grants No. 2019B030330001, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) under Grants \[No. 11874434, No.11574405\], and the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou (China) under Grants No. 201904020024. Y.K. is partially supported by the Office of China Postdoctoral Council (Grant No. 20180052), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11904419), and the Australian Research Council (DP200101168). J.G. acknowledges support from Singapore NRF Grant No. NRF-NRFI2017-04 (WBS No. R-144-000-378-281).
[99]{} 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 [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.27.6083) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.47.1651) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/17/3/011) [****, ()](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5409/1905) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys582) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1959) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.106402) [****, ()](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.xilesou.top/doi/abs/10.1002/lpor.201600119) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.213603) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25011) [****, ()](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1241) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.200402) [****, ()](https://www.nature.xilesou.top/articles/nphys3584) [****, ()](https://www.nature.xilesou.top/articles/nphys3622) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.063630) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25000) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.064302) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.023620) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.120501) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1421) [****, ()](https://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/9770) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.053826) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02008) [****, ()](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6414/568.abstract) @noop (), [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.012331) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.150403) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.135302) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.010601) [****, ()](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjb/e2014-50465-9) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035005) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021004) [****, ()](https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.040502) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3171?page=12) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.081406) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235108) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1926) [****, ()](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pssr.201206451) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.195419) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.245430) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.176401) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.011004) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.085420) [****, ()](https://link.springer.xilesou.top/article/10.1007/BF01339455) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.63.91) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2790) [****, ()](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/288) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/002) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/8/7/110) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.155124) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.043620) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.033602) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.053409) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.215301) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.063606) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.063614) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1455) @noop [ ]{} [****, ()](https://journals.jps.jp/doi/abs/10.1143/JPSJ.74.1674) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023043) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.033615) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.056801) [****, ()](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/aad6a6)
Supplementary Material
======================
S1. Hamiltonian in momentum space {#MomentumSpace}
=================================
In the case of a single particle, to obtain the Hamiltonian in momentum space, we make a Fourier transformation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fourier}
{\hat b_{2j}^{\dagger}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum\limits_k^{} {{e^{ik2j}}{\hat b_{k,e}^{\dagger}}}, \nonumber \\
{\hat b_{2j - 1}^{\dagger}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum\limits_k^{} {{e^{ik(2j - 1)}}{\hat b_{k,o}^{\dagger}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $k$ is the quasi-momentum, and $e$ ($o$) respectively represents an even (odd) site. $L$ is the total number of unit cells. When the tilt is absent, $\hbar \omega_F=0$, substituting Eq. into Hamiltonian (1) in the main text, we can obtain Hamiltonian in the quasi-momentum space, $H(t)=\sum_k H(k,t)$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat H(k,t)={\big\{ {2J\cos (k) + 2i{\delta _0}\sin [\phi (t)]\sin(k)} \big\}\hat b_{k,o}^\dag {\hat b_{k,e}}} + h.c.+ {\Delta _0}\cos [\phi (t)]\big(\hat b_{k,e}^\dag {\hat b_{k,e}}- b_{k,o}^\dag {\hat b_{k,o}}\big). \label{HamK0}\end{aligned}$$
In terms of Pauli matrices describing the sublattice degree of freedom, the Hamiltonian becomes $\hat H(k,t)=h_x\hat \sigma_x+h_y\hat \sigma_y+h_z\hat \sigma_z$, where $(h_x,h_y,h_z)=\{2J\cos (k),2{\delta _0}\sin [\phi (t)]\sin(k),{\Delta _0}\cos [\phi (t)]\}$ are the three components of an effective magnetic field. One then obtains the eigenvalues and eigenstates by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian, $\hat H(k,t)|u^{0}(k,t)\rangle=\varepsilon^0 (k,t)|u^{0}(k,t)\rangle$. The superscript $0$ denotes zero tilt. The eigenvalues are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{\pm}^0&=&\pm\sqrt{h_x^2+h_y^2+h_z^2}\nonumber \\
&=&\pm\sqrt{4J^2\cos ^2(k)+4{\delta _0}^2\sin^2 [\phi (t)]\sin ^2(k)+{\Delta _0}^2\cos^2 [\phi(t)]},\end{aligned}$$ and the eigenstates without normalization are given by $${|u_{\pm}^0\rangle} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{{2J\cos (k) - 2{\delta _0}i\sin [\phi(t)]\sin (k)}}{{{\varepsilon_{\pm}^0} -{\Delta _0}\cos [\phi (t)]}}}\\
1
\end{array}} \right).$$
In the presence of a tilt, by making a unitary transformation $a_j^\dag=e^{-i\omega_Fjt}b_j^\dag$, the Hamiltonian (1) is transformed to $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_{\rm rot}(t) =\sum_j^{} {\left\{ \left\{ {J + {\delta _0}\sin [\pi j + \phi (t)]} \right\}{e^{i\omega_Ft}}\hat b_j^\dag {\hat b_{j + 1}} + h.c.\right\}+\left\{ {{\Delta _0}\cos [\pi j + \phi (t)]} \right\}\hat n_j}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the Hamiltonian in the momentum space is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H(k,t)={\big\{ {2J\cos [K(k,t)] + 2i{\delta _0}\sin [\phi (t)]\sin[K(k,t)]} \big\}\hat b_{k,o}^\dag {\hat b_{k,e}}}+ h.c.+ {\Delta _0}\cos [\phi (t)]\big(\hat b_{k,e}^\dag {\hat b_{k,e}}- b_{k,o}^\dag {\hat b_{k,o}}\big), \label{HamK}\end{aligned}$$ where $K(k,t)=k-\omega_Ft$. Compared Eq. \[HamK\] with Eq. \[HamK0\], all the instantaneous energy bands and eigenstates can be found by replacing $k$ by $k-\omega_Ft$, with the modified eigenstates $|u_{\pm}(k,t)\rangle =|u_{\pm}^{0}(k-\omega_F,t)\rangle$ and modified dispersion relation $\varepsilon_{\pm}(k,t)= \varepsilon_{\pm}^{0}(k-\omega_Ft,t)$.
S2. Relation between $C_{n,\rm{red}}$ and $C_n$
===============================================
Here we first show that $C_{n,\rm red}$ defined in the main text as a one-dimensional time integral is independent of the initial momentum value of a Bloch state and equal to $q$ times of the Chern number, namely, $C_{n,\rm red}= q C_n$, if $\omega_F/\omega=p/q\rightarrow \infty$. Consider first the Berry curvatures $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal F_{\pm}(k,t)&=& \frac{\pm 2J{\delta _0}\omega {\Delta _0}\left\{1-{\cos^2 {{[\phi(t)]}}\cos^2 {{[K(k,t)]}} }\right\}}{{{\left\{4J^2\cos ^2[K(k,t)]+4{\delta _0}^2\sin^2 [\phi (t)]\sin ^2[K(k,t)]+{\Delta _0}^2\cos^2 [\phi (t)]\right\}}^{3/2}}} \nonumber \\
&=&\mathcal F_{\pm}^0(k-\omega_F t,t), \label{AnoVelocity}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal F_{n}^0(k,t)$ denotes the Berry curvature in the absence of a tilt. When $k$ is shifted to $k+\Delta k$, and $t$ is shifted to $t+\Delta k/\omega_F$, the Berry curvature is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal F_{\pm}(k+\Delta k,t+\Delta k/\omega_F) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{ \pm 2J{\delta _0}\omega {\Delta _0}\left\{1-{\cos^2 {{[\phi(t)+\frac{\omega}{\omega_F}\Delta k ]}}\cos^2 {{[K(k,t)]}} }\right\}}{{{\left\{4J^2\cos ^2[K(k,t)]+4{\delta _0}^2\sin^2 [\phi (t)+\frac{\omega}{\omega_F}\Delta k]\sin ^2[K(k,t)]+{\Delta _0}^2\cos^2 [\phi (t)+\frac{\omega}{\omega_F}\Delta k]\right\}}^{3/2}}} \nonumber \\
&\cong & \frac{\pm 2J{\delta _0}\omega {\Delta _0}\left\{1-{\cos^2 {{[\phi(t)]}}\cos^2 {{[K(k,t)]}} }\right\}}{{{\left\{4J^2\cos ^2[K(k,t)]+4{\delta _0}^2\sin^2 [\phi (t)]\sin ^2[K(k,t)]+{\Delta _0}^2\cos^2 [\phi (t)]\right\}}^{3/2}}}\nonumber \\
&=&\mathcal F_{\pm}(k,t).
\label{F2}\end{aligned}$$ The approximately equal sign here can be replaced by an exactly equal sign if $\omega_F/\omega\rightarrow \infty$. Actually, even when $\omega_F$ is comparable to $\omega$, this relation still holds with high precision, an important feature that will become clearer later. Next we note the following rewriting of one-dimensional time integrals: $$\int_{0}^{qT_m} \mathcal F_{\pm}(k+\Delta k,t+\Delta k/\omega_F)dt=\int_{\Delta k/\omega_F}^{qT_m+\Delta k/\omega_F} \mathcal F_{\pm}(k+\Delta k,t)dt=\int_{0}^{qT_m} \mathcal F_{\pm}(k+\Delta k,t)dt,$$ where the last equal sign is due to the fact that the Berry curvature is a periodic function of time with period $qT_m$. Comparing this with Eq. (\[F2\]), one immediately has $$\begin{aligned}
C_{n,\rm{red}}=\frac{1}{d}\int_{0}^{qT_m} \mathcal F_{\pm}(k,t) dt = \frac{1}{d}\int_{0}^{qT_m} \mathcal F_{\pm}(k+\Delta k,t) dt.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $C_{n, \rm{eff}}$ as the time intergral of $\mathcal F_{\pm}(k,t)$ is practically independent of $k$, i.e., $$C_{n,\rm red}(k+\Delta k) = C_{n,\rm red}(k),$$ for any $\Delta k$. Now if we consider an averaging over $k$, we immediately have $$C_{n,\rm red}\approx \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{qT_m}\int_{-\pi/d}^{\pi/d} \mathcal F_n^0(k-\omega_F t,t) dt dk=\frac{q}{2\pi}\int_0^{T_m}\int_{-\pi/d}^{\pi/d} \mathcal F_n^0(k,t) dt dk=q C_n.$$ The second equal sign is because the Chern number $C_n$ as a two-dimensional integral are the same in each pumping cycle if there is no external force.
![Schematic diagram for numerical calculations of Chern number (a) in the absence of a tilt and (b) inthe presence of a tilt. The red and black dots are the locations of singluarity points at the north and south poles. []{data-label="FigChernNumber"}](FigS1){width="\columnwidth"}
In numerical calculations, we discrete the parameter space into mesh grids, and then apply the Stokes theorem to transform the surface integral to a line integral of each grid [@fukui2005chern]. According to the theory of dynamic winding number, the line integrals encircling singularity points are the major contributions to Chern number [@zhu2019dynamic]. The Chern numbers for the two bands are the same as those in the original Rice-Mele model, even if we account for the tilt we introduce. This is because the external force only linearly shift the momentum and reshape the grids from square to rhombus without affecting the winding number of singularity points; see the schematic diagram in Fig. \[FigChernNumber\].
We calculate standard variance of $\Delta X(q T_m)/(qd )$ over all momentum states as a function of $p=q\omega_F/\omega$ when $q$ ranges from $1$ to $7$. The result is shown in Fig. \[FigXForce\] with parameters $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\phi_0=0$, and $\delta_0=0.8$. The mean displacement per modulation period is exactly $1$ unit cell. It is clear the deviation of $\Delta X(q T_m)/(qd)$ from $1$ exponentially decays as the ratio between the external force and driving frequency increases. Taking $q=7$ as an example, the deviation between $\Delta X(7 T_m)/(7d)$ from unity already reaches machine precision/error for $p=11$, i.e. $\omega_F/\omega=11/7$. This super-fast decay of $\Delta X(N T_m)/(Nd)$ with $N$ also persists even when $N$ is not equal to multiples of $q$. These numerical results show that the actual condition for the quantization of $C_{n,\rm{red}}$ as an effective topological invariant is much looser than that in the above analysis.
![Variance of $\Delta X(qT_m)/(qd)$ as a function of $p=q\omega_F/\omega$. The parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, and $\delta_0=0.8$. []{data-label="FigXForce"}](FigS2){width="\columnwidth"}
S3. Topological pumping of Gaussian wavepackets {#Gaussian}
===============================================
1. Density evolution in momentum space
--------------------------------------
![Time evolution of density distribution in momentum space. The parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.03$, $\phi_0=0$, $\omega_F/\omega=4/3$, $d=2$, $\sigma=15$, $j_0=101$ and $k_0=0$.[]{data-label="FigMomentum"}](FigS3){width="\columnwidth"}
We are also interested in the density distribution in the quasi-momentum space, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_k|^2&=&|\alpha_{o,k}|^2+|\alpha_{e,k}|^2, \nonumber \\
\alpha_{e,k} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{L} {{e^{-ik2j}}\psi_j}, \nonumber \\
\alpha_{o,k} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{L} {{e^{-ik(2j - 1)}}\psi_j}, \end{aligned}$$ where $L=150$ is the total number of unit cells. Fig. \[FigMomentum\] shows the time evolution of density distribution $|\psi_k|^2$ in the momentum space. In the whole time duration shown, the momentum distribution of the system maintains the same. The momentum is actually linearly swept down according to $K=k_0-\omega_F t$ and jumps to $0.5\pi$ when it reaches the boundary of Brillouin zone at $-0.5\pi$, which is consistent with the result in Sec. \[MomentumSpace\].
2. Irrational case
------------------
For the cases where $p$ and $q$ are not commensurate, the eigenvalues are quasi-periodic functions of time and hence the velocity due to the dispersion of bands becomes also quasi-periodic. This means that the displacement is generally not quantized because the velocity due to the dispersion of bands cannot self-cancel over a short time. However, the mean displacement in the long time average, $$\frac{\Delta X(N T_m)}{ Nd}\big|_{ N\rightarrow \infty}\rightarrow 1,$$ because the integral of velocity due to the dispersion of bands over long time vanishes and only quantized displacement due to anomalous velocity leaves. For example, we consider $p/q=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$ and calculate the mean position shift as a function of time via Eq. (6) in the main text; see Fig. \[FigLong\]. The inset shows the corresponding time-evolution of density distribution in relatively short time. Other parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.01$, $\phi_0=0$, $d=2$, $\sigma=15$, $j_0=120$ and $k_0=0$. We can observe quasi-periodic Bloch oscillations accompanied by a linear displacement guided by red dashed line in Fig. \[FigLong\]. After averaging the velocity in infinite time, the red dashed line is given by $\Delta X(NT_m)/d=N$. The displacement due to anomalous velocity linearly increases with the $N$ multiple of pumping cycle. Because the oscillations have finite width, $W$ (which can be suppressed by strong external force), The fluctuation in displacement $W/\Delta X\approx W/(2N)$ will eventually vanish as the total time under consideration approaches infinity.
3. Time evolution of Guassian wave-packets
------------------------------------------
Even when the external force is integer multiples of the driving frequency ($\omega_F=n\omega$), a Gaussian wavepacket still undergoes quantized drifting Bloch oscillations due to the nontrivial Berry curvature. This physics is certainly different from the early-observed possibility of resonance-induced expansion [@Tarrallo]. In Fig. \[CompareInitialFinal\], we show difference in wavepacket width between the final and initial states for $\omega_F/\omega=4$.
![Difference in spatial width between final and initial states as a function of the initial width. Insets: Comparison between initial ($t=0$) and final ($50T_m$) states. The initial widths are chosen as $\sigma=1.5$ and $\sigma=15$ for the left and right insets, respectively. Other parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.03$, $\phi_0=0$, $\omega_F=4\omega$, $d=2$, $j_0=101$ and $k_0=0$.[]{data-label="CompareInitialFinal"}](FigS4){width="\columnwidth"}
A wider Guassian wavepacket in real space corresponds to a narrower Guassian wavepacket in momentum space, which is hence closer to a Bloch state of a single quasi-momentum value. We compare the density distribution of initial and final states in the insets of Fig. \[CompareInitialFinal\]. For wide wavepackets, as they are more similar to a Bloch state, their density profiles are almost kept unchanged in their time evolution. For narrow wavepackets, as they involve several momentum states and different momentum states accumulate different phases , their shapes are slightly changed.
![Displacement for an initial Gaussian-like state in an irrational case of $\omega_F/\omega=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$. The dashed red line is obtained by averaging the velocity in long time. Inset: Time evolution of density distribution in real space. Other parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\Delta_0=2$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.01$, $\phi_0=0$, $d=2$, $\sigma=15$, $j_0=120$ and $k_0=0$.[]{data-label="FigLong"}](FigS5){width="\columnwidth"}
S4. Topological pumping of Wannier states
=========================================
1. General theory
-----------------
We consider the time-evolution of an initial Wannier state in the lower-energy band. In contrast to Gaussian-like state localized at certain momentum, the initial Wannier state is an equal superposition of all the Bloch states in the lower-energy band with different momenta, $$|w_1(R,0)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum\limits_k e^{-ikR}|u_{1}(k,0)\rangle,$$ where $R$ denotes the location of the Wannier state. When the system is adiabatically and periodically modulated, the displacement for the Wannier state in one pumping cycle is simply the average of the displacement for the Bloch states with different momenta, $$\Delta X(T_m) =\frac{d}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}\int_{0}^{T_m} v_g(k,t) dt dk, \label{DeltaXTm}$$ where $d$ as the period of the superlattice is equal to $2$ in our case. The term due to the dispersion of the energy band is exactly zero, i.e., $$\frac{d}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi/d}^{\pi/d} \int_{0}^{T_m} \frac{\partial \varepsilon(k,t) }{\hbar \partial k} dt dk=0,$$ regardless of the external force. It means that the mean position shift in one pumping cycle is only related to the Chern number defined in the parameter space $(-\pi/2 \le k\le \pi/2,\ 0\le t\le T_m)$, $$\label{Chern}
C_n=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}dk\int_{0}^{T_m}dt \mathcal F_n(k,t).$$ Consequently, the displacement in one pumping cycle is given by $$\Delta X(T_m)=C_n d,$$ which is essentially the polarization theory [@King1993].
![Topological pumping of an initial Wannier states. Panels (a), (c) and (e): Time evolution of density distribution for $\omega_F/\omega=1/2,\ 4,\ (\sqrt{5}+1)/2$, respectively. Panels (b), (d) and (f): Displacement as a function of time for $\omega_F/\omega=1/2,\ 4,\ (\sqrt{5}+1)/2$, respectively. (g) The semi-classical displacement in one pumping cycle as a function of momentum for different $\omega_F/\omega$. The other parameters are chosen as $\Delta_0=20$, $J=-1$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.02$, $\phi_0=0$. []{data-label="FigWannierF4"}](FigS6){width="\columnwidth"}
2. Dynamics of Wannier states for different $\omega_F/\omega$
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is known that the Bloch oscillations behave as breathing modes for an initial state localized at a single site [@Hartmann2004]. Such an initial state is approximately a Wannier state if the energy bands are flat. The initial state is a single atom at an odd site (i.e. the $101$th site), which is approximately a Wannier state of the lower-energy band. In Fig. \[FigWannierF4\], we show the evolution of density distribution $|\psi_j(t)|^2$, the displacement $\Delta X(t)$ via quantum state evolution and the displacement as a function of momentum which is obtained via semi-classical expression \[Eq.(6) in the main text\]. In the numerical calculation, we choose $\Delta_0=20$ to make the energy bands flat. The other parameters are chosen as $J=-1$, $\delta_0=0.8$, $\omega=0.02$, $\phi_0=0$, $\omega_F=\omega/2$ for Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](a) and \[FigWannierF4\](b), $\omega_F/\omega=4 $ for Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](c) and \[FigWannierF4\](d), $\omega_F/\omega=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$ for Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](e) and \[FigWannierF4\](f). In the case of $\omega_F=\omega/2$, it is clear that the wavepacket expands and shrinks periodically; see Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](a). At the nodes of multiples of modulation period, the wavepacket is re-localized at a single site, but its mean position is shifted by a unit cell per pumping cycle. In the absence of a tilt, the wavepacket is dispersive due to the curved energy band [@ke2016topological]. Here, the dispersion at the nodes is suppressed, because the group velocities of the momentum states have small fluctuations and hence their displacement, see the blue dashed-dot line in Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](g). Compared to the oscillation width of the time evolving wave-packets, the quantized displacement is small but it is clearly found in the displacement; see Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](b). Note that $\omega_F=\omega/2$ is chosen for the coincidence between the period of Bloch oscillations and th period of pumping cycle. In this case, the period of Bloch oscillations is determined by the time $T=\pi/\omega_F=2\pi/\omega$ to sweep the first Brillouin zone. Besides, the dispersion of wavepacket still exists in the long time evolution due to the dispersion of energy band and Berry curvature.
In the case of $\omega_F/ \omega=4$, instead of the breathing modes, the system becomes diffusive like a bullet mode while the mean position shift per period remains quantized; see Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](c) and \[FigWannierF4\](d). The diffusion becomes faster than the previous case, because the mean position shift has larger fluctuation as the momentum changes; see the red solid line in Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](g).
For completeness, we also consider the dynamics in the irrational case where $\omega_F/\omega=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$; see Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](e) and (f). Compared with the irrational case in Sec. \[Gaussian\], the time evolution of the density distribution has no well-defined period and behaves as quasi-periodic breathing modes. As the strength of the tilt increases, the width of the breathing mode becomes smaller. Nevertheless, the displacement is quantized per each pumping cycle. The fluctuation of mean position shift with momentum is presented as the black solid line in Fig. \[FigWannierF4\](g). In all the above cases, although the details of the dynamics are quite different for different ratios between the Bloch oscillation frequency and the modulation frequency, the quantized displacement in one pumping cycle maintains the same, which is consistent with the theory in Sec. S3.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We establish a result on the large sieve with square moduli. These bounds improve recent results by S. Baier [@Ba1] and L. Zhao [@Zha].'
author:
- Stephan Baier
- Liangyi Zhao
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: An Improvement for the Large Sieve for Square Moduli
---
[**Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)**]{}: 11B57, 11L07, 11L40, 11N35, 11L15.
[**Keywords**]{}: large sieve, Farey fractions in short intervals, estimates on exponential sums and integrals.
Introduction and Statement of the Main Results
==============================================
Large sieve was an idea originated by J. V. Linnik [@JVL1] in 1941 while studying the distribution of quadratic non-residues. Refinements of this idea were made by many. In this paper, we develop an improvement for large sieve inequality for square moduli. More in particular, we aim to have an estimate for the following sum $$\label{A1}
\sum\limits_{q\le Q} \sum\limits_{\substack{ a=1\\(a,q)=1}}^{q^2}
\left| \sum_{n= M+1}^{M+N} a_n e\left(\frac{a}{q^2}n\right)
\right|^2,$$ where henceforth $M \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $Q, N \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\{ a_n \}$ is an arbitrary sequence of complex numbers. In the sequel, we set $$S(x): = \sum_{n=M+1}^{M+N} a_n e\left(xn\right), \; \mbox{and} \; Z:=\sum\limits_{n=M+1}^{M+N} \vert a_n\vert^2.$$
With $q^2$ replaced by $q$ in , it is $$\label{kis1}
\ll (Q^2+N)Z.$$ This is in fact the consequence of a more general result first introduced by H. Davenport and H. Halberstam [@DH1] in which the Farey fractions in the outer sums of can be replaced by any set of well-spaced points. Montgomery and Vaughan [@MVa] showed that the $\ll$ can be replaced by $\leq$ in . Literature abound on the subject of the classical large sieve. See [@BD1; @HD; @DH1; @PXG; @JVL1; @Lem; @HM2; @MVa]. Applying the said more general result, is bounded above by $$\ll (Q^3+QN)Z, \mbox{ and } \ll (Q^4+N)Z\label{A4}$$ (See [@SBLZ; @Zha]). In [@Zha] it was proved that the sum can be estimated by $$\ll \log (2Q) \left(Q^3+\left(N\sqrt{Q}+ \sqrt{N}Q^2\right)N^{\varepsilon}\right)Z,\label{A5}$$ where the implied constant depends on $\varepsilon$. Also in [@Ba1], it was shown that is $$\label{Baiertheorem}
\ll (QN)^{\varepsilon} \left( Q^3+ N + \sqrt{N}Q^2 \right)Z.$$ Moreover, in the same paper [@Ba1], Baier showed that is $$\ll \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} Q^{3/5+\varepsilon}NZ, & \mbox{if} \; Q \leq N^{5/12}, \\ Q^{3+\varepsilon}Z, & \mbox{if} \; Q > N^{5/12}. \end{array} \right.$$ It was conjectured in [@Zha] that is $$\label{conj}
\ll Q^{\varepsilon} (Q^3+N)Z.$$ Furthermore, the inequality for higher power moduli was also studied in [@Zha; @SBLZ].
In this paper, we prove the following.
\[squaremod1\] With $\varepsilon >0$ given and under the usual notations, we have $$\label{squaremod1eq}
\sum\limits_{q\le Q} \sum\limits_{\substack{a=1 \\ (a,q)=1}}^{q^2}
\left\vert S\left(\frac{a}{q^2}\right)\right\vert^2 \ll (QN)^{\varepsilon}
\left(Q^3+N+\min\{N\sqrt{Q},\sqrt{N}Q^2\}\right)Z,$$ where the implied constant depends on $\varepsilon$ alone.
This theorem provides a better majorant in the range $N^{1/3+\varepsilon} \leq Q \leq N^{5/12-\varepsilon}$ and establishes the conjecture in for the range $Q \gg N^{2/5}$. Theorem \[squaremod1\] reduces to counting Farey fractions with square denominators in short intervals. We do this counting in two ways. The first is a generalization of the techniques in [@Zha] using estimates for certain Weyl sums, and the second is a more refined treatment of certain exponential integrals in [@Ba1]. The improvement comes from using different estimates for the integrals depending on the location of the stationary points of the integrals of interest and a more explicit evaluation of the quadratic Gauss sums from [@Ba1]. Theorem \[squaremod1\] follows when the two estimates are combined and compared with previously known results.
Furthermore, as an application of the large sieve for square moduli, we note the following Bombieri-Vinogradov type bound for prime squares. We have that, using and arguments similar to those in the proof of the classical Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem, $$\sum_{p \leq x^{2/9-\varepsilon}} p \max_{y\leq x} \max_{\substack{a \bmod{p^2} \\ p \nmid a}} \left| \psi(y; p^2,a) - \frac{y}{\varphi(p^2)} \right| \ll \frac{x}{(\log x)^A},$$ for any $A>0$. The restriction to only prime square moduli provides additional convenience in the reduction to primitive characters and the authors also believe that it is worthwhile to investigate results of this type for general sparse sets of moduli.
We note here that a Bombieri-Vinogradov type theorem more general than the above in which all square moduli are considered, not just the prime square moduli, has appeared in [@SBLZ3] while the present paper was under review. Moreover, the more general result improves some earlier results of Elliott [@PDTAE] and Mikawa and Peneva [@HMTPP].
Preliminary Lemmas
==================
In this section, we quote some lemmas that we shall use later. We shall need the following general version of the large sieve inequality.
\[generalls\] Let $\left\{ \alpha_r\right\}_{r=1}^R$ be a sequence of real numbers. Suppose that $0<\Delta\le 1/2$ and $R\in \mathbbm{N}$. Set $$K(\Delta):=\max\limits_{\alpha\in \mathbbm{R}}
\sum\limits_{\substack{r=1 \\
\| \alpha_r -\alpha \| \le \Delta }}^R 1,$$ where $\| x \|$ denotes the distance of a real $x$ to its closest integer. Then $$\sum\limits_{r=1}^R \left\vert S\left(\alpha_r\right)\right\vert^2
\ll K(\Delta)(N+\Delta^{-1})Z,$$ with an absolute $\ll$-constant.
This is Theorem 2.11 in [@Lem].
We also need the Poisson summation formula.
\[Poisson Summation Formula\] \[poisum\] Let $f(x)$ be a function on the real numbers that is piece-wise continuous with only finitely many discontinuities and for all real numbers, $a \in {\mathbb{R}}$, satisfies $$f(a) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \lim_{x \to a-} f(x) + \lim_{x \to a+} f(x) \right].$$ Moreover, $f(x) \ll (1+|x|)^{-c}$ for some $c>1$ with an absolute implied constant. Then we have $$\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} f(n) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}(n), \; \mbox{where} \; \hat{f}(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(y) e(xy) {\mathrm{d}}y,$$ the Fourier transform of $f(x)$.
This is quoted in [@Bum].
We shall not succeed in proving our contention without the following lemma.
\[weylk\] Let $I$ be an interval of length $N$ and $f(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $k \geq 2$ with real coefficients. Set $\kappa=2^{k-1}$ and let the leading coefficient, the coefficient of $x^k$, of $f(x)$ be $\alpha$. Also set $$S= \sum_{n \in I} e(f(n)).$$ Then we have $$|S|^{\kappa} \leq 2^{2\kappa}
N^{\kappa-1} + 2^{\kappa} N^{\kappa-k} \sum_{r_1,\cdots,r_{k-1}} \min \left( N, \frac{1}{\| \alpha k! r_1 \cdots r_{k-1} \|} \right),$$ where each $r$ runs from 1 to $N-1$ and $\| x \| = \min_{l\in {\mathbb{Z}}} |x-l|$.
This is Lemma 5.6 in [@ET].
We also need the following asymptotic formula for exponential integrals with weights.
\[Ivictheorem\] Let $f(z)$, $g(z)$ be two functions of the complex variable $z$ and $[a,b]$ a real interval such that:
1. For $a\le x\le b$ the function $f(x)$ is real and $f''(x)>0$.
2. For a certain positive differentiable function $\mu(x)$, defined on $a\le x\le b$, $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ are analytic for $a\le x\le b$, $|z-x| \le \mu(x)$.
3. There exist positive functions $F(x)$, $G(x)$ defined on $[a,b]$ such that for $a\le x\le b$, $|z-x|\le \mu(x)$ we have $$g(z)\ll G(x),\ \ \ \ \ \ f'(z)\ll \frac{F(x)}{\mu(x)},\ \ \ \ \ \
|f''(z)|^{-1}\ll \frac{\mu(x)^2}{F(x)},$$ and the $\ll$-constants are absolute.
Let $k$ be any real number, and if $f'(x)+k$ has a zero in \[a,b\] denote it by $x_0$. Let the values of $f(x)$, $g(x)$, and so on, at $a$, $x_0$, and $b$ be characterized by the suffixes $a$, $0$, and $b$ respectively. Then, for some absolute constant $C>0$, we have $$\begin{split}
\int_a^b g(x) e (f(x)+kx) {\mathrm{d}}x = \frac{g_0}{\sqrt{f_0''}}&e \left( f_0+kx_0+\frac{1}{8} \right) + O \left(\int\limits_a^b G(x)\exp\left(-C|k|\mu(x)-CF(x)\right)
({\rm d}x+|{\rm d}\mu(x)|)\right) \\
& + O \left(G_0\mu_0F_0^{-3/2} + G_a\left(|f_a'+k|+\sqrt{f_a''}\right)^{-1}+ G_b\left(|f_b'+k|+\sqrt{f_b''}\right)^{-1}\right).
\end{split}$$
This is Theorem 2.2. in [@Ivic].
Then we need the following lemma for the estimation of exponential integrals.
\[gkest\] Assume that $f$ and $g$ are real-valued, twice differentiable functions on $[a,b]$. Also assume that $g/f'$ is monotonic and that $$\left| \frac{f'(x)}{g(x)} \right| \geq \lambda.$$ Then we have $$\int_a^b g(x) e(f(x)) {\mathrm{d}}x \ll \lambda^{-1}.$$
This is Lemma 3.1 in [@Kol].
We shall also need to transform and estimate certain Gauss sums. We define $$\label{gausssumdef}
G (a,l;c) = \sum_{d \pmod{c}} e \left( \frac{ad^2+ld}{c} \right).$$ We have the following lemma.
\[gausssumtrans\] Assuming that $(a,c)=1$ and $a\overline{a}\equiv 1$ mod $c$, we have
1. If $l$ is even, then $$G(a,l;c) = e \left( - \frac{\overline{a}l^2}{4c} \right) G(a,0;c);$$
2. If $l$ is odd, then $$G(a,l;c) = e \left( - \frac{\overline{a}(l^2-1)}{4c} \right) G(a,1;c).$$
This is Lemma 7.11 in [@Kol].
To estimate these Gauss sums, we use the following Lemma.
\[gausssumest\] If $(a,c)=1$, then we have $$|G(a,l;c)| \leq 2\sqrt{c}.$$
This is (7.4.2) in [@Kol].
Counting Farey fractions in short intervals
===========================================
We aim to estimate $$\label{aim}
\sum_{q \leq Q} \sum_{\substack{a=1 \\ (a,q)=1}}^{q^2} \left| S \left( \frac{a}{q^2} \right) \right|^2.$$ It suffices to consider the above expression with the outer-most sum running over dyadic intervals. To that end, we begin with the following modified version of Lemma \[generalls\].
\[modified\] Let $\left\{ \alpha_r\right\}_{r=1}^R$ and $\left\{ \beta_l \right\}_{l=1}^L$ be two sequences of real numbers. Suppose that $0<\Delta\le 1/2$ and for every $\alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}$ there exists $\beta_l$ with $1 \leq l \leq L$ such that $$\| \beta_l - \alpha \| \leq \Delta.$$ Put $$K'(\Delta):=\max_{1 \leq l \leq L}
\sum_{\substack{r=1 \\ \| \alpha_r -\beta_l \| \le \Delta}}^R 1.$$ Then $$\sum\limits_{r=1}^R \left| S\left(\alpha_r\right)\right|^2
\ll K'(\Delta)(N+\Delta^{-1})Z,$$ with an absolute $\ll$-constant.
This follows easily from Lemma \[generalls\].
In our situation, let $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_R$ be the sequence of Farey fractions $a/q^2$ with $Q < q \leq 2Q$, $1\le a\le q$ and $(a,q)=1$. We shall use Lemma \[modified\] to estimate $$\sum\limits_{r=1}^R \left| S\left(\alpha_r\right)\right|^2$$ and choose the $\beta_l$’s in an appropriate way. First we set $$\tau:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}.\label{P1}$$ Let $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_L$ be $$\label{betal}
\frac{b}{r} + \frac{1}{kr^2}$$ with $r \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $r \leq \tau$, $(b,r)=1$, $1 \leq b \leq r$ and $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $\lceil r^{-1} \Delta^{-1/2} \rceil\leq |k| \leq
\lceil r^{-2} \Delta^{-1} \rceil$. Here and after, we set $\lceil x \rceil = \min_{l \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \{ l \geq x \}$ for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$. We want to show that the $\beta_l$’s above satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[modified\]. By Dirichlet’s approximation theorem, every $\alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}$ can be written in the form $$\label{P2}
\alpha=\frac{b}{r}+z, \ \ \mbox{ where }\ \ r\le \tau,\ (b,r)=1,\
\vert z\vert \le \frac{1}{r\tau}.$$ We must show that for every $|z| \leq (r\tau)^{-1}$, there is a $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $\lceil r^{-1} \Delta^{-1/2} \rceil
\leq |k| \leq \lceil r^{-2} \Delta^{-1}\rceil$ such that $$\left| z - \frac{1}{kr^2} \right| \leq \Delta.$$ First, we have if $0 \leq z \leq (\kappa r^2)^{-1}$ with $\kappa= \lceil r^{-2}\Delta^{-1}\rceil$, then $$\left| z - \frac{1}{\kappa r^2} \right| \leq \Delta.$$ Otherwise, if $z>(\kappa r^2)^{-1}$, it suffices to show that $$\label{ineq1}
\frac{1}{kr^2} - \frac{1}{(k+1)r^2} \leq \Delta,$$ for the $k$’s in question and for $K= \lceil r^{-1} \Delta^{-1/2} \rceil$, $$\label{ineq2}
\left| \frac{1}{r\tau} - \frac{1}{Kr^2} \right| \leq \Delta.$$ The left-hand side of is $$\frac{1}{k(k+1)r^2} \leq \frac{1}{k^2r^2} \leq \Delta,$$ provided $k \geq K$. Furthermore, we have $$\frac{1}{((r\sqrt{\Delta})^{-1}+1)r^2} \leq \frac{1}{Kr^2} \leq \frac{1}{r\tau}$$ and thus the left-hand of is $$\leq \left| \frac{1}{r\tau} - \frac{1}{((r\sqrt{\Delta})^{-1}+1)r^2} \right| = \frac{\Delta}{1+r\sqrt{\Delta}} \leq \Delta.$$ For $z<0$, the arguments are similar.
For $\alpha\in \mathbbm{R}$ we put $$P(\alpha):= \sum_{\substack{Q< q \leq 2Q, (a,q)=1 \\
| a/q^2 -\alpha | \leq \Delta}} 1.$$ Then we have $$\label{60}
K'(\Delta) \leq 2\max\limits_{1 \leq l \leq L} P(\beta_l).$$
Summarizing the above observations, we deduce the following.
\[engels\] We have $$K'(\Delta)\le 2\max_{\substack{ r\in \mathbbm{N} \\ r\le \tau }}
\max_{\substack{ b\in \mathbbm{Z} \\ (b,r)=1 }} \max_{K \leq |k| \leq \kappa}
P\left(\frac{b}{r}+ \frac{1}{kr^2} \right).$$
Therefore, by the virtue of the preceding lemma, it suffices to estimate $P\left( \alpha \right)$ for $\alpha$ with $$\label{alphacond}
\alpha = b/r +z,\ \ \ \ \ \ r\leq \tau,\ (b,r)=1,\ z=1/(kr^2),$$ where $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\lceil r^{-1} \Delta^{-1/2} \rceil \leq |k|
\leq \lceil r^{-2} \Delta^{-1}\rceil$. We note that $\alpha$ satisfies (\[P2\]) if it satisfies (\[alphacond\]). Moreover, it is enough to consider only $k>0$ since $$P \left( \frac{b}{r} + \frac{1}{kr^2} \right) = P \left( \frac{r-b}{r} - \frac{1}{kr^2} \right).$$ Consequently, we assume henceforth that $$\label{otto}
z=1/(kr^2) \; \mbox{with} \; k \in {\mathbb{N}}\; \mbox{and} \;
\lceil r^{-1} \Delta^{-1/2} \rceil \leq k \leq \lceil r^{-2} \Delta^{-1}
\rceil.$$
A first estimate for $P(\alpha)$
================================
First, we henceforth set $\phi (x) = \left( \frac{\sin \pi x}{2x} \right)^2$, a constant multiple of Féjer kernel. We note that $\phi (x)$ is non-negative, $\phi(x) \geq 1$ for $|x| \leq \frac{1}{2}$ and $\phi (0) = \pi^2/4$. Therefore $$\label{estm}
P ( \alpha ) \leq \sum_{Q < q \leq 2Q} \sum_{a=-\infty}^{\infty} \phi \left( \frac{a-\alpha q^2}{8Q^2\Delta} \right).$$ We find it most convenient to choose $\phi(x)$ this way, since its Fourier transform is a function of compact support, specifically $$\hat{\phi}(s)=\frac{\pi^2}{4} \max(1-|s|,0).$$
Now applying Poisson summation, Lemma \[poisum\], with a linear change of variable, to , we get that it is $$8Q^2 \Delta \sum_{Q < q \leq 2Q} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{\phi} (8Q^2\Delta j) e \left( \alpha j q^2 \right) .$$
More precisely, the above is $$8Q^2 \Delta \sum_{|j| < (8Q^2\Delta)^{-1}} \sum_{Q < q \leq 2Q} \left( 1 - 8|j| Q^2\Delta \right) e \left( \alpha j q^2 \right) \ll Q^3 \Delta + Q^2\Delta \sum_{0< j < (8Q^2\Delta)^{-1}} \left| \sum_{Q < q \leq 2Q} e \left( \alpha j q^2 \right) \right|,$$ where the first term above corresponds to the contribution of $j=0$. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we see that the square of the above expression is bounded by $$\ll Q^6 \Delta^2 + Q^2 \Delta \sum_{0 < j < (8Q^2\Delta)^{-1}} \left| \sum_{Q < q \leq 2Q} e \left( \alpha j q^2 \right) \right|^2.$$ Applying Weyl Shift, Lemma \[weylk\], to the inner-most sum of the second term of the above, we see that the double sum of the said term is $$\label{doh}
\ll \sum_j Q + \sum_j \sum_{0 < l < Q} \min \left\{ Q, \left\| 2 \alpha jl \right\|^{-1} \right\} \ll (Q \Delta)^{-1} + \sum_{0 < m < (Q \Delta)^{-1}} \tau (m) \min \left\{ Q, \left\| \alpha m \right\|^{-1} \right\},$$ where $\tau(m)$ is the divisor function, is $O(m^{\varepsilon})$ and estimates the multiplicity of representations of $m=2jl$.
Now we have $\alpha = b/r + z$ with $b, r$ and $z$ as in . The second term in is $$\begin{split}
& \ll (Q\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \sum_{0 \leq n < (Q \Delta r)^{-1}} \sum_{m\in (nr, (n+1)r] } \min \left\{ Q, \; \left\| \left( \frac{b}{r} +z \right) m \right\|^{-1} \right\} \\
& = (Q\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \sum_{0 \leq n < (Q \Delta r)^{-1}} \sum_{l=1}^r \min \left\{ Q, \; \left\| \left( \frac{b}{r} +z \right) (nr+l) \right\|^{-1} \right\}.
\end{split}$$ The inner sum of the above is $$\sum_{l=1}^r \min \left\{ Q, \; \left\| znr + l \frac{b}{r} + lz \right\|^{-1} \right\} \ll Q+\sum_{l=1}^{r-1} \frac{r}{l} \ll Q + r \log r.$$ The first of the above inequalities arrives since for each $p/r$ with $0 \leq p \leq r-1$, we find at most three $l$’s such that $$\left\| \frac{p}{r} - (znr + l \frac{b}{r} + lz) \right\| \leq \frac{1}{2r},$$ as $$lz \leq rz \leq \sqrt{\Delta} \leq \frac{1}{r},$$ where we have used .
Combining everything, we have the following.
Let $\varepsilon >0$ be given and $\alpha$ satisfy . We have $$\label{firstestPalpha}
P(\alpha) \ll Q^3 \Delta + (Q\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \left( \frac{Q}{\sqrt{r}} + \sqrt{Q} + Q\sqrt{r\Delta}+Q^{3/2}\sqrt{\Delta}\right),$$ where the implied constant depends on $\varepsilon$ alone.
Transformation of $P(\alpha)$
=============================
We first note that $z\ge \Delta/2$ by (3.9) and $r\le 1/\sqrt{\Delta}$. If $\Delta/2\le z\le \Delta$, then we have $$\label{verysmalldelta}
P(\alpha) \ll \Delta^{-\varepsilon}\left(1+Q_0\Delta r+Q_0^{3/2}\Delta\right)$$ by the first inequality of Lemma 6 in [@Ba1]. We note that this lemma remains valid, with a different $\ll$-constant, if the condition $z\ge\Delta$ in this lemma is replaced by $z\ge \Delta/2$.
Throughout the following, we assume that $z\ge \Delta$. With $\alpha$ of the form of , $$Q_0=Q^2, \; \mbox{and} \; \frac{Q_0\Delta}{z} \leq \delta \leq Q_0,$$ we have, in a manner similar to Section 9 of [@Ba1], for some absolute constant $c$, $$\label{doh2}
P \left( \alpha \right) \ll 1 + \delta^{-1} \int_{Q_0}^{4Q_0} \Omega( \delta, y) {\mathrm{d}}y \ll 1 + \delta^{-1} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-y/Q_0} \Omega( \delta, y) {\mathrm{d}}y,$$ where $$\Omega ( \delta, y) = \sum\limits_{q\in \mathbbm{Z}} \ \phi\left(\frac{q-\sqrt{y}}{c\delta/\sqrt{Q_0}} \right) \sum\limits_{\substack{ m\in \mathbbm{Z} \\ m\equiv -bq^2 \pmod{r}}} \phi\left(\frac{m-yrz}{8\delta rz}\right) {\rm d}y.$$ Applying Poisson summation, Lemma \[poisum\], twice in the same way as in Section 9 of [@Ba1], we have $$\label{doh3}
P(\alpha) \ll \frac{\delta z}{\sqrt{Q_0}} \left| \sum\limits_{j\in \mathbbm{Z}}
\frac{\hat{\phi}(8j\delta z)}{r^*} \sum\limits_{l\in \mathbbm{Z}}
\hat{\phi}\left(\frac{cl\delta}{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}\right)
G(j^*b, l ; r^*) E(j,l) \right|,$$ where $$r^*=\frac{r}{(j,r)}, \; j^*=\frac{j}{(j,r)},$$ $G(j^*b, l ; r^*)$ is defined as in and $$E(j,l) = \int_0^{\infty} e^{-y/Q_0} e\left(jyz-l\cdot\frac{\sqrt{y}}{r^*}\right) \ {\rm d}y.$$
Evaluation of the exponential integrals
=======================================
We shall prove the following lemma in this section.
Suppose that $N \geq 1$, $A, B \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Then we have
1. If $B \neq 0$ and $A/B > 0$, then $$\label{intweightest1}
\int_0^{\infty} e^{-y/N} e(Ay-B\sqrt{y}) {\mathrm{d}}y = e \left( \frac{1}{8}
\right)
\frac{2B}{(2A)^{3/2}} \exp \left( - \frac{B^2}{4A^2N} \right) e \left(
-\frac{B^2}{4A} \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{|A|}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{|A|}|B|} \right);$$
2. If $B \neq 0$ and $A/B \leq 0$, then $$\label{intweightest2}
\int_0^{\infty} e^{-y/N} e(Ay-B\sqrt{y}) {\mathrm{d}}y \ll \frac{\sqrt{N}}{|B|} ;$$
3. If $B=0$ and $A\neq 0$, then $$\label{intweightest3}
\int_0^{\infty} e^{-y/N} e(Ay-B\sqrt{y}) {\mathrm{d}}y \ll \frac{1}{|A|}.$$
In (1) of the lemma, we may assume, without the loss of generality, that $B> 0$ and $A > 0$. Then the left-hand side of is, after the change of variables $x=\sqrt{y}$, $$\label{newint}
2 \int_0^{\infty} e^{-x^2/N} e (Ax^2-Bx) x {\mathrm{d}}x.$$ We split the above integral into $$\int_0^a + \int_a^b + \int_b^{\infty},$$ where $0<a<B/(4A)<B/A<b$. We observe that $$\label{miniintegral}
\lim\limits_{a\rightarrow 0} \int_0^a = 0, \; \mbox{and} \; \lim\limits_{b\rightarrow \infty} \int_b^{\infty} = 0.$$ By the lemma concerning stationary phase, Lemma \[Ivictheorem\], with the choices $$f(x)= F(x)=Ax^2, \; k=-B, \; g(x)=xe^{-\frac{x^2}{N}}, \; \mu(x)=\frac{x}{2}, \; \mbox{and} \; G(x)=x,$$ we have $$\label{hauptintegral}
\int_a^b = e \left( \frac{1}{8} \right) \frac{B}{(2A)^{3/2}} \exp \left( - \frac{B^2}{4A^2N} \right) e \left( -\frac{B^2}{4A} \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{A}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{A}B}+\frac{b}{|2Ab-B|}+\frac{a}{|2Aa-B|}\right).$$ Now and imply (1) of the lemma upon taking $a$ and $b$ to zero and infinity, respectively.
To prove (2) of the lemma, we split the integral in (\[newint\]) into $$\int_0^b + \int_b^{\infty}$$ with large $b$, apply Lemma \[gkest\] to the first integral after breaking up the interval $[0,b]$ into two subintervals on which $x\exp(-x^2/N)/(2Ax-B)$ is monotonic and using the second identity in .
Finally, if $B=0$, then the integral on the left-hand side of (\[intweightest3\]) is $$\int_0^{\infty} \exp \left( y \left(2 \pi i A-\frac{1}{N}\right) \right) {\mathrm{d}}y = \left( 2\pi iA -\frac{1}{N}\right)^{-1} \ll \frac{1}{|A|}.$$ Hence we have proved the lemma.
Treatment of the simple cases
=============================
We now estimate the contributions of the simple parts of . The contribution of with $j=l=0$ is, taking note that $r^*=1$ if $j=0$, $$\label{j=l=0}
\ll \delta z \sqrt{Q_0}.$$ The contribution of $j \neq 0$ and $l=0$ is $$\label{jneq0l=0}
\ll \frac{\delta}{\sqrt{Q_0}} \sum\limits_{1\le j \le 1/(8\delta z)} \frac{1}{j\sqrt{r^*}} \ll \frac{\delta}{\sqrt{Q_0}} (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} r^{-1/2},$$ where the first of the above inequalities comes by the virtue of and Lemma \[gausssumest\], and the second arrives by the following estimate. $$\sum\limits_{1\le j \le 1/(8\delta z)} \frac{1}{j\sqrt{r^*}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}
\sum\limits_{t\vert r} \sqrt{t} \sum_{\substack{1\le j \le 1/(8\delta z) \\ (r,j)=t}} \frac{1}{j} \ll \frac{(Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{r}}
\sum\limits_{t| r} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \ll (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{2\varepsilon} r^{-1/2} .$$
If $l\not=0$ and $j/l \leq 0$, then it suffices to only consider that case in which $j \geq 0$ since the other case is similar and satisfies the same upper bound. The contribution in question is, by the virtue of and Lemma \[gausssumest\], $$\ll \delta z\sum_{0 \leq j \leq (8\delta z)^{-1}} \sum_{\frac{-r^* \sqrt{Q_0}}{2c\delta} < l <0} \frac{\sqrt{r^*}}{|l|} \ll \delta z (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \sum_{0 \leq j \leq (8\delta z)^{-1}} \sqrt{r^*} \ll (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} (\delta z + \sqrt{r}),$$ where we have used $r^*=1$ if $j=0$. Consequently, the total contribution to of the above cases is $$\label{simplecaseest}
\ll (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \left( \sqrt{r} + \delta z \sqrt{Q_0} + \frac{\delta}{\sqrt{Q_0 r}} \right).$$
Transformation of the remaining terms
=====================================
We now consider the critical case when $j/l>0$. Then it again suffices to only consider that case in which $j>0$ since the other case is similar and satisfies the same upper bound. By the virtue of , Lemma \[gausssumtrans\] and Lemma \[gausssumest\], the contribution in question is majorized by the sum of $$\label{j>0,l>01}
\frac{\delta z}{\sqrt{Q_0}} \left| \sum\limits_{j>0}
\sum\limits_{l>0}
g(j,l) G(j^*b,\chi(l),r^*) e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}(l^2-\chi(l))}{4r^*}+\frac{l^2}{4jz(r^*)^2}\right)
\right|,$$ and $$\label{j>0,l>02}
\frac{\delta z}{\sqrt{Q_0}} \sum\limits_{0<j<1/(8\delta z)}
\sum\limits_{0<l<\frac{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}{c\delta}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^*}}\left(
\frac{1}{jz}+\frac{r^*}{\sqrt{jz}l}\right),$$ where $$g(j,l) = \frac{\hat{\phi}(8j\delta z)}{r^*} \hat{\phi}\left(\frac{cl\delta}{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}\right) \frac{l}{(jz)^{3/2}r^*} \exp \left( \frac{-l^2}{4(jz)^2Q_0(r^*)^2} \right),$$ and $$\chi(l) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, & \mbox{if} \; 2|l; \\ 1,
& \mbox{if} \; 2 \nmid l. \end{array} \right.$$ Since $\delta\le Q_0$ and $r^* \leq r$, we find that is majorized by $$\ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon}\sqrt{r}.$$
Now we break up the inner-most sum in (\[j>0,l>01\]) into a sum over the even $l$’s and a sum over the odd $l$’s. In the following, we deal only with the contribution of the even $l$’s. The contribution of the odd $l$’s can be estimated in a similar way and satisfies the same upper bound. Using Lemma \[gausssumest\], the part of with $2|l$ is $$\label{beforeintpart}
\ll \frac{\delta}{\sqrt{Q_0z}} \sum_{0 < j < (8\delta z)^{-1}} \frac{1}{(jr^*)^{3/2}} \left| \sum_{0<l< \frac{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}{2c\delta}} \Phi (j, 2l) e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}l^2}{r^*}+\frac{l^2}{jz(r^*)^2} \right) \right|,$$ where $$\Phi (j, 2l) = \left( 1- \frac{2cl \delta}{r^* \sqrt{Q_0}} \right) l \exp \left( \frac{-l^2}{Q_0 (jzr^*)^2} \right).$$ We now apply partial summation to the inner-most sum of . It becomes $$\label{afterintpart}
-\int_0^{\frac{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}{2c\delta}} \left(\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x}
\Phi(j,2x)\right) \sum_{0<l<x} e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}l^2}{r^*}+\frac{l^2}{jz(r^*)^2} \right) {\mathrm{d}}x.$$ Note that the boundary terms vanish in the partial summation. Now we set $$D(j) = \min \left( \sqrt{Q_0} jzr^* (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon}, \frac{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}{2c\delta} \right) .$$ Then we break up the integral in into integrals over the intervals $[0,D(j)]$ and $[D(j), (r^*\sqrt{Q_0})/(2c\delta) ]$. The former of the two integrals is $$\label{firstint}
\ll \max_{0 < L \leq D(j)} \left| \sum_{0 < l \leq L} e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}l^2}{r^*}+\frac{l^2}{jz(r^*)^2} \right) \right| \int_0^{D(j)} \left|
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x} \Phi(j,2x) \right| {\mathrm{d}}x,$$ and the integral in is $$\ll \max_{0 \leq x \leq D(j)} \Phi(j, 2x) \leq D(j) \leq \sqrt{Q_0} jzr^* (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon};$$ and the latter is $$\label{secondint}
\ll \max_{D(j) \leq L \leq \frac{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}{2c\delta}} \left| \sum_{0 < l \leq L} e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}l^2}{r^*}+\frac{l^2}{jz(r^*)^2} \right) \right| \int_{D(j)}^{\frac{r^*\sqrt{Q_0}}{2c\delta}} \left|
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x} \Phi(j,2x) \right| {\mathrm{d}}x,$$ and the integral in is, for any $C>0$, $$\ll (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{-C} .$$ Therefore, is, for any $C>0$, $$\label{secondinpart}
\ll \max_{0 < L \leq D(j)} \left| \sum_{0 < l \leq L} e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}l^2}{r^*}+\frac{l^2}{jz(r^*)^2} \right) \right| \sqrt{Q_0} jzr^* (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} + (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{-C}.$$
Now we set $$\label{vonbismarck}
k^* = \frac{1}{zr^*r}.$$ $k^*$ is a positive integer by and the fact that $r^*|r$. We further assume that $$\overline{b} \equiv -a \pmod{r^*}, \; \mbox{with} \; 1 \leq a \leq r^*.$$ We write $$\frac{\overline{j^*}}{r^*} \equiv - \frac{\overline{r^*}}{j^*} + \frac{1}{j^*r^*} \pmod{1}.$$ Then $$e \left( \frac{\overline{j^*b}l^2}{r^*}+\frac{l^2}{jz(r^*)^2} \right) = e \left( \frac{-al^2}{j^*r^*} \right) e \left( \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}l^2 \right),$$ where we have used the relation $r^*j=rj^*$. We will use this relation in several places of the remainder of this paper. We now apply partial summation to the sum over $l$ in with the above inserted into the appropriate place. We get that the sum in question is $$\ll \left( 1+\frac{L^2}{j^*} \right) \max_{0<x \leq L} \left| \sum_{0 <l \leq x} e \left( \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}l^2 \right) \right|.$$ Now combining everything thus far, we have that the contribution from $j$’s and $l$’s with $j/l >0$ is $$\label{afteralltrans}
\ll (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \sqrt{r} + (Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \delta \sqrt{z} \sum_{0<j<(8\delta z)^{-1}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^*j}} \max_{0 < x \leq D(j)} \left| \sum_{0<l\leq x} e \left( \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}l^2 \right) \right|,$$ where we have used the estimates $$\frac{L^2}{j^*} \leq \frac{D(j)^2}{j^*} \leq \frac{Q_0(jzr^*)^2}{j^*}(Q_0 \Delta^{-1})^{2\varepsilon}$$ and $$\frac{Q_0(jzr^*)^2}{j^*} = Q_0(jz)^2 r^* \frac{r}{j} \leq Q_0jz^2r^2 \leq Q_0j\Delta \leq \frac{Q_0\Delta}{8\delta z} \leq 1.$$
Application of Weyl shift
=========================
Now the inner-most sum in can be estimated again using Weyl shift, Lemma \[weylk\]. We have $$\left| \sum_{0<l\leq x} e \left( \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}l^2 \right) \right|^2 \ll x + \sum_{1\leq l \leq x} \min \left( x, \left\| \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}2l\right\|^{-1} \right).$$ Therefore, we infer that the double sum in the last term in is, $$\label{beforecauchy}
\begin{split}
\ll \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}} \sum_{t|r} &\sum_{\substack{0<j^*<(8\delta z t)^{-1} \\ (r^*,j^*)=1}} \sqrt{\frac{D(j^*t)}{j^*}} \\
&+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}} \sum_{t|r} \sum_{\substack{0<j^*<(8\delta z t)^{-1} \\ (r^*,j^*)=1}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{j^*}} \left( \sum_{1\leq l \leq 2D(j^*t)} \min \left( D(j^*t), \left\| \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}l \right\|^{-1} \right) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{split}$$ where $r^*=r/t$ and $j^*=j/t$. The first term in is $$\ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{2\varepsilon} \frac{Q_0^{1/4}}{\delta \sqrt{z}},$$ where we have used the estimate $$\label{djstar}
D(j^*t) \leq \sqrt{Q_0} jzr^* (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} = \sqrt{Q_0} j^*zr (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon}.$$ Now we apply Cauchy’s inequality to the inner double sum of the second term of . We obtain that its square is $$\label{aftercauchy}
\ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \sum_{\substack{0<j^*<(8\delta z t)^{-1} \\ (r^*,j^*)=1}} \sum_{1\leq l \leq 2D(j^*t)} \min \left( D(j^*t), \left\| \frac{a\overline{r^*}+k^*}{j^*}l \right\|^{-1} \right).$$ Now to estimate , it suffices to estimate the number of solutions $(j^*,l, h)$ with $$\label{boundjl}
J < j^* \leq 2J, \; (r^*,j^*)=1, \; 1 \leq l \leq 4 (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} Q_0^{1/2}Jzr, \; \mbox{and} \; H \leq h \leq 2H$$ to the equation $$\left\| \frac{(a\overline{r^*}+k^*)l}{j^*} \right\| = \frac{h}{j^*}.$$ The number in question is majorized by the number of solutions in $(j^*,l, h)$ of the congruence $$\pm (k^*+a\overline{r^*}) l \equiv h \pmod{j^*}$$ with $j^*$, $l$ and $h$ satisfying . The above congruence is equivalent to $$\label{congruenceeq}
\pm (k^*r^*+a) l -hr^* \equiv 0 \pmod{j^*},$$ since $(r^*,j^*)=1$. First, if $ \pm (k^*r^*+a) l = hr^*$, then every $(j^*, l, h)$ with $J < j^* \leq 2J$ is a solution to . Moreover the number of solutions to $$\pm (k^*r^*+a) l = hr^*$$ is at most $H/(k^*r^*+a)$, since $(k^*r^*+a, r^*)=1$. Hence the total number of solutions in this case is $$\ll J\frac{H}{k^*r^*+a} \leq JH zr$$ since by $$k^*r^*+a > k^*r^* = \frac{1}{zr} .$$ Second if $ \pm (k^*r^*+a) l \neq hr^*$, then we fix $l$ and $h$. Hence the number of $j^*$’s such that $(j^*,l,h)$ is a solution is at most $$\tau(|(k^*r^*+a) l - hr^*|) + \tau ((k^*r^*+a) l + hr^*) \ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} .$$ Therefore, the total number of solutions in this case is $$\ll Q_0^{1/2}Jzr H(Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon}.$$ Now combining the two cases, we get that the number of solutions $(j^*,l,h)$ for satisfying is $$\label{saladin}
\ll Q_0^{1/2}Jzr H(Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon}.$$
We now write $$\sum\limits_{j^*,l,h}= \mathop{\sum_{J < j^* \leq 2J} \ \sum_{0<l\leq 2D(j^*t)} \ \sum_{H \leq h \leq 2H}}_{\substack{\|(a\overline{r^*}+k^*)l/j^*\| = h/j^* \\ (j^*,r^*)=1}} \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ \ \ \ \ \sum\limits_{j^*,l}=
\mathop{\sum_{J < j^* \leq 2J} \ \sum_{0<l\leq 2D(j^*t)}}_{j^*|(a\overline{r^*}+k^*)l, \;(j^*,r^*)=1}.$$ To estimate , it suffices to estimate the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber & & \mathop{\sum_{J < j^* \leq 2J} \ \sum_{0<l\leq 2D(j^*t)} \ \sum_{0 \leq h \leq 2J}}_{\substack{\|(a\overline{r^*}+k^*)l/j^*\| = h/j^* \\ (j^*,r^*)=1}} \min \left( D(j^*t), \frac{j^*}{h} \right) \\
\nonumber & &\ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \max_{1 \leq H \leq J}
\sum_{j^*,l,h} \min \left( D(j^*t), \frac{j^*}{H} \right) +
(Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \sum_{j^*,l} D(j^*t) \\
\label{lenin}& & \ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{2\varepsilon} \left( \max_{1 \leq H \leq (\sqrt{Q_0}zr)^{-1}} \sum_{j^*,l,h} \sqrt{Q_0}Jzr + \max_{(\sqrt{Q_0}zr)^{-1}<H \leq J} \sum_{j^*,l,h} \frac{J}{H} + Q_0(Jzr)^2 \right)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the estimate in . Now using , is $$\ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \left( J^2 \sqrt{Q_0}zr + Q_0(Jzr)^2 \right).$$ Now combining everything, we get that is $$\label{marx}
\ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \left( Q_0^{1/4} + \sqrt{Q_0} \Delta^{1/4}+ \sqrt{r} \right),$$ where we have used .
A second estimate for $P(\alpha)$
=================================
We first assume that $z\ge \Delta$. Combining and and using with $$\delta = \frac{Q_0 \Delta}{z},$$ we get that $$P ( \alpha) \ll (Q_0\Delta^{-1})^{\varepsilon} \left( Q_0^{1/4} + Q_0^{1/2} \Delta^{1/4} + Q_0^{3/2} \Delta + \sqrt{r} + \frac{Q_0^{1/2} \Delta}{r^{1/2} z} \right).$$ On the other hand, by the first inequality of Lemma 6 of [@Ba1], we have $$P\left( \alpha \right) \ll \Delta^{-\varepsilon} \left(1+Q_0rz+Q_0^{3/2}\Delta\right).$$ Combining the above two inequalities, we get $$P ( \alpha) \ll \left( \frac{Q_0}{\Delta} \right)^{\varepsilon} \left( Q_0^{1/4} + Q_0^{1/2} \Delta^{1/4} + Q_0^{3/2} \Delta + \sqrt{r} + \min \left( \frac{\sqrt{Q_0} \Delta}{\sqrt{r} z}, Q_0rz \right) \right).$$ Now as in Section 7 of [@Ba1], we have $$\min \left( \frac{Q_0^{1/2} \Delta}{r^{1/2} z}, Q_0rz \right) \leq Q_0^{3/4} \Delta^{1/2}r^{1/4}.$$ Recalling that $Q_0=Q^2$, and using (\[verysmalldelta\]) in the case when $\Delta/2\le z\le \Delta$, we have proved the following.
Let $\varepsilon >0$ be given and $\alpha$ satisfy . We have $$\label{secondestPalpha}
P(\alpha) \ll \left( \frac{Q}{\Delta} \right)^{\varepsilon} \left( Q^{1/2} + Q \Delta^{1/4} + Q^3 \Delta + \sqrt{r} + Q^{3/2} \Delta^{1/2}r^{1/4} +
Q^2\Delta r\right),$$ where the implied constant depends on $\varepsilon$ alone.
Proof of Theorem \[squaremod1\]
===============================
Finally, we are ready to prove Theorem \[squaremod1\]. Noting $r \leq \Delta^{-1/2}$ by , we use if $r \leq Q$ and if $r >Q$ to get the following. $$P(\alpha) \ll \left( \frac{Q}{\Delta} \right)^{\varepsilon} \left( Q^3\Delta + Q^{7/4} \Delta^{1/2} + Q \Delta^{1/4} +Q^{1/2}\right).$$ Choosing $\Delta = N^{-1}$ and using Lemma \[modified\] and Lemma \[engels\] after dividing the outer-most sum in into sums over dyadic intervals, we get that is bounded by $$\ll \left( QN\right)^{\varepsilon} \left( Q^3 + Q^{7/4} N^{1/2} + Q N^{3/4} + Q^{1/2}N \right)Z.$$ If $Q\ge N^{2/5}$ then $$Q^{7/4} N^{1/2} \leq Q^3, \; \mbox{and} \; Q^{1/2}N \leq Q^3.$$ On the other hand, if $Q< N^{2/5}$ then $$Q^{7/4} N^{1/2} \leq Q^{1/2}N .$$ Moreover, if $Q \leq N^{1/2}$, then $$QN^{3/4} \leq Q^{1/2}N.$$ Therefore, if $Q \leq N^{1/2}$, we have that the left-hand side of is $$\ll \left( QN\right)^{\varepsilon} \left( Q^3 + Q^{1/2}N \right) Z.$$ If $Q > N^{1/2}$ then the above majorizes the first quantity in . Now comparing the above with , we have the theorem.\
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} This paper was written when the first and second-named authors held postdoctoral fellowships at the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Queen’s University and the Department of Mathematics at the University of Toronto, respectively. The authors wish to thank these institutions for their financial support.
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen’s University University Ave, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 Canada Email: [[email protected]]{}
Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto 40 Saint George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2E4 Canada Email: [[email protected]]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present IRAM/NOEMA and JVLA observations of the quasar J1342+0928 at $z=7.54$ and report detections of copious amounts of dust and [\[\]]{} emission in the interstellar medium (ISM) of its host galaxy. At this redshift, the age of the universe is 690Myr, about 10% younger than the redshift of the previous quasar record holder. Yet, the ISM of this new quasar host galaxy is significantly enriched by metals, as evidenced by the detection of the [\[\]]{}158$\mu$m cooling line and the underlying far-infrared (FIR) dust continuum emission. To the first order, the FIR properties of this quasar host are similar to those found at a slightly lower redshift ($z\sim6$), making this source by far the FIR-brightest galaxy known at $z\gtrsim7.5$. The [\[\]]{} emission is spatially unresolved, with an upper limit on the diameter of 7kpc. Together with the measured FWHM of the [\[\]]{} line, this yields a dynamical mass of the host of $<$$1.5\times10^{11}$[$M_\sun$]{}. Using standard assumptions about the dust temperature and emissivity, the NOEMA measurements give a dust mass of $(0.6-4.3)\times10^8$[$M_\sun$]{}. The brightness of the [\[\]]{} luminosity, together with the high dust mass, imply active ongoing star formation in the quasar host. Using [\[\]]{}–SFR scaling relations, we derive star formation rates of 85–545[$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{} in the host, consistent with the values derived from the dust continuum. Indeed, an episode of such past high star formation is needed to explain the presence of $\sim$$10^8$[$M_\sun$]{} of dust implied by the observations.'
author:
- 'Bram P. Venemans'
- Fabian Walter
- Roberto Decarli
- 'Eduardo Ba[ñ]{}ados'
- Chris Carilli
- Jan Martin Winters
- Karl Schuster
- Elisabete da Cunha
- Xiaohui Fan
- Emanuele Paolo Farina
- Chiara Mazzucchelli
- 'Hans-Walter Rix'
- Axel Weiß
title: 'Copious Amounts of Dust and Gas in a $z=7.5$ Quasar Host Galaxy'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The advent of large, wide-area optical and infrared surveys has resulted in the discovery of luminous quasars out to the highest redshifts, $z\gtrsim7$ [e.g., @fan06a; @ven13; @ban16; @maz17b]. These quasars are powered by supermassive, $\sim$$10^9$[$M_\sun$]{} black holes that accrete near the Eddington limit [e.g., @der14; @maz17b]. Since their discovery, the presence of such massive black holes has been a puzzle, as they require either very efficient accretion mechanisms from stellar black hole seeds [$\sim$100[$M_\sun$]{}, e.g., @vol12], or the formation of massive seeds, e.g. via direct gas collapse [$\sim$$10^{3-5}$[$M_\sun$]{}; e.g., @aga12; @reg17].
Likewise, studies of the [*host galaxies*]{} of these distant quasars have revealed the presence of large amounts of dust and gas out to $z\sim7$ [e.g., @ber03b; @wal03; @mai05; @ven12; @ven16; @wan13; @wil15]. The associated molecular gas masses are $>$$10^{10}$[$M_\sun$]{} and provide the fuel for long-lasting ($>$10$^{7-8}$years) episodes of ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRG)-like star formation (with star-formation rates (SFRs)$\sim$100–1000[$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{}).
The observed tracers ([\[\]]{}, [\[\]]{}, CO, far-infrared (FIR) continuum) require that the interstellar medium (ISM) of the host galaxies is chemically enriched. While metal-enriched material is also evident from broad emission lines in the quasar’s rest-frame UV spectrum [e.g., @jia07; @der14], these emission lines originate from a concentrated region ($\ll$1pc) around the black hole, the so-called broad-line region (BLR). However, since the BLR total mass is only $10^{4-5}$[$M_\sun$]{} [e.g., @ferl04], a modest amount of metals, $\sim$$10^{3-4}$[$M_\sun$]{}, can explain the observed high BLR metallicities [$Z\sim10\,Z_\sun$, e.g., @die03; @jua09]. On the other hand, the enrichment of the quasar host is on significantly larger scales [$\sim$kpc; e.g., @wal09b; @wan13; @ven16], which requires a galaxy-wide chemical enrichment due to extended star formation. The enrichment on galactic scales seen in dust and gas thus puts constraints on early metal production in the quasar host [e.g., @mic10; @gal11b]. Star formation is only indirectly traced by the FIR emission, and to date the stellar component of the quasar host remains elusive [e.g., @dec12].
To further constrain the formation of dust and enrichment of gas in the ISM in the earliest galaxies, studies need to be pushed back in time, i.e., to the highest possible redshifts. The highest-redshift quasar in which gas and dust have been detected to date is J1120+0641 [@mor11] at a redshift of $z=7.09$ [@ven17a]. Here, we report the detection of gas and dust emission in a newly discovered quasar at $z=7.5$, J1342+0928 [@ban17a]. The redshift of the quasar derived from the line is $z_\mathrm{MgII}=7.527\pm0.004$ (age of the universe: 690Myr). From the width of the line and the strength of the continuum, @ban17a estimate that the quasar is powered by accretion onto a $7.8^{+3.3}_{-1.9}\times10^8$[$M_\sun$]{} black hole. The quasar has an absolute magnitude of $M_{1450\,\mathrm{\AA}}\!=\!-26.8$ and shares many of the physical properties seen in quasars observed at $z\sim6-7$ [@ban17a].
Throughout this Letter, we adopt a concordance cosmology with $\Omega_M=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, and $H_0=70$[kms$^{-1}$]{}Mpc$^{-1}$. The physical scale at $z=7.54$ is 5.0kpcarcsec$^{-1}$. All magnitudes are on the AB system.
Observations
============
NOEMA Observations {#sec:noema}
------------------
[\[\]]{}$_{3/2-1/2}$158$\mu$m (hereafter [\[\]]{}), CO(7–6), CO(10–9), H$_2$O, and [\[\]]{}$_{2-1}$ observations of J1342+0928 were performed with the IRAM NOrthern Extended Millimeter Array (NOEMA). Observations were done with the array in compact configuration, using 7–8 antennas. All of the NOEMA data have been reduced using the latest version of the GILDAS software[^1].
The observations were gathered between 2017 March 15 and May 21 in various visits. For the [\[\]]{} observations, the NOEMA receiver 3 (1.2mm) was tuned to 224.121GHz in the first execution, and to 222.500GHz in all the other visits, in order to better encompass the line within the WideX 3.6GHz bandwidth. The CO(10–9) line and the H$_2$O 3(2,1)-3(1,2) line at rest-frequency 1162.91GHz were observed in a single frequency setting, with NOEMA receiver 2 (2mm) tuned to 135.495GHz. The CO(7–6) and [\[\]]{}$_{2-1}$ lines were observed with the 3mm receivers tuned to 94.587GHz. The radio quasar 1345+125 served as amplitude and phase calibrator. Additional calibrators used in the bandpass calibration included 3C273 and 3C454.3. The star MWC 349 was used to set the absolute flux scale. Measured line fluxes and continuum flux densities in Section \[sec:results\] and Table \[tab:res\] only include statistical errors and do not take the systematic flux calibration uncertainties of $\sim$10% into account. The total integration time on-source was 13.6, 3.8, and 11.1hr (8 antenna equivalent) in the 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm bands, respectively. Imaging was performed using natural weighting, in order to maximize sensitivity. The resulting synthesized beams are 24$\times$15, 36$\times$25, and 58$\times$34 and the final 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm cubes reach a sensitivity of 0.47mJybeam$^{-1}$, 0.41mJybeam$^{-1}$, and 0.17mJybeam$^{-1}$ per 100[kms$^{-1}$]{} channel (1-$\sigma$), respectively. In the 1mm cube, both the [\[\]]{} emission and the underlying dust continuum are significantly detected (Figure \[fig:spectrum\] and Section \[sec:results\]), while no emission was detected in the other two cubes.
In the continuum images, an additional source is located $\sim$10 northeast of the quasar (see Figure \[fig:maps\]) with flux densities of $S_{223.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}=434\pm73$$\mu$Jy, $S_{135.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}=197\pm46$$\mu$Jy, and $S_{95\,\mathrm{GHz}}=41\pm16$$\mu$Jy. The spectrum of this object does not show emission lines. While the redshift remains unknown, the lack of line emission in the 1mm datacube, which covers a [\[\]]{} redshift of $\Delta z \approx 0.1$ around that of the quasar, makes it unlikely that this source is physically associated with J1342+0928.
Very Large Array (VLA) Observations
-----------------------------------
We searched for CO(3–2) emission from J1342+0928 with the VLA in 2017 April. The redshift of the source places the line at 40.4852GHz. The data also provided a deep continuum observation at 41GHz. A total of 9hr (7hr on-source), was spent using the 8bit, 2GHz bandwidth correlator mode for highest line sensitivity. An additional 3hr was spent using 3bit, 8GHz bandwidth from 40 to 48GHz for an additional continuum measurement.
Standard phase and amplitude calibration was performed, using J1331+305 to set the absolute gain scale and bandpass, and J1347+122 to determine complex gains as a function of time. Phase stability was excellent.
The line data were imaged using natural weighting and smoothed to a velocity resolution of 44.5[kms$^{-1}$]{}. The synthesized beam is 22$\times$20, and the rms noise per channel was 0.10mJybeam$^{-1}$. We also created a 41.0GHz continuum image by suitably combining all the data. The rms noise of this continuum image is 5.7$\mu$Jybeam$^{-1}$. No line was found, but a potential continuum source is reported (Section \[sec:cont\]).
The Host Galaxy of J1342+0928 at $z=7.5$ {#sec:results}
========================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
R.A. (J2000) 13$^\mathrm{h}$42$^\mathrm{m}$08$.\!\!^\mathrm{s}$097
Decl. (J2000) $+$09$^\circ$28$^\prime$3828
$z_\mathrm{[CII]}$ 7.5413$\pm$0.0007
$F_\mathrm{[CII]}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) 1.25$\pm$0.17
FWHM$_\mathrm{[CII]}$ ([kms$^{-1}$]{}) 383$\pm$56
EW$_\mathrm{[CII]}$ ($\mu$m) 1.73$\pm$0.43
$S_{223.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ ($\mu$Jy) 415$\pm$73
$S_{135.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ ($\mu$Jy) $<$139
$S_{95\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ ($\mu$Jy) $<$48
$S_{41\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ ($\mu$Jy) 15.0$\pm$5.7
$S_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ ($\mu$Jy) $<$432
$F_\mathrm{CO(3-2)}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) $<$0.081
$F_\mathrm{CO(7-6)}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) $<$0.13
$F_\mathrm{CO(10-9)}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) $<$0.32
$F_\mathrm{[CI]}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) $<$0.14
$F_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}, 1172\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) $<$0.30
$F_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}, 1918\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ (Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}) $<$0.33
[$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{} ([$L_\sun$]{}) $(0.5-1.4)\times10^{12}$
[$L_{\mathrm{TIR}}$]{} ([$L_\sun$]{}) $(0.8-2.0)\times10^{12}$
[$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{} ([$L_\sun$]{}) $(1.6\pm0.2)\times10^{9~}$
[$L_\mathrm{[CI]}$]{} ([$L_\sun$]{}) $<$$7.8\times10^{7~}$
$L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(3-2)}$ (K[kms$^{-1}$]{}pc$^2$) $<$$1.5\times10^{10}$
SFR$_\mathrm{TIR}$ ([$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{}) 120–300
SFR$_\mathrm{[CII]}$ ([$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{}) 85–545
$M_d$ ([$M_\sun$]{}) $(0.6-4.3)\times10^8$
$M_{C^+}$ ([$M_\sun$]{}) $4.9\times10^{6~}$
$M_{H_2}$ ([$M_\sun$]{}) $<$$1.2\times10^{10}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
: Observed and Derived Properties of J1342+0928 \[tab:res\]
Our NOEMA observations reveal the gas and dust present in the host galaxy of J1342+0928. In Figures \[fig:spectrum\] we show the spectrum of the [\[\]]{} emission line and the underlying dust continuum. A summary of the measurements is given in Table \[tab:res\].
Far-infrared Luminosity and Implied Dust Mass {#sec:cont}
---------------------------------------------
![NOEMA spectrum of the redshifted [\[\]]{} emission line and the underlying continuum in J1342+092, extracted from the peak pixel in the datacube. The bin size is 40MHz, which corresponds to $\sim$54[kms$^{-1}$]{}. The dotted lines indicate +$\sigma$ and $-$$\sigma$, with $\sigma$ being the noise in each bin. The red, solid line is a flat continuum plus Gaussian fit to the spectrum (the fit values are reported in Table \[tab:res\]).[]{data-label="fig:spectrum"}](f1.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
The dust continuum around the redshifted [\[\]]{} emission (rest-frame wavelength of $\sim$158$\mu$m) has been detected at a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)$\sim$6 and a strength of $S_{223.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}=415\pm73$$\mu$Jy (Figures \[fig:spectrum\] and \[fig:maps\]). The source is not resolved with the 24$\times$15 (12.1$\times$7.3kpc$^2$) beam. We also estimated the source size in the [*uv*]{} plane and derive a source radius $<$05, which is consistent with the size measurement of the continuum image. The position of the quasar host, R.A.=13$^\mathrm{h}$42$^\mathrm{m}$08$.\!\!^\mathrm{s}$097; decl.=+09$^\circ$283828, is consistent with the near-infrared location of the quasar [@ban17a]. The host galaxy is not detected in continuum in the other NOEMA setups down to 3$\sigma$ continuum limits of $S_{135.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}<139$$\mu$Jy and $S_{95\,\mathrm{GHz}}<48$$\mu$Jy. The VLA continuum map shows a potential source ($S_\mathrm{41\,GHz}=15.0\pm5.7$$\mu$Jybeam$^{-1}$ and S/N$\sim$2.6; Figure \[fig:maps\]), located $\sim$07 from the [\[\]]{} emission of J1342+0928.
To compute the far-infrared (rest-frame 42.5–122.5$\mu$m) and total infrared (TIR; 8–1000$\mu$m) luminosities, [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{TIR}}$]{}, and the dust mass $M_d$ in J1342+0928, we follow the same procedure as outlined in @ven16. In summary, we utilize three different models to estimate dust emission: a modified black body (MBB) with a dust temperature $T_d=47$K and an emissivity index of $\beta=1.6$ [e.g., @bee06] and two templates of local star-forming galaxies (Arp220 and M82) from @sil98. We also take the effect of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) on the dust emission into account [e.g., @dac13; @ven16]. The mass of dust is derived both by assuming an opacity index of $\kappa_\lambda=0.77 (850 \mu\mathrm{m}/\lambda)^\beta$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ [@dun00] and from scaling the Arp220 and M82 templates [@sil98]. We stress that due to the unknown shape of the dust continuum, the FIR and TIR luminosities remain highly uncertain, while the SFR and dust mass we derive crucially depend on the applicability of local correlations to this high-redshift source.
Scaling the NOEMA continuum detection of $S_{223.5\,\mathrm{GHz}}=415\pm73$$\mu$Jy to the three dust spectral energy distribution (SED) models results in luminosities of [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}=$(0.5-1.4)\times10^{12}$[$L_\sun$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{TIR}}$]{}=$(0.8-2.0)\times10^{12}$[$L_\sun$]{}. The derived dust mass is $M_d=(0.6-4.3)\times10^8$[$M_\sun$]{}. Applying the local scaling relation between [$L_{\mathrm{TIR}}$]{} and SFR from @mur11 and assuming the infrared luminosity is dominated by star-formation [e.g., @lei14] results in an SFR of $120-300$[$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{}. This is significantly lower than the SFR derived for some of the quasar hosts at $z\sim6$ [e.g., @wal09b], but very similar to the SFR in J1120+0641 at $z=7.1$ [@ven17a].
Tentative Radio Continuum Emission
----------------------------------
![Far-infrared and radio spectral energy distribution of J1342+0928. The data points from left to right represent the NOEMA 1, 2, and 3mm observations, the tentative VLA 41.0GHz detection, and the FIRST upper limit. Overplotted are three different dust SEDs scaled to the 1mm detection and two power laws describing radio synchrotron radiation. The dust model with canonical values ($T_d=47$K and $\beta=1.6$) agrees well with the upper limits on the continuum emission at 2 and 3mm, but predicts a much lower continuum flux density at 41.0GHz. A shallower $\beta$ ($\beta=1.0$) or a lower dust temperature ($T_d=24$K, slightly above the CMB temperature at $z=7.54$), illustrated by the dashed and dotted lines, also predicts a 41.0GHz flux density below that of the tentative VLA source. The upper limit in FIRST does not provide strong constraints on the slope of the radio emission.[]{data-label="fig:sed"}](f3.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
We now look into the origin of the potential VLA continuum detection. The first possibility is that the source is spurious. The S/N is only 2.6, and as shown in Figure \[fig:maps\], several positive noise peaks are visible close to the location of the quasar. It is therefore plausible that the 41GHz detection will disappear when adding more data. On the other hand, if the source is real, then the question is whether it is due to dust emission, free–free emission, or non-thermal processes, e.g., synchrotron radiation. The typical quasar dust SED, the MBB with $T_d=47$K and $\beta=1.6$ predicts flux densities of 90, 28, and 1.5$\mu$Jy at 135.5, 95, and 41.0GHz, respectively (Figure \[fig:sed\]). The limits in the NOEMA 2mm and 3mm bands are consistent with these expected flux densities, but the flux density measured in the VLA image is significantly ($\sim$10$\times$) higher than expected from the dust emission. A much shallower emissivity index ($\beta\ll1.5$) and/or a lower dust temperature, which would result in a higher flux density at 41GHz, can be ruled out by the nondetections at 135.5 and 95GHz (Figure \[fig:sed\]). Based on the derived SFR in the host galaxy (SFR$=85-545$[$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{}, Table \[tab:res\]), the strength of free–free emission at 41.0GHz is negligible [$S_\mathrm{ff}\ll1$$\mu$Jy; e.g., @yun02]. Alternatively, the flux density could be due to synchrotron radiation. We can estimate the radio loudness of the quasar using the radio-to-optical flux density ratio $R=S_{\mathrm{5\,GHz, rest}}/S_{\mathrm{4400\,\AA, rest}}$ with $S_{\mathrm{5\,GHz, rest}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{4400\,\AA, rest}}$ the flux densities at rest-frame 5GHz and 4400Å, respectively [@kel89]. Assuming a radio continuum can be described by a power law ($f_\nu\propto\nu^\alpha$) with $\alpha=-0.75$ [e.g., @ban15a], we derive $S_\mathrm{5\,GHz, rest}=363$$\mu$Jy. Following @ban15a, we derive $S_\mathrm{4400\,\AA, rest}=29$$\mu$Jy from the [*WISE*]{} W1 magnitude (W1=20.17). We obtain $R=12.4$, making J1342+0928 a radio-loud quasar (where radio-loud is defined as $R>10$). Note that this is still consistent with the nondetection in the FIRST survey, with a 3$\sigma$ upper limit of $S_\mathrm{1.4\,GHz}<432$$\mu$Jy, as the expected flux density for J1342+0928 is $S_\mathrm{1.4\,GHz}\approx190$$\mu$Jy (Figure \[fig:sed\]). Deeper imaging at radio frequencies will provide a definitive answer.
[\[\]]{} Luminosity {#sec:cii}
-------------------
We detect the [\[\]]{} emission line in J1342+0928 in the continuum-subtracted [\[\]]{} map (Figure \[fig:maps\]) with an S/N$\sim$10. The spectrum, extracted from the peak pixel in the datacube, is shown in Figure \[fig:spectrum\]. From a Gaussian fit to the line, we derive a redshift of $z_\mathrm{[CII]}=7.5413\pm0.0007$, a line flux of $F_\mathrm{[CII]}=1.25\pm0.17$Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}, and a dispersion of $\sigma_\mathrm{[CII]}=163\pm24$[kms$^{-1}$]{} (FWHM$_\mathrm{[CII]}=383\pm56$[kms$^{-1}$]{}); see Table \[tab:res\]. This corresponds to a [\[\]]{} luminosity in this quasar of [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}$=(1.6\pm0.2)\times10^9$[$L_\sun$]{}, which is roughly $\sim$15% brighter than J1120+0641 at $z=7.1$ [@ven17a] and a factor 3–5 fainter than the most [\[\]]{} luminous quasar at $z\sim6$ [e.g., @mai05; @wan13].
The redshift derived from the [\[\]]{} line is higher than that derived from the UV emission lines of the quasar. The and lines are blueshifted by 6580$\pm$270[kms$^{-1}$]{} and 500$\pm$140[kms$^{-1}$]{} with respect to the [\[\]]{} line. The shift is close to the mean blueshift of the line of 480[kms$^{-1}$]{} found in a sample of $z\sim6-7$ quasars [e.g., @ven16]. This could indicate the presence of an outflow [e.g., @maz17b].
We measure a rest-frame [\[\]]{} equivalent width of EW$_\mathrm{[CII]}=1.73\pm0.43$$\mu$m, which is consistent with the mean EW$_\mathrm{[CII]}$ of local starburst galaxies [which have $\langle$EW$_\mathrm{[CII]}\rangle=1.27\pm0.53$$\mu$m; see e.g., @dia13; @sar14] and higher than those of luminous ($M_{1450}<-27$) quasars at $z\sim6$ [e.g., @wan13]. The [\[\]]{}-to-FIR luminosity ratio is [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}$=(0.6-2.6)\times10^{-3}$ (Figure \[fig:lumrat\]), again consistent within the large uncertainties with the [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{} ratio of local star-forming galaxies that have a median [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}=$2.5\times10^{-3}$ [e.g., @dia13].
![[\[\]]{}-to-FIR luminosity ratio vs. FIR luminosity. Plotted are values for starburst galaxies and active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in the local universe and at high redshift and for local ULIRGs [@mai05; @wal09b; @dia13; @ven16; @maz17b and references therein]. The value for J1342+0928 is plotted as a red star. The dashed line indicates the median [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{} ratio of local star-forming galaxies [@dia13].[]{data-label="fig:lumrat"}](f4.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
We can estimate the SFR from the [\[\]]{} emission using the SFR–[$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{} relations for high-redshift ($z>0.5$) galaxies of @del14:
$$\mathrm{SFR}_\mathrm{[CII]}/\mathrm{M}_\sun\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1} = 3.0\times10^{-9} (L_\mathrm{[CII]}/\mathrm{L}_\sun)^{1.18},$$
with a systematic uncertainty of a factor of $\sim$2.5. With [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}$=(1.6\pm0.2)\times10^9$[$L_\sun$]{} we derive SFR$_\mathrm{[CII]}=85-545$[$M_\sun$yr$^{-1}$]{}, which is similar to the SFR based on the TIR luminosity (Section \[sec:cont\]).
The [\[\]]{} emission is not resolved in the 25$\times$15 beam (Figure \[fig:maps\]). We fitted a 2D Gaussian to the [\[\]]{} map using the CASA task “imfit" and we derive a 1$\sigma$ upper limit on the size of 17$\times$12 (FWHM). A similar limit on the source diameter of $D<1\farcs0$ is found when fitting a 1D Gaussian to the [*uv*]{} data. This translates to an upper limit on the size of the [\[\]]{}-emitting region of 8.4$\times$5.9kpc$^2$ or a diameter of $D\lesssim7$kpc. Approved observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/ submillimeter Array (ALMA) at higher spatial resolution will put tighter constraints on the size of the host galaxy.
From the strength of the [\[\]]{} emission line, we can derive the mass of singly ionized carbon. In analogy to the formula to compute the mass of neutral carbon provided in @wei05 and assuming optically thin [\[\]]{} emission, the mass of singly ionized carbon can be calculated using
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\mathrm{C}^+}/M_\odot &=& C m_\mathrm{C} \frac{8\pi k \nu_0^2}{h c^3 A} Q(T_\mathrm{ex}) \frac{1}{4} e^{91.2/T_\mathrm{ex}} L^\prime_\mathrm{[CII]} = \nonumber \\
&=& 2.92\times10^{-4} Q(T_\mathrm{ex}) \frac{1}{4} \mathrm{e}^{91.2/T_\mathrm{ex}}
L^\prime_\mathrm{[CII]},
\label{eq:mcplus1}\end{aligned}$$
with $C$ the conversion between pc$^2$ and cm$^2$, $m_\mathrm{C}$ the mass of a carbon atom, $A=2.29\times10^{-6}$s$^{-1}$ the Einstein coefficient [@nus81], $Q(T_\mathrm{ex})=2+4\mathrm{e}^{-91.2/T_\mathrm{ex}}$ the partition function, and $T_\mathrm{ex}$ the excitation temperature. As [\[\]]{} is emitted from the outer layers of photon-dominated region (PDR) clouds, $T_\mathrm{ex}\gtrsim100$K is a good assumption [see, e.g., @mei07]. Setting $T_\mathrm{ex}=100$K we derive $M_{\mathrm{C}^+}=4.9\times10^6$[$M_\sun$]{}. For $T_\mathrm{ex}=200$K (75K), the mass would be $\sim$20% lower (higher).
Limits on the CO and [\[\]]{} Luminosity
----------------------------------------
We do not detect any of the other targeted emission lines in J1342+0928. To derive upper limits on the line fluxes, we averaged the datacubes over 2.8$\times\sigma_\mathrm{[CII]}$ (460[kms$^{-1}$]{}). We measured the following 3$\sigma$ upper limits: $F_\mathrm{CO(10-9)}<0.32$Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}, $F_\mathrm{CO(7-6)}<0.13$Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}, $F_\mathrm{[CI]}<0.14$Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}, $F_\mathrm{CO(3-2)}<0.081$Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}, and $F_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O,1172\,GHz}}<0.30$Jy[kms$^{-1}$]{}.
The limits on the CO luminosity are $L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(10-9)}<5.2\times10^9$K[kms$^{-1}$]{}pc$^2$, $L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(7-6)}<4.3\times10^9$K[kms$^{-1}$]{}pc$^2$, and $L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(3-2)}<1.5\times10^{10}$K[kms$^{-1}$]{}pc$^2$. We can estimate a limit on the molecular gas mass $M_{H_2}$ by utilizing $M_{H_2}=\alpha L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(1-0)}$ with $\alpha$ the CO luminosity-to-gas mass conversion factor. Assuming the CO(3–2) emission is thermalized [e.g., @rie09], the CO(1–0) luminosity is given by $L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(1-0)}=L^\prime_\mathrm{CO(3-2)}$. Adopting $\alpha=0.8$ [e.g., @dow98], we set an upper limit on the molecular gas mass of $M_{H_2}<1.2\times10^{10}$[$M_\sun$]{}.
The limiting luminosity of the [\[\]]{} line is [$L_\mathrm{[CI]}$]{}$<7.8\times10^7$[$L_\sun$]{}. With a measured [\[\]]{} luminosity of [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}=$(1.6\pm0.2)\times10^9$[$L_\sun$]{} (Section \[sec:cii\]), we can set a lower limit to the [\[\]]{}-to-[\[\]]{} luminosity ratio of [$L_\mathrm{[CII]}$]{}/[$L_\mathrm{[CI]}$]{}$>18$. Following @ven17a, we can compare this luminosity ratio to those predicted by the ISM models of @mei07. From the measured luminosity ratio we can exclude that the lines originate from a region where the X-ray radiation from the accreting black hole is dominating the emission.
Dynamical mass estimate
-----------------------
From the velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of the [\[\]]{} emission and the radius $R$ of the line emitting region, we can estimate a dynamical mass of the quasar host galaxy by utilizing the virial theorem: $M_\mathrm{dyn} = 3R\sigma^2/2G$ with $G$ as the gravitational constant. Assuming that the velocity dispersion can be derived from the Gaussian fit to the [\[\]]{} emission (Figure \[fig:spectrum\]), and adopting a maximum radius of the [\[\]]{} emission of $R<3.5$kpc (Section \[sec:cii\]), we infer a dynamical mass $M_\mathrm{dyn}<3.2\times10^{10}$[$M_\sun$]{}. If instead we assume that the [\[\]]{} emission is in a rotating disk with inclination angle $i$ [e.g., @wan13; @wil15; @ven16], we derive a higher dynamical mass of $M_\mathrm{dyn}<1.0\times10^{11}/\mathrm{sin}^2(i)$[$M_\sun$]{}. Adopting $i=55^\circ$, the median inclination angle of $z\sim6$ quasar hosts [@wan13], the dynamical mass of J1342+0928 becomes $M_\mathrm{dyn}<1.5\times10^{11}$[$M_\sun$]{}, which is $\lesssim$190$\times$ higher that of the black hole [@ban17a]. To more accurately constrain the dynamical mass, high spatially resolved observations of the [\[\]]{} emission are necessary.
Concluding remarks
==================
We presented the detection of copious amounts of dust ($\sim$$10^8$[$M_\sun$]{}) and metal-enriched gas ($\sim$$5\times10^6$[$M_\sun$]{} of carbon in the singly ionized phase only) in a quasar host galaxy 690Myr after the Big Bang. The enrichment of the ISM in this source appears similar to other quasars at $z=6-7$ [e.g., @rie09; @wan13; @ven16] but much higher than what is typically found in non-quasar host galaxies at these redshifts [e.g., @wat15; @pen16].
We can only speculate which mechanism is responsible for the high mass in metals so early after the Big Bang. Because of the young cosmic age, asymptotic giant branch stars are thought to play only a marginal role [e.g., @mor03; @jua09; @gal11a]. On the other hand, type II supernovae (SNe) can produce significant amounts of dust, up to $\sim$1[$M_\sun$]{} per SN [e.g., @mat15]. For an initial mass function (IMF) similar to that of the Milky Way, the number of SNe is 1 per 200[$M_\sun$]{} of stars formed [e.g., @die06]. The implied stellar mass of J1342+0928 would then be $M_*=2\times10^{10}$[$M_\sun$]{}. Assuming a top-heavy IMF the implied stellar mass would be reduced by a factor of $\sim$3. In either case, such a massive stellar population should be easily detectable with the combined sensitivity, resolution, and wavelength coverage of the [*James Webb Space Telescope*]{} ([*JWST*]{}).
At these extreme redshifts, population III stars also provide a plausible enrichment mechanism. Metal-free stars with a mass $140<M$/[$M_\sun$]{}$<260$ could have dust yield as high as 15–30% [e.g., @noz03]. Neglecting dust destruction, one would ‘only’ require 2 million population III stars of 200[$M_\sun$]{} to create a mass of $10^8$[$M_\sun$]{} in dust, although the fast metal pollution may prevent the formation of so many population III stars [e.g., @mai10].
The presented observations showcase how the study of quasar host galaxies at the highest redshifts can shed new light on the dawn of galaxy formation. Future ALMA and [*JWST*]{} observations will allow us to constrain the molecular gas mass, determine the shape of the FIR dust emission, and measure the size of the gas reservoir and to reveal the stellar population in the quasar host of this system.
We thank the referee for providing valuable comments and suggestions. B.P.V., F.W., and E.P.F. acknowledge funding through the ERC grant “Cosmic Dawn.” Support for R.D. was provided by the DFG priority program 1573 “The physics of the interstellar medium.” We thank Amanda Karakas for help with estimating the metal production in stars. We are grateful to the JVLA and NOEMA for providing DDT observations. This work is based on observations carried our under project number E16AH with the IRAM NOEMA Interferometer. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany), and IGN (Spain).
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][[\#1](#1)]{}
, B., [Khochfar]{}, S., [Johnson]{}, J. L., [et al.]{} 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2854
, E., [Venemans]{}, B. P., [Decarli]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2016, ApJS, 227, 11
, E., [Venemans]{}, B. P., [Mazzucchelli]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2017, Natur
, E., [Venemans]{}, B. P., [Morganson]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2015, ApJ, 804, 118
, A., [Cox]{}, P., [Benford]{}, D. J., [et al.]{} 2006, ApJ, 642, 694
, F., [Cox]{}, P., [Neri]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2003, A&A, 409, L47
, E., [Groves]{}, B., [Walter]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2013, ApJ, 766, 13
, I., [Cormier]{}, D., [Lebouteiller]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2014, A&A, 568, A62
, G., [Venemans]{}, B. P., [Decarli]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2014, ApJ, 790, 145
, R., [Walter]{}, F., [Yang]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2012, ApJ, 756, 150
, T., [Armus]{}, L., [Charmandaris]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2013, ApJ, 774, 68
, R., [Halloin]{}, H., [Kretschmer]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2006, Natur, 439, 45
, M., [Hamann]{}, F., [Shields]{}, J. C., [et al.]{} 2003, ApJ, 589, 722
, D., & [Solomon]{}, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615
, L., [Eales]{}, S., [Edmunds]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2000, MNRAS, 315, 115
, X., [Strauss]{}, M. A., [Richards]{}, G. T., [et al.]{} 2006, AJ, 131, 1203
, G. 2004, in ASP Conf. Ser. 311, AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, ed. G. T. [Richards]{} & P. B. [Hall]{} (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 161
, C., [Andersen]{}, A. C., & [Hjorth]{}, J. 2011, A&A, 528, A14
, C., [Hjorth]{}, J., & [Andersen]{}, A. C. 2011, A&ARv, 19, 43
, L., [Fan]{}, X., [Vestergaard]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2007, AJ, 134, 1150
, Y., [Maiolino]{}, R., [Mujica]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2009, A&A, 494, L25
, K. I., [Sramek]{}, R., [Schmidt]{}, M., [Shaffer]{}, D. B., & [Green]{}, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195
, C., [Meisenheimer]{}, K., [Walter]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2014, ApJ, 785, 154
, U., [Ciardi]{}, B., [Dolag]{}, K., [Tornatore]{}, L., & [Khochfar]{}, S. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1003
, R., [Cox]{}, P., [Caselli]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2005, A&A, 440, L51
, M., [Dwek]{}, E., [Barlow]{}, M. J., [et al.]{} 2015, ApJ, 800, 50
, C., [Ba[ñ]{}ados]{}, E., [Venemans]{}, B. P., [et al.]{} 2017, ApJ accepted (arXiv:1710.01251)
, R., [Spaans]{}, M., & [Israel]{}, F. P. 2007, A&A, 461, 793
, M. J., [Murphy]{}, E. J., [Hjorth]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2010, A&A, 522, A15
, H. L., & [Edmunds]{}, M. G. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 427
, D. J., [Warren]{}, S. J., [Venemans]{}, B. P., [et al.]{} 2011, Nature, 474, 616
, E. J., [Condon]{}, J. J., [Schinnerer]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2011, ApJ, 737, 67
, T., [Kozasa]{}, T., [Umeda]{}, H., [Maeda]{}, K., & [Nomoto]{}, K. 2003, ApJ, 598, 785
, H., & [Storey]{}, P. J. 1981, A&A, 96, 91
, L., [Carniani]{}, S., [Castellano]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2016, ApJL, 829, L11
, J. A., [Visbal]{}, E., [Wise]{}, J. H., [et al.]{} 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0075
, D. A., [Walter]{}, F., [Bertoldi]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2009, ApJ, 703, 1338
, L., [Samsonyan]{}, A., [Lebouteiller]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2014, ApJ, 790, 15
, L., [Granato]{}, G. L., [Bressan]{}, A., & [Danese]{}, L. 1998, ApJ, 509, 103
, B. P., [Findlay]{}, J. R., [Sutherland]{}, W. J., [et al.]{} 2013, ApJ, 779, 24
, B. P., [McMahon]{}, R. G., [Walter]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2012, ApJL, 751, L25
, B. P., [Walter]{}, F., [Decarli]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2017, ApJ, 837, 146
, B. P., [Walter]{}, F., [Zschaechner]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2016, ApJ, 816, 37
, M. 2012, Science, 337, 544
, F., [Bertoldi]{}, F., [Carilli]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2003, Natur, 424, 406
, F., [Riechers]{}, D., [Cox]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2009, Natur, 457, 699
, R., [Wagg]{}, J., [Carilli]{}, C. L., [et al.]{} 2013, ApJ, 773, 44
, D., [Christensen]{}, L., [Knudsen]{}, K. K., [et al.]{} 2015, Nature, 519, 327
, A., [Downes]{}, D., [Henkel]{}, C., & [Walter]{}, F. 2005, A&A, 429, L25
, C. J., [Bergeron]{}, J., & [Omont]{}, A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 123
, M. S., & [Carilli]{}, C. L. 2002, ApJ, 568, 88
[^1]: http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/GILDAS
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this article, we distinguish the contributions of the positive parity and negative parity $\Omega_c$ states, study the masses and pole residues of the 1S, 1P, 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states with the spin $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ using the QCD sum rules in a consistent way, and revisit the assignments of the new narrow excited $\Omega_c^0$ states. The predictions support assigning the $\Omega_c(3000)$ to be the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, assigning the $\Omega_c(3090)$ to be the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ or the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^+$, and assigning $\Omega_c(3119)$ to be the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^+$.'
---
\
Zhi-Gang Wang[^1], Xing-Ning Wei, Ze-Hui Yan\
Department of Physics, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, P. R. China
PACS number: 14.20.Lq
Key words: Charmed baryon states, QCD sum rules
Introduction
============
Recently, the LHCb collaboration studied the $\Xi_c^+ K^-$ mass spectrum and observed five new narrow excited $\Omega_c$ states, $\Omega_c(3000)$, $\Omega_c(3050)$, $\Omega_c(3066)$, $\Omega_c(3090)$, $\Omega_c(3119)$ [@LHCb-Omega]. The measured masses and widths are
& \_c(3000) : M = 3000.4 0.2 0.1 , = 4.50.60.3 ,\
& \_c(3050) : M = 3050.2 0.1 0.1 , = 0.80.20.1 ,\
& \_c(3066) : M = 3065.6 0.1 0.3 , = 3.50.40.2 ,\
& \_c(3090) : M = 3090.2 0.3 0.5 , = 8.71.00.8 ,\
& \_c(3119) : M = 3119.1 0.3 0.9 , = 1.10.80.4 .
There have been several assignments for those new $\Omega_c$ states, such as the 2S $\Omega_c$ states with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^+$ and ${\frac{3}{2}}^+$ [@Azizi-Omega; @Cheng-Omega; @LiuXiang-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega], the P-wave $\Omega_c$ states with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ or ${\frac{5}{2}}^-$ [@Cheng-Omega; @LiuXiang-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega; @Chen-Omega; @Rosner-Omega; @WangZG-Omega; @WangZhu-Omega; @Mathur-Omega; @Zhong-Omega; @Aliev-Omega], the pentaquark states or molecular pentaquark states with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ or ${\frac{5}{2}}^-$ [@Ping-Omega; @Polyakov-Omega; @AnCS-Omega], or the D-wave $\Omega_c$ states [@ZhangAL-Omega].
In Refs.[@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega], Agaev, Azizi and Sundu construct the interpolating currents without introducing the relative P-wave to study the $\Omega_c$ states by taking into account the 1S, 1P, 2S states with $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ in the pole contributions in the QCD sum rules. They use the 1S state plus continuum model to obtain the masses and pole residues of the 1S states firstly, then take them as input parameters and use the 1S state plus 1P state plus continuum model to obtain the masses and pole residues of the 1P states, finally use the 1S state plus 1P state plus 2S state plus continuum model to obtain the masses and pole residues of the 2S states. In Ref.[@Aliev-Omega], Aliev, Bilmis and Savci use the same interpolating currents to study the $\Omega_c$ states by taking into account the 1S and 1P states with $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ in the pole contributions in the QCD sum rules. The potential quark models predict that the 1P and 2S $\Omega_c$ states have the masses about $3.0-3.2\,\rm{GeV}$ [@Roberts2007; @Ebert2011]. If the 1P and 2S $\Omega_c$ states lie in the same energy region, it is difficult to distinguish their contributions in the QCD sum rules [@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega; @Aliev-Omega].
In Refs.[@WangPLB-Omega12; @WangEPJC-Omega32; @Wang-Omega-Negative; @WangHbaryon], we construct the interpolating currents without introducing the relative P-wave to study the $J^P={1\over 2}^{\pm}$ and ${3\over 2}^{\pm}$ heavy, doubly-heavy and triply-heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules in a systematic way by subtracting the contributions from the corresponding $J^P={1\over 2}^{\mp}$ and ${3\over 2}^{\mp}$ heavy, doubly-heavy and triply-heavy baryon states, and obtain satisfactory results. In Ref.[@WangZG-Omega], we study the new excited $\Omega_c$ states with the QCD sum rules by introducing an explicit P-wave involving the two $s$ quarks, the predictions support assigning the $\Omega_c(3050)$, $\Omega_c(3066)$, $\Omega_c(3090)$ and $\Omega_c(3119)$ to be the P-wave baryon states with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ and ${\frac{5}{2}}^-$, respectively.
In this article, we distinguish the contributions of the S-wave (positive parity) and P-wave (negative parity) $\Omega_c$ states, study the masses and pole residues of the 1S, 1P, 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states with the spin $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ using the QCD sum rules in details, and revisit the assignments of the new narrow excited $\Omega_c^0$ states.
The article is arranged as follows: we derive the QCD sum rules for the masses and pole residues of the S-wave and P-wave ${\frac{1}{2}}$ and ${\frac{3}{2}}$ $\Omega_c$ states in Sect.2; in Sect.3, we present the numerical results and discussions; and Sect.4 is reserved for our conclusion.
QCD sum rules for the ${\frac{1}{2}}^\pm$ and ${\frac{3}{2}}^\pm$ $\Omega_c$ states
===================================================================================
Firstly, we write down the two-point correlation functions $\Pi(p)$ and $\Pi_{\alpha\beta}(p)$ in the QCD sum rules, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle0|T\left\{\eta(x)\bar{\eta}(0)\right\}|0\rangle \, , \nonumber\\
\Pi_{\alpha\beta}(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle0|T\left\{\eta_{\alpha}(x)\bar{\eta}_{\beta}(0)\right\}|0\rangle \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(x)&=& \varepsilon^{ijk} s^T_i(x)C\gamma_\alpha s_j(x) \gamma_5 \gamma^\alpha c_k(x) \, , \nonumber \\
\eta_\alpha(x)&=& \varepsilon^{ijk} s^T_i(x)C\gamma_\alpha s_j(x) c_k(x) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ the $i$, $j$ and $k$ are color indexes, and the $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix. In this article, we choose the simple Ioffe type interpolating currents.
At the hadron side, we insert a complete set of intermediate $\Omega_c$ states with the same quantum numbers as the current operators $\eta(x)$, $i\gamma_5 \eta(x)$, $\eta_{\alpha}(x)$ and $i\gamma_5 \eta_{\alpha}(x)$ into the correlation functions $\Pi(p)$ and $\Pi_{\alpha\beta}(p)$ to obtain the hadronic representation [@SVZ79; @PRT85]. We isolate the pole terms of the lowest 1S, 1P, 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states ($\Omega_c$ and $\Omega_c^\prime$), and obtain the results: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(p) & = & {\lambda^{+}_{\frac{1}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}+ M_{+} \over M_{+}^{2}-p^{2} }
+ {\lambda^{-}_{\frac{1}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}- M_{-} \over M_{-}^{2}-p^{2} } +{\lambda^{\prime+}_{\frac{1}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}+ M^\prime_{+} \over M_{+}^{\prime2}-p^{2} }
+ {\lambda^{\prime-}_{\frac{1}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}- M_{-}^{\prime} \over M_{-}^{\prime2}-p^{2} } +\cdots \, , \nonumber\\
&=&\Pi_{\frac{1}{2}}(p^2)+\cdots\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\alpha\beta}(p) & = & \left({\lambda^{+}_{\frac{3}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}+ M_{+} \over M_{+}^{2}-p^{2} }
+ {\lambda^{-}_{\frac{3}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}- M_{-} \over M_{-}^{2}-p^{2} } +{\lambda^{\prime+}_{\frac{3}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}+ M^\prime_{+} \over M_{+}^{\prime2}-p^{2} }
+ {\lambda^{\prime-}_{\frac{3}{2}}}^2 {\!\not\!{p}- M_{-}^{\prime} \over M_{-}^{\prime2}-p^{2} } \right) \nonumber\\
&& \left(- g_{\alpha\beta}+\frac{\gamma_\alpha\gamma_\beta}{3}+\frac{2p_\alpha p_\beta}{3p^2}-\frac{p_\alpha\gamma_\beta-p_\beta \gamma_\alpha}{3\sqrt{p^2}}
\right) +\cdots \, ,\nonumber\\
&=&\Pi_{\frac{3}{2}}(p^2)\,\left(- g_{\alpha\beta}\right)+\cdots\, .\end{aligned}$$
The currents $\eta(0)$ and $\eta_{\alpha}(0)$ couple potentially to the spin-parity $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^\pm$ and ${\frac{3}{2}}^\pm$ $\Omega_c$ states $\Omega_{\frac{1}{2}}^{(\prime)\pm}$ and $\Omega_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(\prime)\pm}$, respectively [@WangHbaryon; @Wang-2625-2815; @Oka96; @WangPc], $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0| \eta (0)|\Omega_{\frac{1}{2}}^{(\prime)+}(p)\rangle &=&\lambda^{(\prime)+}_{\frac{1}{2}} U^{+}(p,s) \, , \nonumber\\
\langle 0| \eta_\alpha (0)|\Omega_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(\prime)+}(p)\rangle &=&\lambda^{(\prime)+}_{\frac{3}{2}} U^{+}_{\alpha }(p,s) \, ,\\
\langle 0| \eta (0)|\Omega_{\frac{1}{2}}^{(\prime)-}(p)\rangle &=&\lambda^{(\prime)-}_{\frac{1}{2}} i\gamma_5 U^{-}(p,s) \, , \nonumber\\
\langle 0| \eta_\alpha (0)|\Omega_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(\prime)-}(p)\rangle &=&\lambda^{(\prime)-}_{\frac{3}{2}} i\gamma_5 U^{-}_{\alpha }(p,s) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the $\lambda^{(\prime)\pm}_{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\lambda^{(\prime)\pm}_{\frac{3}{2}}$ are the pole residues or the current-baryon couplings, the spinors $U^{\pm}(p,s)$ and $U^{\pm}_{\alpha}(p,s)$ satisfy the relations, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_s U(p,s) \overline{U}(p,s)&=& \!\not\!{p}+M_{\pm}^{(\prime)} \, , \nonumber \\
\sum_s U_\alpha(p,s) \overline{U}_\beta(p,s)&=&\left(\!\not\!{p}+M_{\pm}^{(\prime)}\right)\left( -g_{\alpha\beta}+\frac{\gamma_\alpha\gamma_\beta}{3}+\frac{2p_\alpha p_\beta}{3p^2}-\frac{p_\alpha\gamma_\beta-p_\beta \gamma_\alpha}{3\sqrt{p^2}} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $p^2=M^{(\prime)2}_{\pm}$ on mass-shell, the $s$ are the polarizations or spin indexes of the spinors, and should be distinguished from the $s$ quark or the energy $s$.
We obtain the hadronic spectral densities at hadron side through dispersion relation, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rm Im}\Pi_{j}(s)}{\pi}&=&\!\not\!{p} \left[{\lambda^{+}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{+}^2\right)+{\lambda^{-}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{-}^2\right)
+{\lambda^{\prime+}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{+}^{\prime2}\right)+{\lambda^{\prime-}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{-}^{\prime2}\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\left[M_{+}{\lambda^{+}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{+}^2\right)-M_{-}{\lambda^{-}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{-}^2\right)+M_{+}^{\prime}{\lambda^{\prime+}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{+}^{\prime2}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-M_{-}^{\prime}{\lambda^{\prime-}_{j}}^2 \delta\left(s-M_{-}^{\prime2}\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&=&\!\not\!{p}\, \rho^1_{j,H}(s)+\rho^0_{j,H}(s) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $j=\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$, the subscript $H$ denotes the hadron side, then we introduce the weight function $\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)$ to obtain the QCD sum rules at the hadron side, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,H}(s)+\rho^0_{j,H}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)
&=&2M_{+}{\lambda^{+}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{+}^2}{T^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+2M_{+}^\prime{\lambda^{\prime+}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{+}^{\prime2}}{T^2}\right) \, , \\
\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,H}(s)-\rho^0_{j,H}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)
&=&2M_{-}{\lambda^{-}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{-}^2}{T^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+2M_{-}^\prime{\lambda^{\prime-}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{-}^{\prime2}}{T^2}\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the $s_0$ are the continuum thresholds and the $T^2$ are the Borel parameters [@WangPc]. We distinguish the contributions of the positive parity and negative parity $\Omega_c$ states unambiguously according to Eqs.(9-11).
At the QCD side, we calculate the light quark parts of the correlation functions $\Pi(p)$ and $\Pi_{\alpha\beta}(p)$ with the full light quark propagators $S_{ij}(x)$ in the coordinate space [@Pascual-1984], $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ij}(x)&=& \frac{i\delta_{ij}\!\not\!{x}}{ 2\pi^2x^4}-\frac{\delta_{ij}m_s}{4\pi^2x^2}-\frac{\delta_{ij}\langle
\bar{s}s\rangle}{12} +\frac{i\delta_{ij}\!\not\!{x}m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{48}-\frac{\delta_{ij}x^2\langle \bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{192}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{i\delta_{ij}x^2\!\not\!{x} m_s\langle \bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle }{1152} -\frac{ig_s G^{a}_{\alpha\beta}t^a_{ij}(\!\not\!{x}
\sigma^{\alpha\beta}+\sigma^{\alpha\beta} \!\not\!{x})}{32\pi^2x^2} -\frac{1}{8}\langle\bar{s}_j\sigma^{\mu\nu}s_i \rangle \sigma_{\mu\nu} +\cdots \, , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and take the full $c$-quark propagator $C_{ij}(x)$ in the momentum space [@PRT85], $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ij}(x)&=&\frac{i}{(2\pi)^4}\int d^4k e^{-ik \cdot x} \left\{
\frac{\delta_{ij}}{\!\not\!{k}-m_c}
-\frac{g_sG^n_{\alpha\beta}t^n_{ij}}{4}\frac{\sigma^{\alpha\beta}(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)+(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)
\sigma^{\alpha\beta}}{(k^2-m_c^2)^2}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. -\frac{g_s^2 (t^at^b)_{ij} G^a_{\alpha\beta}G^b_{\mu\nu}(f^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}+f^{\alpha\mu\beta\nu}+f^{\alpha\mu\nu\beta}) }{4(k^2-m_c^2)^5}+\cdots\right\} \, , \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}&=&(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)\gamma^\alpha(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)\gamma^\beta(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)\gamma^\mu(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)\gamma^\nu(\!\not\!{k}+m_c)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $q=u,d,s$, $t^n=\frac{\lambda^n}{2}$, the $\lambda^n$ is the Gell-Mann matrix. In Eq.(12), we add the term $\langle\bar{s}_j\sigma_{\mu\nu}s_i \rangle$ originates from the Fierz re-ordering of the $\langle s_i \bar{s}_j\rangle$ to absorb the gluons emitted from other quark lines to form $\langle\bar{s}_j g_s G^a_{\alpha\beta} t^a_{mn}\sigma_{\mu\nu} s_i \rangle$ to extract the mixed condensate $\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma G s\rangle$. The term $-\frac{1}{8}\langle\bar{s}_j\sigma^{\mu\nu}s_i \rangle \sigma_{\mu\nu}$ was introduced in Ref.[@WangTetraquark]. We compute the integrals both in the coordinate space and momentum space to obtain the correlation functions $\Pi_{j}(p^2)$, then obtain the QCD spectral densities through dispersion relation, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rm Im}\Pi_{j}(s)}{\pi}&=&\!\not\!{p}\, \rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $j=\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$, the explicit expressions of the QCD spectral densities $\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)$ can be rewritten in a concise form after multiplying the weight function $\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)$ to obtain the integrals $ \int_{m_c^2}^{\infty}ds\, \sqrt{s}\,\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)$ and $\int_{m_c^2}^{\infty}ds\, \rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)$.
We take the quark-hadron duality, introduce the continuum thresholds $s_0$ and the weight function $\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)$ to obtain the QCD sum rules: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,H}(s)+\rho^0_{j,H}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)
&=& \int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, , \\
\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,H}(s)-\rho^0_{j,H}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)
&=& \int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $j=\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)&=&m_c\,\rho^{0}_{j}(s)\, ,\nonumber\\
\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)&=&\rho^{1}_{j}(s)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{0}_{\frac{1}{2}}(s)&=&\frac{3}{32\pi^4}\int_{x_i}^1dx \, (1-x)^2(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)^2 -\frac{3m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{2\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \frac{(1-x)^2}{x^2}\left[1 -\frac{s}{3} \delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \,\frac{2-3x}{x} \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{4\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx \,\frac{1}{x}\,\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{5m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{12\pi^2}\delta(s-m_c^2)+\frac{4\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{3}\delta(s-m_c^2)
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\langle\bar{s} s\rangle \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{3T^2}\left( 1-\frac{2m_c^2}{T^2}\right) \,\delta(s-m_c^2) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{ \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle^2}{12T^4} \left( 1+\frac{3m_c^2}{T^2}-\frac{m_c^4}{T^4}\right)\,\delta(s-m_c^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{1}_{\frac{1}{2}}(s)&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^4}\int_{x_i}^1dx \, x(1-x)^3(5s-3\widetilde{m}_c^2)(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) -\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx x \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx x(1-x)\left[3+s\,\delta\,(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) \right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{48\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \left\{(1-x)\left[3+s\,\delta\,(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) \right]+(1-2x) \right\} \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2}{72\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \frac{(1-x)^3}{x^2}\left(1 +\frac{s}{2T^2} \right)\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{3\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx x \left(1+\frac{s}{2T^2} \right) \delta\,(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{8\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx \, \delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{4\pi^2}\delta(s-m_c^2)+\frac{2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{3}\delta(s-m_c^2)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle }{6T^2}\left(1+\frac{2m_c^2}{T^2} \right)\delta(s-m_c^2)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2 \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle^2}{24T^6} \left(1-\frac{m_c^2}{T^2} \right) \,\delta(s-m_c^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{0}_{\frac{3}{2}}(s)&=&\frac{1}{64\pi^4}\int_{x_i}^1dx \, (x+2)(1-x)^2(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)^2 -\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{4\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx(2-x) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2}{576\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \frac{(x+2)(1-x)^2}{x^3}\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)\nonumber\\
&& +\frac{1}{192\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \left[\frac{(x+2)(1-x)^2}{x^2}-(2-x)\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{24\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{12\pi^2} \,\delta(s-m_c^2) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{3}\delta(s-m_c^2) -\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle }{6T^4}\delta(s-m_c^2)\nonumber\\
&& -\frac{m_c^2 \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle^2 }{24T^6}\left(1-\frac{m_c^2}{2T^2} \right)\delta(s-m_c^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{1}_{\frac{3}{2}}(s)&=&\frac{1}{64\pi^4}\int_{x_i}^1dx \, x(x+2)(1-x)^2(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)^2 -\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{4\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx x(2-x) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2}{576\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \frac{(x+2)(1-x)^2}{x^2}\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{192\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle\int_{x_i}^1dx \,x(2-x) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{24\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^1dx x \delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle}{12\pi^2} \,\delta(s-m_c^2) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{3}\delta(s-m_c^2) -\frac{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle }{6T^2}\left(1+\frac{m_c^2}{T^2} \right)\delta(s-m_c^2)\nonumber\\
&& +\frac{m_c^4 \langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs\rangle^2 }{48T^8} \delta(s-m_c^2)\, ,\end{aligned}$$
$\widetilde{m}_c^2=\frac{m_c^2}{x}$, $x_i=\frac{m_c^2}{s}$.
The QCD sum rules can be written more explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
2M_{+}{\lambda^{+}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{+}^2}{T^2}\right)+2M_{+}^{\prime}{\lambda^{\prime+}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{+}^{\prime2}}{T^2}\right)
&=& \int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, , \\
2M_{-}{\lambda^{-}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{-}^2}{T^2}\right)+2M_{-}^{\prime}{\lambda^{\prime-}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{-}^{\prime2}}{T^2}\right)
&=& \int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, .\end{aligned}$$ The contributions of the positive parity and negative parity $\Omega_c$ states are separated explicitly.
Firstly, we choose low continuum threshold parameters $s_0$ so as not to include the contributions of the 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states ($\Omega_c^\prime$), and obtain the QCD sum rules for the masses of the 1S and 1P $\Omega_c$ states, $$\begin{aligned}
M^2_{+} &=& \frac{-\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}{\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}\, , \\
M^2_{-} &=& \frac{-\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}{\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ then obtain the pole residues $\lambda^{+}_{j}$ and $\lambda^{-}_{j}$.
Now we take the masses and pole residues of the 1S and 1P $\Omega_c$ states as input parameters, and postpone the continuum threshold parameters $s_0$ to larger values to include the contributions of the 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states, and obtain the QCD sum rules for the masses of the 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states, $$\begin{aligned}
M^{\prime2}_{+} &=& \frac{-\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\left\{\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]
\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)-2M_{+}{\lambda^{+}_{j}}^2
\exp\left( -\frac{M_{+}^2}{T^2}\right)\right\}}
{\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)-2M_{+}{\lambda^{+}_{j}}^2
\exp\left( -\frac{M_{+}^2}{T^2}\right)}\, , \nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M^{\prime2}_{-} &=& \frac{-\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\left\{\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]
\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)-2M_{-}{\lambda^{-}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{-}^2}{T^2}\right)\right\}}{\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds
\left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)-2M_{-}{\lambda^{-}_{j}}^2\exp\left( -\frac{M_{-}^2}{T^2}\right)}\, , \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ then obtain the pole residues $\lambda^{\prime+}_{j}$ and $\lambda^{\prime-}_{j}$.
Numerical results and discussions
=================================
The input parameters are taken to be the standard values $\langle\bar{q}q \rangle=-(0.24\pm 0.01\, \rm{GeV})^3$, $\langle\bar{s}s \rangle=(0.8\pm0.1)\langle\bar{q}q \rangle$, $\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma G s \rangle=m_0^2\langle \bar{s}s \rangle$, $m_0^2=(0.8 \pm 0.1)\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\langle \frac{\alpha_s
GG}{\pi}\rangle=(0.33\,\rm{GeV})^4 $ at the energy scale $\mu=1\, \rm{GeV}$ [@SVZ79; @PRT85; @Ioffe-PPNP; @ColangeloReview], $m_{c}(m_c)=(1.275\pm0.025)\,\rm{GeV}$ and $m_s(\mu=2\,\rm{GeV})=(0.095\pm0.005)\,\rm{GeV}$ from the Particle Data Group [@PDG]. The updated values from the Particle Data Group in version 2016 [@PDG] are slightly different from the corresponding ones in version 2014, we take the old values to make consistent predictions with the same parameters and criteria chosen in previous works. If we choose the updated values $m_{c}(m_c)=(1.28\pm0.03)\,\rm{GeV}$ and $m_s(\mu=2\,\rm{GeV})=0.096^{+0.008}_{-0.004}\,\rm{GeV}$ [@PDG], the central value of the predicted mass of the $\Omega_c({\rm 1S})$ is $2.6991\,\rm{GeV}$ rather than $2.6983\,\rm{GeV}$, the predicted mass presented in Table 2 survives, so the old values are OK. The values of the $m_0^2$, $\langle\bar{s}s \rangle/\langle\bar{q}q \rangle$ and $\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs \rangle/\langle\bar{q}g_s \sigma Gq \rangle$ vary in rather large ranges from different theoretical determinations, for example, in Ref.[@Aladashvili], $\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs \rangle/\langle\bar{q}g_s \sigma Gq \rangle=0.95 \pm 0.15$, which differs from the standard value $\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma Gs \rangle/\langle\bar{q}g_s \sigma Gq \rangle=\langle\bar{s}s \rangle/\langle\bar{q}q \rangle=0.8 \pm 0.1$ remarkably [@Ioffe-PPNP]. In this article, we take the standard values or the old values still accepted now [@Ioffe-PPNP; @ColangeloReview].
We take into account the energy-scale dependence of the input parameters from the renormalization group equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\bar{s}s \rangle(\mu)&=&\langle\bar{s}s \rangle(Q)\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}(Q)}{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}\right]^{\frac{4}{9}}\, , \nonumber\\
\langle\bar{s}g_s \sigma Gs \rangle(\mu)&=&\langle\bar{s}g_s \sigma Gs \rangle(Q)\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}(Q)}{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}\right]^{\frac{2}{27}}\, , \nonumber\\
m_s(\mu)&=&m_s({\rm 2GeV} )\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\alpha_{s}({\rm 2GeV})}\right]^{\frac{4}{9}} \, ,\nonumber\\
m_c(\mu)&=&m_c(m_c)\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\alpha_{s}(m_c)}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}} \, ,\nonumber\\
\alpha_s(\mu)&=&\frac{1}{b_0t}\left[1-\frac{b_1}{b_0^2}\frac{\log t}{t} +\frac{b_1^2(\log^2{t}-\log{t}-1)+b_0b_2}{b_0^4t^2}\right]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $t=\log \frac{\mu^2}{\Lambda^2}$, $b_0=\frac{33-2n_f}{12\pi}$, $b_1=\frac{153-19n_f}{24\pi^2}$, $b_2=\frac{2857-\frac{5033}{9}n_f+\frac{325}{27}n_f^2}{128\pi^3}$, $\Lambda=213\,\rm{MeV}$, $296\,\rm{MeV}$ and $339\,\rm{MeV}$ for the flavors $n_f=5$, $4$ and $3$, respectively [@PDG], and evolve all the input parameters to the optimal energy scales $\mu$ to extract the masses of the $\Omega_c$ states. The energy scale dependence of the quark masses and quark condensates is known beyond the leading order, the energy scale dependence of the mixed quark condensates is only known in the leading order [@Narison-mix; @Narison-Book]. In this article, we take the leading order approximation in a consistent way, and take the energy scale dependence of the mixed condensates presented in Refs.[@Narison-mix; @Narison-Book], while a quite different energy scale dependence of the mixed condensates is presented in Refs.[@Aladashvili; @Beneke-Dosch]. It is interesting to take the energy scale dependence presented in Refs.[@Aladashvili; @Beneke-Dosch], this may be our next work. For the heavy degrees of freedom, we take the favors $n_f=4$, the power in the $m_c(\mu)$ is $\frac{12}{25}$. For the light degrees of freedom, we take the flavors $n_f=3$, the powers in the $\langle\bar{s}s \rangle(\mu)$, $\langle\bar{s}g_s \sigma Gs \rangle(\mu)$ and $m_s(\mu)$ are $\frac{4}{9}$ (or $\frac{12}{27}$), $\frac{2}{27}$ and $\frac{4}{9}$, respectively. If we take the favors $n_f=4$, the powers in the $\langle\bar{s}s \rangle(\mu)$, $\langle\bar{s}g_s \sigma Gs \rangle(\mu)$ and $m_s(\mu)$ are $\frac{12}{25}$ , $\frac{2}{25}$ and $\frac{12}{25}$, respectively, in fact, the induced tiny difference in numerical calculations can be neglected. As far as the fine constant $\alpha_s(\mu)$ is concerned, we choose the next-to-next-to-leading order approximation, which is consistent with the values determined experimentally [@PDG].
In Fig.1, we plot the correlation functions $\Pi_{j,+}$ and $\Pi_{j,-}$ with variations of the energy scales $\mu$ and the Borel parameters $T^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{j,+}&=& \int_{m_c^2}^{\infty}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)+\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, , \\
\Pi_{j,-}&=& \int_{m_c^2}^{\infty}ds \left[\sqrt{s}\rho^1_{j,QCD}(s)-\rho^0_{j,QCD}(s)\right]\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, .\end{aligned}$$ From the figure, we can see that the $\Pi_{j,+}$ and $\Pi_{j,-}$ increase remarkably with increase of the energy scale $\mu$ at the region $T^2>4.0\,\rm{GeV}^2$, while at the region $T^2<3.0\,\rm{GeV}^2$, the $\Pi_{j,+}$ and $\Pi_{j,-}$ increase slowly with increase of the energy scale $\mu$. All in all, we cannot obtain energy scale independent QCD sum rules, some constraints are needed to determine the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities in a consistent way.
Now we take a short digression to discuss how to choose the optimal energy scales. In the heavy quark limit, the heavy quark $Q$ serves as a static well potential and combines with a light quark $q$ to form a heavy diquark in color antitriplet, or combines with a light diquark in color antitriplet to form a heavy baryon in color singlet. The heavy antiquark $\overline{Q}$ serves as another static well potential and combines with a light antiquark $\bar{q}^\prime$ to form a heavy antidiquark in color triplet, or combines with a light antidiquark in color triplet to form a heavy antibaryon in color singlet. Then the heavy diquark and heavy antidiquark combine together to form a hidden-charm or hidden-bottom tetraquark state. The heavy baryons $B$ and tetraquark states $X/Y/Z$ are characterized by the effective heavy quark masses ${\mathbb{M}}_Q$ (or constituent quark masses) and the virtuality $V=\sqrt{M^2_{B}-{\mathbb{M}}_Q^2}$, $\sqrt{M^2_{X/Y/Z}-(2{\mathbb{M}}_Q)^2}$ (or bound energy not as robust). The diquark-quark type baryon states and diquark-antidiquark type tetraquark states are expected to have the same effective $Q$-quark masses ${\mathbb{M}}_Q$, which embody the net effects of the complex dynamics [@WangTetraquark; @Wang-Xi3080]. In Refs.[@WangTetraquark; @WangMolecule], we study the acceptable energy scales of the QCD spectral densities for the hidden-charm (hidden-bottom) tetraquark states and molecular states in the QCD sum rules in details for the first time, and suggest an energy scale formula $\mu=\sqrt{M^2_{X/Y/Z}-(2{\mathbb{M}}_Q)^2}$ by setting $\mu=V$ to determine the optimal energy scales with the effective heavy quark masses ${\mathbb{M}}_Q$.
We fit the effective $c$-quark mass ${\mathbb{M}}_{c}$ to reproduce the experimental value of the mass of the $Z^\pm_c(3900)$ in the scenario of tetraquark state [@WangTetraquark]. In this article, we use the empirical energy scale formula $ \mu =\sqrt{M_{\Omega_c}^2-{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}$ to determine the optimal energy scales of the QCD spectral densities, and take the updated value of the effective $c$-quark mass ${\mathbb{M}}_c=1.82\,\rm{GeV}$ [@WangEPJC4260]. For detailed discussions about the energy scale formula $ \mu =\sqrt{M_{\Omega_c}^2-{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}$, one can consult Ref.[@Wang-Xi3080]. According to the energy scale formula $ \mu =\sqrt{M_{\Omega_c}^2-{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}$, we extract the masses of the ground states (see Eqs.(25-26)) and the first radial excited states (see Eqs.(27-28)) at different energy scales.
In Fig.2, we plot the masses and pole residues of the $\Omega_c({\rm 1S},\frac{1}{2})$, $\Omega_c({\rm 1S},\frac{3}{2})$, $\Omega_c({\rm 1P},\frac{1}{2})$ and $\Omega_c({\rm 1P},\frac{3}{2})$ with variations of the energy scale $\mu$ for the central values of the Borel parameters and threshold parameters shown in Table 1. From the figure, we can see that the predicted masses decrease monotonously but mildly with increase of the energy scale $\mu$, the constraint $ \mu =\sqrt{M_{\Omega_c}^2-{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}$ is not difficult to satisfy. On the other hand, the pole residues increase monotonously and mildly with increase of the energy scale $\mu$, which is consistent with Fig.1, as the Borel parameters are chosen as $T^2<3.0\,\rm{GeV}^2$. At the vicinities of the energy scales presented in Table 1, the uncertainties induced by the uncertainties of the energy scales are tiny.
For the $Z_c(3900)$, the uncertainty of the energy scale of the QCD spectral density is about $\delta\mu=0.1\,\rm{GeV}$, the uncertainty of the effective $c$-quark mass ${\mathbb{M}}_c$ can be estimated as $\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c =\frac{\mu_0}{4{\mathbb{M}}_c}\delta \mu=0.02\,\rm{GeV}$ from the equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu&=&\sqrt{M_{X/Y/Z}^2-4\left({\mathbb{M}}_c\pm\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c\right)^2}=\sqrt{M_{X/Y/Z}^2-4{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}
\sqrt{1\mp \frac{8{\mathbb{M}}_c\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c}{M_{X/Y/Z}^2-4{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\mu_0\left(1\mp \frac{4{\mathbb{M}}_c\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c}{\mu_0^2}\right)=\mu_0\mp\delta\mu\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the $\mu_0$ is the central value. The uncertainties $\delta\mu$ in this article can be estimated as $\delta\mu=\frac{{\mathbb{M}}_c}{\mu_0}\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c<0.02\,\rm{GeV}$ from the equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu&=&\sqrt{M_{\Omega_c}^2-\left({\mathbb{M}}_c\pm\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c\right)^2}=\mu_0\mp\frac{{\mathbb{M}}_c}{\mu_0}\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c\, .\end{aligned}$$ The predicted masses and pole residues are not sensitive to variations of the energy scales, the small uncertainty $\delta{\mathbb{M}}_c= 0.02\,\rm{GeV}$ or $\delta\mu<0.02\,\rm{GeV}$ can be neglected safely.
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
We search for the ideal Borel parameters $T^2$ and continuum threshold parameters $s_0$ according to the four criteria:
$\bf{1_\cdot}$ Pole dominance at the hadron side, the pole contributions are about $(40-70)\%$;
$\bf{2_\cdot}$ Convergence of the operator product expansion, the dominant contributions come from the perturbative terms;
$\bf{3_\cdot}$ Appearance of the Borel platforms;
$\bf{4_\cdot}$ Satisfying the energy scale formula $ \mu =\sqrt{M_{\Omega_c}^2-{\mathbb{M}}_c^2}$,\
by try and error, and present the optimal energy scales $\mu$, ideal Borel parameters $T^2$, continuum threshold parameters $s_0$, pole contributions and perturbative contributions in Table 1. From Table 1, we can see that the criteria $\bf{1}$ and $\bf{2}$ can be satisfied, the two basic criteria of the QCD sum rules can be satisfied, and we expect to make reliable predictions.
We take into account all uncertainties of the input parameters, and obtain the masses and pole residues of the 1S, 1P, 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states, which are shown explicitly in Table 2. From Table 2, we can see that the criterion $\bf{4}$ can be satisfied. In Figs.3-4, we plot the masses and pole residues of the 1S, 1P, 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states with variations of the Borel parameters $T^2$ at much larger intervals than the Borel windows shown in Table 1. In the Borel windows, the uncertainties originate from the Borel parameters $T^2$ are very small, the Borel platforms exist, the criterion $\bf{3}$ can be satisfied. Now the four criteria are all satisfied, and we expect to make reliable predictions. In the Borel windows, the uncertainties of the predicted masses are about $(3-5)\%$, as we obtain the masses from a ratio, see Eqs.(25-28), the uncertainties originate from a special parameter in the numerator and denominator cancel out with each other, so the net uncertainties are very small. On the other hand, the uncertainties of the pole residues are about $(10-16)\%$, which are much larger. The uncertainties $\delta \lambda_{\Omega_c}$ are compatible with the uncertainties of the decay constants $f_\pi=127\pm 15\,\rm{MeV}$ and $f_{\rho}=213\pm20\,\rm{MeV}$ from the QCD sum rules [@ColangeloReview].
In Table 2, we also present the experimental values [@LHCb-Omega; @PDG]. The present predictions support assigning the $\Omega_c(3000)$ to be the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, assigning the $\Omega_c(3090)$ to be the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ or the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^+$, and assigning the $\Omega_c(3119)$ to be the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^+$ (or the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{5}{2}}^-$ [@WangZG-Omega]). The present predictions indicate that the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ and the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^+$ have degenerate masses, it is difficult to distinguish them by the masses alone, we have to study their strong decays. Other predictions can be confronted to the experimental data in the future.
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
$J^P$ $\mu(\rm GeV)$ $T^2 (\rm{GeV}^2)$ $\sqrt{s_0} (\rm{GeV})$ pole perturbative
---------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ------------------------- ------------- --------------- --
$\Omega_c({\rm 1S})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^+$ 2.0 $2.3-2.9$ $3.30\pm0.10$ $(41-69)\%$ $(86-90)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 1S})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^+$ 2.1 $2.4-3.0$ $3.40\pm0.10$ $(46-72)\%$ $(87-91)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 1P})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ 2.4 $2.2-2.8$ $3.40\pm0.10$ $(40-68)\%$ $(117-130)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 1P})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ 2.5 $2.2-2.8$ $3.50\pm0.10$ $(39-67)\%$ $(106-114)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 2S})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^+$ 2.5 $2.6-3.2$ $3.45\pm0.10$ $(43-68)\%$ $(90-93)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 2S})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^+$ 2.5 $2.7-3.3$ $3.50\pm0.10$ $(45-69)\%$ $(90-93)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 2P})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ 2.9 $2.4-3.0$ $3.70\pm0.10$ $(53-78)\%$ $(111-118)\%$
$\Omega_c({\rm 2P})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ 2.9 $2.4-3.0$ $3.75\pm0.10$ $(49-75)\%$ $(104-108)\%$
: The optimal energy scales $\mu$, Borel parameters $T^2$, continuum threshold parameters $s_0$, pole contributions (pole) and perturbative contributions (perturbative) for the $\Omega_c$ states.
$J^P$ $M(\rm{GeV})$ $\lambda (\rm{GeV}^3)$ (expt) (MeV)
---------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- -------------- -- -- --
$\Omega_c({\rm 1S})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^+$ $2.70^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ $1.09^{+0.17}_{-0.15}\times 10^{-1}$ 2695.2
$\Omega_c({\rm 1S})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^+$ $2.76^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ $0.64^{+0.09}_{-0.08}\times 10^{-1}$ 2765.9
$\Omega_c({\rm 1P})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ $3.02^{+0.12}_{-0.07}$ $0.90^{+0.13}_{-0.10}\times 10^{-1}$ ? 3000.4
$\Omega_c({\rm 1P})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ $3.09^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ $0.29^{+0.04}_{-0.04}\times 10^{-1}$ ? 3090.2
$\Omega_c({\rm 2S})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^+$ $3.09^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ $0.82^{+0.09}_{-0.09}\times 10^{-1}$ ? 3090.2
$\Omega_c({\rm 2S})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^+$ $3.12^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ $0.37^{+0.03}_{-0.04}\times 10^{-1}$ ? 3119.1
$\Omega_c({\rm 2P})$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ $3.40^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ $0.91^{+0.09}_{-0.09}\times 10^{-1}$
$\Omega_c({\rm 2P})$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ $3.46^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ $0.27^{+0.04}_{-0.03}\times 10^{-1}$
$\Omega_c({\rm 1P})$ ${\frac{5}{2}}^-$ $3.11^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ $1.07^{+0.17}_{-0.17}\times 10^{-1}\rm{GeV}$ ? 3119.1
: The masses and pole residues of the $\Omega_c$ states, the masses are compared with the experimental data, the values of the $\Omega_c({\rm 1P})$ with $J^P={\frac{5}{2}}^-$ are taken from Ref.[@WangZG-Omega].
In Refs.[@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega], Agaev, Azizi and Sundu study the $\Omega_c$ states by taking into account the 1S, 1P, 2S states with $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ in the pole contributions, and assign the $\Omega_c(3000)$, $\Omega_c(3050)$, $\Omega_c(3066)$ and $\Omega_c(3119)$ to be the $({\rm 1P},{\frac{1}{2}}^-)$, $({\rm 1P}, {\frac{3}{2}}^-)$, $({\rm 2S},{\frac{1}{2}}^+)$ and $({\rm 2S}, {\frac{3}{2}}^+)$ states, respectively. In Ref.[@Aliev-Omega], Aliev, Bilmis and Savci use the same interpolating currents to study the $\Omega_c$ states by taking into account the 1S and 1P states with $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ in the pole contributions, and assign the $\Omega_c(3000)$ and $\Omega_c(3066)$ to be the $({\rm 1P},{\frac{1}{2}}^-)$ and $({\rm 1P}, {\frac{3}{2}}^-)$ states, respectively. In Refs.[@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega; @Aliev-Omega], the contributions of the $\Omega_c$ states with positive parity and negative parity are not separated explicitly, there are some contaminations from the 2S or 1P states. In Ref.[@WangZG-Omega], we separate the contributions of the positive parity and negative parity $\Omega_c$ states explicitly, and study the new excited $\Omega_c$ states with the QCD sum rules by introducing an explicit P-wave involving the two $s$ quarks. The predictions support assigning the $\Omega_c(3050)$, $\Omega_c(3066)$, $\Omega_c(3090)$ and $\Omega_c(3119)$ to be the P-wave $\Omega_c$ states with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ and ${\frac{5}{2}}^-$, respectively. Compared with Refs.[@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega; @Aliev-Omega], the methods used in the present work and Ref.[@WangZG-Omega] have the advantage that the contributions of the $\Omega_c$ states with positive parity and negative parity are separated explicitly, there are no contaminations from the 2S or 1P states.
In the diquark-quark models for the heavy baryon states, the angular momentum between the two light quarks is denoted by $L_\rho$, while the angular momentum between the light diquark and the heavy quark is denoted by $L_\lambda$. In Refs.[@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega; @Aliev-Omega] and present work, the currents with $L_\rho=L_\lambda=0$ are chosen to explore the P-wave $\Omega_c$ states, although the currents couple potentially to the P-wave $\Omega_c$ states, we are unable to know the substructures of the P-wave $\Omega_c$ states, and cannot distinguish whether they have $L_\lambda=1$ or $L_\rho=1$. In Ref.[@WangZG-Omega], we choose the currents with $L_\lambda=1$ to interpolate the $\Omega_c$ states, and obtain the predicted masses $(3.06\pm0.11)\,\rm{GeV}$ and $(3.06\pm0.10)\,\rm{GeV}$ for the $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ $\Omega_c$ states with slightly different substructures, which support assigning the $\Omega_c(3066)$ and $\Omega_c(3090)$ to be the P-wave $\Omega_c$ states with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ and $L_\lambda=1$. While in the present work, we obtain the mass $3.09^{+0.08}_{-0.06}\,\rm{GeV}$ for the $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ $\Omega_c$ state. If we take the central values of the predicted masses as references, the $\Omega_c(3066)$ and $\Omega_c(3090)$ can be tentatively assigned to be the ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ $\Omega_c$ states with $L_\lambda=1$ and $L_\rho=1$, respectively. However, the assignment $\Omega_c(3090)=\rm (2S,{\frac{1}{2}}^+)$ is also possible according to the predicted mass $3.09^{+0.11}_{-0.12}\,\rm{GeV}$ for the $\rm (2S,{\frac{1}{2}}^+)$ state.
Now we summarize the assignments based on the QCD sum rules in Table 3. From Table 3, we can see that all the calculations based on the QCD sum rules support assigning the $\Omega_c(3000)$ to be the 1P ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ state, while the assignments of the other $\Omega_c$ states are under debate. We have to study the decay widths to make the assignments on more solid foundation. In Ref.[@Azizi-Width-Omega], Agaev, Azizi and Sundu study the decays of the $\Omega_c$ states to the $\Xi_c^+K^-$ by calculating the hadronic coupling constants $g_{\Omega_c\Xi_cK}$ with the light-cone QCD sum rules, however, they use an over simplified hadronic representation and neglect the contributions of the excited $\Xi_c$ states.
Experimentally, we can search for those new excited $\Omega_c$ states through strong decays and electromagnetic decays to the final states $ \Xi_c^+K^-$, $\Xi_c^0 \bar{K}^0$, $\Xi_c^{\prime+}K^-$, $\Xi_c^{\prime0} \bar{K}^0$, $\Xi_c^{*+}K^-$, $\Xi_c^{*0} \bar{K}^0$, $\Xi^-D^+$, $\Xi^0D^0$, $\Omega_c(2695) \gamma$, $\Omega_c(2770) \gamma$, and measure the branching fractions precisely, which can shed light on the nature of those $\Omega_c$ states. More theoretical works on the partial decay widths based on the QCD sum rules are still needed.
$J^P$ $nL$ References
------------------ ------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
$\Omega_c(3000)$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ 1P [@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega; @WangZG-Omega; @Aliev-Omega; @Wang-Omega-Negative] and ThisWork
$\Omega_c(3050)$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ 1P [@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega]
$\Omega_c(3050)$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ 1P [@WangZG-Omega]
$\Omega_c(3066)$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ 1P [@WangZG-Omega; @Aliev-Omega]
$\Omega_c(3066)$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^+$ 2S [@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega]
$\Omega_c(3090)$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ 1P [@WangZG-Omega] and ThisWork
$\Omega_c(3090)$ ${\frac{1}{2}}^+$ 2S ThisWork
$\Omega_c(3119)$ ${\frac{3}{2}}^+$ 2S [@Azizi-Omega; @Azizi-Width-Omega] and ThisWork
$\Omega_c(3119)$ ${\frac{5}{2}}^-$ 1P [@WangZG-Omega]
: The possible assignments of the new $\Omega_c$ states based on the QCD sum rules.
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we distinguish the contributions of the S-wave and P-wave $\Omega_c$ states unambiguously, study the masses and pole residues of the 1S, 1P, 2S and 2P $\Omega_c$ states with the spin $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ using the QCD sum rules in a consistent way, and revisit the assignments of the new narrow excited $\Omega_c$ states. The present predictions support assigning the $\Omega_c(3000)$ to be the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^-$, assigning the $\Omega_c(3090)$ to be the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ or the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^+$, and assigning the $\Omega_c(3119)$ to be the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^+$. The present predictions indicate that the 1P $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{3}{2}}^-$ and the 2S $\Omega_c$ state with $J^P={\frac{1}{2}}^+$ have degenerate masses, it is difficult to distinguish them by the masses alone, we have to study their strong decays. Other predictions can be confronted to the experimental data in the future.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number 11375063.
[99]{}
R. Aaij et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{} (2017) 182001.
S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, EPL [**118**]{} (2017) 61001.
H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. [**D95**]{} (2017) 094018.
B. Chen and X. Liu, arXiv:1704.02583.
S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. [**C77**]{} (2017) 395.
H. X. Chen, Q. Mao, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. [**D95**]{} (2017) 094008.
M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. [**D95**]{} (2017) 114012.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C77**]{} (2017) 325.
W. Wang and R. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. [**D96**]{} (2017) 014024.
M. Padmanath and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{} (2017) 042001.
K. L. Wang, L. Y. Xiao, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. [**D95**]{} (2017) 116010.
T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis and M. Savci, arXiv:1704.03439.
G. Yang and J. Ping, arXiv:1703.08845; H. Huang, J. Ping and F. Wang, arXiv:1704.01421.
H. C. Kim, M. V. Polyakov and M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Rev. [**D96**]{} (2017) 014009.
C. S. An and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. [**D96**]{} (2017) 034012.
Z. Zhao, D. D. Ye and A. Zhang, Phys. Rev. [**D95**]{} (2017) 114024.
W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A23**]{} (2008) 2817.
D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. [**D84**]{} (2011) 014025.
Z. G. Wang, Phys. Lett. [**B685**]{} (2010) 59.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C68**]{} (2010) 459.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**A47**]{} (2011) 81.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C68**]{} (2010) 479; Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**A45**]{} (2010) 267; Z. G. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. [**58**]{} (2012) 723.
M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [**B147**]{} (1979) 385, 448.
L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. [**127**]{} (1985) 1.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C75**]{} (2015) 359.
Y. Chung, H. G. Dosch, M. Kremer and D. Schall, Nucl. Phys. [**B197**]{} (1982) 55; D. Jido, N. Kodama and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{} (1996) 4532.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C76**]{} (2016) 70.
P. Pascual and R. Tarrach, “QCD: Renormalization for the practitioner", Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1984).
Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. [**D89**]{} (2014) 054019; Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C74**]{} (2014) 2874; Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Nucl. Phys. [**A930**]{} (2014) 63.
B. L. Ioffe, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**56**]{} (2006) 232.
P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, hep-ph/0010175.
C. Patrignani et al, Chin. Phys. [**C40**]{} (2016) 100001.
K. Aladashvili and M. Margvelashvili, Phys. Lett. [**B372**]{} (1996) 299.
S. Narison and R. Tarrach, Phys. Lett. [**125 B**]{} (1983) 217.
S. Narison, “QCD as a theory of hadrons from partons to confinement", Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. [**17**]{} (2007) 1.
M. Beneke and H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. [**B284**]{} (1992) 116.
Z. G. Wang, arXiv:1705.07745.
Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C74**]{} (2014) 2891; Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C74**]{} (2014) 2963.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C76**]{} (2016) 387.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Analyzing powers of pion-proton elastic scattering have been measured at PSI with the Low Energy Pion Spectrometer LEPS as well as a novel polarized scintillator target. Angular distributions between 40 and 120 deg (c.m.) were taken at 45.2, 51.2, 57.2, 68.5, 77.2, and 87.2 MeV incoming pion kinetic energy for $\pi^+p$ scattering, and at 67.3 and 87.2 MeV for $\pi^-p$ scattering. These new measurements constitute a substantial extension of the polarization data base at low energies. Predictions from phase shift analyses are compared with the experimental results, and deviations are observed at low energies.'
address:
- 'Physikalisches Institut, Universität Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany'
- 'Paul Scherrer Institut, 5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland'
- 'Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1504, USA'
- 'School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK'
- 'Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 92904, Israel'
- 'Laboratory for Nuclear Science, MIT Cambridge, MA 02139, USA'
- 'TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T-2A3, and University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S-0A2'
author:
- 'R. Meier'
- 'M. Cröni'
- 'R. Bilger'
- 'B. van den Brandt'
- 'J. Breitschopf'
- 'H. Clement'
- 'J. R. Comfort'
- 'H. Denz'
- 'A. Erhardt'
- 'K. Föhl'
- 'E. Friedman'
- 'J. Gräter'
- 'P. Hautle'
- 'G. J. Hofman'
- 'J. A. Konter'
- 'S. Mango'
- 'J. Pätzold'
- 'M. M. Pavan'
- 'G. J. Wagner'
- 'F. von Wrochem'
title: ' Low Energy Analyzing Powers in Pion-Proton Elastic Scattering'
---
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
pion proton scattering; active polarized target; sigma term 13.75.Gx ,24.70.+s ,25.80.Dj
Motivation
==========
Important quantities of the strong interaction can be extracted from $\pi p$ observables: the $\pi$NN coupling constant, the sigma term of the proton, and the size of isospin breaking. Currently, there is no agreement on the value of any of these quantities [@chi2000].
Recent values of the sigma term, extracted from elastic pion-proton scattering, are substantially higher than the classical value [@Koch] based on the KH80 phase shift analysis [@KH80]. Compared to extractions of the sigma term from baryon masses [@Gasser; @Borasoy], some of these new results [@Marcello1] imply a strangeness contribution to the mass of the nucleon of up to 50%. This is at variance with other investigations, for example estimates from the nucleon strange meson cloud [@Gutsche] or neutrino reactions [@Bazarko].
The size of isospin breaking in the pion-proton system has been investigated by using three experimentally accessible reactions: elastic scattering $\pi^{\pm} p \rightarrow \pi^{\pm} p$ and single charge exchange $\pi^- p \rightarrow \pi^0 n$. If isospin is conserved, the amplitudes for these reactions are connected by a triangle relation. The violation of this relation for s-waves at low energies (energies below $T_{\pi}$ = 100 MeV) has been tested by several groups, leading to contradictory results. While empirical analyses by Gibbs et al. [@Gibbs] and Matsinos [@Matsinos] showed large isospin violation of about 7%, a recent work by Fettes and Meißner lead to just 0.7% [@fettes].
These discrepancies could be at least partly due to deficiencies in the $\pi p$ data base. While a consistent and dense data base for differential cross sections [@Marcello] and analyzing powers [@Sevior; @Hofman1; @Hofman2] exists today for energies across the $\Delta$ resonance, this is not the case for energies below 100 MeV. Here, information is still missing, and there are regions where existing experimental data are contradictory; in particular, discrepancies in $\pi^+ p$ differential cross-section data have been identified [@FettesMatsinos]. New measurements of $\pi p$ observables at low energies aim at providing the missing information and removing the discrepancies.
Polarization observables are particularly interesting as they provide information complementary to differential cross-section data in the sense that they are sensitive to small amplitudes. They could also help to resolve contradictions in the cross section data base. Until recently, only one set of analyzing powers at one $\pi^+$ energy was available below 98 MeV [@Wieser], largely due to experimental difficulties. Since then, $\pi^- p$ analyzing powers have been measured down to 57 MeV [@Patterson] by the CHAOS collaboration at TRIUMF.
In this article, we now report on measurements of analyzing powers in $\pi^+ p$ scattering at several energies between 45.2 and 87.2 MeV, as well as a few $\pi^- $p data points at 67.3 and 87.2 MeV. All data were acquired with the Low Energy Pion Spectrometer (LEPS) and a novel polarized scintillator target at PSI.
Experiment
==========
In pion-proton elastic scattering, a spin 0 projectile is scattered off a spin 1/2 target particle. The reaction is therefore described by a spin-flip and a non-spin-flip amplitude, which gives rise to three polarization observables in addition to the unpolarized differential cross section. Of the polarization observables, only the analyzing power is accessible in single-scattering experiments. The analyzing power $A_y$ describes the modification of the differential cross section when the target protons are polarized perpendicular to the scattering plane. With the scattering angle $\Theta$ and the target polarization $P$, this modification is given by $$\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}(\Theta,P)=\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}(\Theta,P\!=\!0)
\left( 1+P\,A_y \right).$$ The analyzing power is determined from this linear dependence by measuring the differential cross section for different values of the target polarization $P$. The highest sensitivity is reached when large polarization values with opposite signs are used. Measurements at other polarization values (in particular at $P=0$) can be used as systematic checks for the apparatus and the analysis procedure, as the linear dependence on $P$ has to be reproduced. For the determination of the analyzing power from Eq. 1, no absolute normalization of the measured cross sections is needed. However, the measurements at different polarizations have to be appropriately normalized to each other.
A major difficulty with measurements of the analyzing power is caused by the composition of the polarized target. The only polarized proton targets available for use in a secondary pion beam are dynamically polarized solid targets. Therefore, the target material contains nuclei (typically carbon) besides the protons, and it is surrounded by liquid helium along with copper and iron walls. Pion reactions on these materials give rise to large backgrounds for the pion-proton reaction. At high energies and backward scattering angles, this difficulty is overcome by measuring the scattered pion and the recoil proton in coincidence. For low energies and forward angles, this technique can not be applied as the recoil energy is too low to allow the proton to leave the target. This difficulty is the main reason for the lack of information on analyzing powers below a pion bombarding energy of $T_{\pi}$ = 100 MeV (with the notable exception of the $\pi^+ p$ measurement at 68.3 MeV by Wieser et al. [@Wieser]). It applies in particular to $\pi^+ p$ scattering, where the interesting region with the largest expected energy dependences of the analyzing power lies at forward angles. In the measurements reported here, a polarized active target was the key to the success with background suppression. This device gave access to the recoil proton energy deposition in the target through a scintillation light readout.
The experiment was done at the $\pi$E3 pion beam line at PSI. It employed the Low Energy Pion Spectrometer LEPS [@KF]. LEPS is a compact magnetic spectrometer consisting of a quadrupole triplet and a split dipole. The total length of the particle flight path was approximately 5 meters. The trajectory of traversing particles was sampled in 6 layers (3 horizontal, 3 vertical) of proportional chambers between the quadrupole triplet and the dipole, as well as in a drift chamber in the focal plane. The remaining volume of the spectrometer was kept under vacuum. The nominal solid angle of the spectrometer was 25 msr. The momentum resolution was better than 5$\cdot$10$^{-3}$ for pions in the momentum range used in this experiment.
The target sample, a block of 18\*18\*5 mm$^3$ scintillating organic polymer doped with free radicals (TEMPO) [@Ben], was dynamically polarized in a field of 2.52 T in a vertical $^3$He-$^4$He dilution refrigerator. The magnetic field was generated by a superconducting split-pair Helmholtz coil located above and below the target cell. Polarization was induced in the sample by microwave irradiation. The polarization was measured by using NMR methods.
Data were collected in two operating modes of the polarized target. In the first mode, the target was continously polarized at the full magnetic field. In the second mode, the field was reduced to 1.2 T and the target temperature reduced to 60 mK (“frozen spin" mode), resulting in a typical polarization decay time of 80h.
A plastic light guide with diameter of 12 or 19 mm (for different parts of the experiment) transported the scintillation light from the sample in the mixing chamber to a photomultiplier outside the cryostat. The photomultiplier signal was read out by a 1 GHz flash ADC which allowed offline definition of integration times. The gain of the photomultiplier was monitored by an LED light pulser system.
The data-taking procedure included frequent changes of the polarization direction, which were achieved by changes of the frequency of the microwave irradiation. This was done in order to verify the long term stability of the experimental system. Typically three changes of the polarization direction were performed for each data set at each angle and energy setting. Additional data were taken at zero polarization.
Analysis
========
Calculation of the analyzing power required determination of the incident pion beam energy $T_\pi$, target polarization $P$, scattering angle $\Theta$, and relative cross sections $\sigma_{rel}$ for different target polarizations. The analyzing power for a specific beam energy and scattering angle was then extracted from the linear $P-\sigma_{\mathrm{rel}}$ dependence (Eq. 1). The extraction of the required parameters, the subsequent calculation of the analyzing power, and the determination of systematic errors is described below.
Beam energy
-----------
The incident pion energy $T_\pi$ at the target center was determined from the pion momentum at the exit of the $\pi$E3 beamline and the pion energy loss traversing the material from the beam line exit to the center of the target.
The $\pi$E3 channel had been calibrated to an accuracy of $\Delta p/p$ = 0.2% for a previous experiment [@Wieser]. This calibration was verified in the current experiment by measuring the kinematic shifts of the outgoing pion momenta for $\pi p$ and $\pi$C elastic scattering with a thin (1 mm) polyethylene target and the LEPS spectrometer at various angles and energies. No deviation from the expected beam momentum was seen within the accuracy of this consistency check.
The energy loss and spread of the pion beam on the path to the target center was calculated by a simulation program which took into account the geometry, the materials, the field of the polarizing magnet, and the vertical dispersion of 5 cm per percent of momentum of the beam at the target position. The resulting energy spread ranged from $\pm$0.8 to $\pm$1 MeV, dependent on the incident momentum and the target configuration. The mean energy was determined to an accuracy of better than 0.3 MeV from the beam calibration.
Polarization
------------
NMR absorption signals in the region of the Larmor frequency of the protons were taken periodically while the scintillator target was dynamically polarized. For the absolute calibration of the polarization, thermal-equilibrium (TE) signals were taken repeatedly at a temperature of 2.17 K in a magnetic field of 2.52 T. The dynamic (DYN) polarization was determined as the product of the known TE polarization and the ratio of the areas of the DYN and the TE signals. The maximum polarizations were $P_z^+ = +0.522$ and $P_z^- = -0.507$. The dominant systematic error of the target polarization comes from the uncertainty in the measurement of the temperature under TE conditions ($\Delta P_z / P_z$ = 0.035).
Part of the data (sets 1 and 2) were taken in frozen spin mode in a holding field of 1.2 T. The polarization decay time was in the range of 60 to 100 h. In these cases the polarization was measured in the full polarizing field of 2.52 T before and after the data taking runs. The subsequent analysis assumed an exponential decay of the polarization. Typically, the relative polarization decay between measurements was 20%.
Scattering angle
----------------
The mean scattering angle was determined to an accuracy of 0.3 degrees from the trajectories of the scattered pions, the position of the spectrometer, and the distribution of scattering events over the angular acceptance of the spectrometer. The trajectories of outgoing pions in the magnetic field of the target were calculated by the simulation program mentioned in section 3.1. The spectrometer position was determined to better than 0.05 degrees. The mean scattering angle and the angular acceptance for particles transported through LEPS were extracted from distributions of the accepted angles measured in the LEPS intermediate focus and projected back to the target position. The overall angular acceptance due to the incident beam divergence, vertex position on the target, straggling, and the acceptance of the spectrometer was $\pm$2.4 degrees for measurements with a target magnetic field of 1.2 T (sets 1 and 2), and $\pm$2.8 degrees for 2.52 T (set 3).
Relative cross sections
-----------------------
Relative cross sections were extracted from the LEPS focal plane spectra. Fig. 1 shows typical focal plane spectra for different conditions and polarizations. The plotted quantity is $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$, which is defined as the difference between the kinematically expected energy of the outgoing pion in $\pi p$ elastic scattering and the energy measured in the spectrometer, corrected for the energy loss in traversed materials. Spectrum 1 shows all events detected in the spectrometer. The solid line represents a measurement with positive target polarization, the dotted line and the shaded area a negative polarization run. The spectra show a broad bump at negative $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ which corresponds to elastic scattering off carbon in the target material as well as scattering off other nuclei, such as copper, in the target cell. The $\pi p$ elastic scattering peak around $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ = 0 sits on a large background from other reactions in the target region. In this region (and only there), a difference between the positive- and negative-polarization runs is visible. The edge of the spectrometer acceptance for low energy pions is reflected by the slope above $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ = 10 MeV.
The relative normalization of the runs at a given energy and angle was achieved by a fit of these spectra, outside the $\pi p$ region, of all events detected by the LEPS spectrometer (without requiring any target information). This procedure implicitely takes into account wire-chamber and data-taking efficiencies. The systematic error in this procedure was estimated by variation of the $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ region used in the normalization.
Subplots 2 to 4 of Fig. 1 show $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ spectra when a software coincidence of a spectrometer event and a scintillation light signal from the active polarized target was required. The minimum size of the required signal (called ’cut’ in the following) was increased in each of these figures. This target signal requirement removed a major fraction of the background under the $\pi p$ peak.
To ensure that the cut was equivalent for all runs at various polarizations used for the calculation of one analyzing power data point, a run-to-run calibration of the target signal amplitude was required. The calibration was done by using the $\pi$C elastic scattering peak. This peak was independent of polarization, and so the normalized yield in this peak had to be, within statistics, identical for all runs. Therefore the signal size was calibrated by requiring the same cut-dependent normalized yield in the $\pi$C region for all runs. The calibration was expressed as a dependence of the equivalent cut for one run versus the cut in a reference run. This dependence was found to be well described by a linear function. It was extended linearly to cut regions where the $\pi$C peak had insufficient yield.
The $\pi p$ scattering yield was extracted from the $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ spectra for a wide range of cuts on the target signal size. The region of the $\pi p$ peak was fitted by a Gaussian peak and a flat distribution describing the remaining background under the peak. A systematic error of the analyzing power due to the description of the $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ distributions by the fit function was derived from the change of the analyzing power with the applied cut on the active target signal, which is sensitive to an incorrect description of the remaining background distribution (see next section).
Analyzing power
---------------
The analyzing power was calculated from the normalized $\pi p$ yields (i.e. relative cross sections) for all runs in one set by using the linear relation between polarization and cross section given in Eq. 1. The normalized yields were plotted against polarization and fitted by a straight line. The analyzing power was then calculated from the line parameters.
As a consistency check for the calibration and yield extraction procedures, the analyzing power was calculated for a wide range of cuts on the target signal size. Fig. 2 shows typical results. The top panel shows the dependence of the analyzing power on the required minimum target signal size. There is no significant dependence at all cut levels. The middle panel shows the corresponding reduced $\chi^2$ for the straight-line fit to the relative cross section. This quantity tests the internal consistency of the runs. Finally, the bottom panel shows three selected fits of relative cross sections. The corresponding cuts are 1000, 1200, and 1400 in the units of the upper panels, from top to bottom. Good consistency is found.
The statistical error of the calculated analyzing power depends only weakly on the applied cut. This situation is due to the fact that the smaller number of counts for higher cuts is at least partly compensated by a lower background level. The final value of the analyzing power was taken at the minimum of the statistical error.
Results and discussion
======================
The results are listed in Tab. 1 and plotted in Figs. 3 and 4 for $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ scattering, respectively. Provided in the table are the values of the analyzing power with the statistical error as well as the systematic error from the relative normalization, the active target ADC calibration, and the fit to the $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ spectra. The three sets are independently subject to an overall 3.5% relative normalization error due to the systematic uncertainty in the polarization measurement.
The current results are compared with predictions of the KH80 [@KH80] and SAID [@SAID] phase shift analyses and with previous data [@Wieser] in Fig. 3. The solid and dashed lines represent the FA02 [@SAID] and KH80 [@KH80] phase shift predictions, respectively. The data from Wieser et al. [@Wieser] at 68.3 MeV are shown as stars, the solid points represent the results from the current work (only statistical errors are shown).
The phase shift results are in agreement with the data at 87.2 and 77.2 MeV, with a somewhat better description by the KH80 prediction at the lower energy. At 68.5 MeV, the predictions are significantly above the data in the forward-angle region, which is in agreement with the findings from the earlier measurement [@Wieser]. At 57.2 MeV, we again find agreement between the phase shift predictions and the data. The predictions are somewhat above the data at large angles at the two lowest energies. For the three measured points for $\pi^- p$ scattering in Fig. 4, the present data are in agreement with previous data [@Patterson] and the phase-shift prediction results within the error bars (which are substantially larger than for the $\pi^+ p$ data).
Overall, we do not observe strong deviations of the phase shift predictions from the experimental results. This observation is similar to the findings for low energy analyzing powers in $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering [@Patterson]. Further experimental information is expected from measurements of differential cross sections in the Coulomb-nuclear interference region down to very low energies (20 MeV)[@E778], which have been taken by the CHAOS collaboration and are currently being analyzed. If no significant deviations from the phase shift analyses are observed, then alternative explanations for the large values of the sigma term from recent extractions [@Marcello1] will have to be found. Several ideas have been put forward, questioning the extraction procedure from $\pi p$ data [@Stahov], the equivalence of the (sigma) terms extracted from $\pi p$ scattering and baryon masses [@Gibbs2], or the validity of the connection [@Gasser] of baryon masses and sigma term [@Thomas].
Acknowledgment
--------------
This work was supported by the German minister of education and research (BMBF) under contract 06TU201 and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG: Europ. Graduiertenkolleg, Heisenberg-Programm).
[99]{} Ulf-G. Meißner and G.R. Smith in [*Proceedings from the Institute for Nuclear Theory-Vol.11*]{}, 329, Editors A.M. Bernstein, J.L. Goity, U.-G. Meißner, World Scientific (2001). R. Koch, Z. Phys. [**C15**]{}, 161 (1982). R. Koch and E. Pietarinen, Nucl. Phys. [**A336**]{}, 331 (1980); G. Höhler, in [*Pion Nucleon Scattering*]{}, edited by H. Schopper, Landolt-Börnstein, New Series, Group X, Vol. I, 9b2 (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983). J. Gasser, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**136**]{}, 62 (1981). B. Borasoy and Ulf-G. Meißner, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**254**]{}, 192 (1997). M.M. Pavan, R.A. Arndt, I.I Strakovsky, and R.L. Workman, in [*Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Meson-Nucleon Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon, Washington D.C.*]{}, edited by H. Haberzettl and W.J Briscoe \[$\pi$N Newsletter [**16**]{}, 110 (2002)\]. V.E. Lyubovitskij, T. Gutsche, A. Faessler and E.G. Drukarev, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 054026 (2001). A.O. Bazarko et al., Z. Phys. [**C65**]{}, 189 (1995). W.R. Gibbs, Li Ai, and W.B.Kaufmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3740 (1995). E. Matsinos, Phys. Rev. C [**56**]{},3014 (1997). N. Fettes and Ulf-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 045201 (2001). M.M. Pavan et al., Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{}, 064611 (2001). M.E. Sevior et al., Phys. Rev. C [**40**]{}, 2780 (1989). G.J. Hofman et al., Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 3484 (1998). G.J. Hofman et al., Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 018202 (2003). N. Fettes and E. Matsinos, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 464 (1997). R. Wieser et al., Phys. Rev. C [**54**]{}, 1930 (1996). J.D. Patterson et al., Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{}, 025207 (2002). K. Föhl, PhD thesis, University of Tübingen (1996). B. van den Brandt et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**446**]{}, 592 (2000). R.A. Arndt, I.I. Strakovsky, R.L. Workman, M.M. Pavan, Phys. Rev. C [**52**]{}, 2120 (1995); R.A. Arndt, W.J. Briscoe, I.I. Strakovsky, R.L. Workman, M.M. Pavan, arXiv:nucl-th/0311089v2 (2004); the SAID analysis is available at http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/ H. Denz, in [*Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Meson-Nucleon Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon, Washington D.C.*]{}, edited by H. Haberzettl and W.J Briscoe \[$\pi$N Newsletter [**16**]{}, 302 (2002)\]. J. Stahov, arXiv:hep-ph/0206041 (2002). W.R. Gibbs, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A18**]{}, 1171 (2003). D.B. Leinweber, A.W. Thomas and S.V. Wright, Phys. Lett. [**B482**]{}, 109 (2000).
Set Energy (MeV) Beam $\Theta_{cm}$ (deg) $A_y$ $\Delta A_y^{stat}$ $\Delta A_y^{syst}$
----- -------------- --------- --------------------- ------------- --------------------- ---------------------
1 87.2 $\pi^+$ 48.2 0.378 0.054 0.031
65.4 0.406 0.023 0.017
81.8 0.392 0.015 0.012
97.3 0.214 0.018 0.006
112.1 0.153 0.014 0.011
126.1 0.055 0.013 0.013
68.4 71.1 0.317 0.036 0.016
101.5 0.136 0.024 0.007
57.2 58.6 0.344 0.045 0.015
69.7 0.317 0.026 0.015
85.7 0.264 0.028 0.025
101.1 0.154 0.022 0.008
2 51.2 $\pi^+$ 63.9 0.340 0.053 0.023
85.4 0.183 0.032 0.018
100.8 0.088 0.018 0.012
115.6 0.051 0.022 0.016
45.2 85.2 0.144 0.026 0.012
100.6 0.053 0.027 0.009
3 87.2 $\pi^+$ 66.5 0.411 0.019 0.007
88.1 0.339 0.018 0.010
77.2 63.0 0.456 0.021 0.014
84.7 0.353 0.019 0.008
68.6 59.5 0.375 0.023 0.013
81.3 0.317 0.018 0.010
57.3 75.8 0.302 0.024 0.014
87.2 $\pi^-$ 60.9 0.128 0.048 0.019
90.7 0.088 0.050 0.028
67.3 83.5 0.092 0.048 0.016
: Results of this measurement. The systematic errors include errors from the relative normalization, the active target ADC calibration, and the fit to the $E_{\mathrm{loss}}$ spectra. The three sets are independently subject to an overall 3.5% relative normalization error due to the systematic uncertainty in the polarization measurement. []{data-label="restable"}
{width="8cm"}
{width="8cm"}
![Angular distributions of analyzing powers for $\pi^+ p$ elastic scattering. The lines represent phase shift predictions from KH80 [@KH80] (dashed) and FA02 [@SAID] (solid). Previous data [@Wieser] are shown as stars, results from this experiment as solid points.](pi+pfa02.eps){width="8cm"}
![Angular distributions of analyzing powers for $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering. The lines represent phase shift predictions from KH80 [@KH80] (dashed) and FA02 [@SAID] (solid). Previous data [@Patterson] are shown as stars, results from this experiment as solid points.](pi-pfa02.eps){width="8cm"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In order to classify partial entanglement of multi-partite states, it is natural to consider the convex hulls, intersections and differences of basic convex cones obtained from partially separable states with respect to partitions of systems. In this paper, we consider convex cones consisting of [X]{}-shaped three qubit states arising in this way. The class of [X]{}-shaped states includes important classes like Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger diagonal states. We find all the extreme rays of those convex cones to exhibit corresponding partially separable states. We also give characterizations for those cones which give rise to necessary criteria in terms of diagonal and anti-diagonal entries for general three qubit states.'
address:
- 'Kyung Hoon Han, Department of Data Science, The University of Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 445-743, Korea'
- 'Seung-Hyeok Kye, Department of Mathematics and Institute of Mathematics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea'
author:
- 'Kyung Hoon Han and Seung-Hyeok Kye'
title: On the convex cones arising from classifications of partial entanglement in the three qubit system
---
6.0 truemm 1.5 true pc
[^1]
Introduction
============
The notion of entanglement is now considered as an indispensable resource in the current quantum information theory. In the multi-partite systems, there are various notions of separability according to partitions of systems, which give rise to different kinds of partial entanglement. In the tri-partite system, we may consider three kinds of bi-partitions $A$-$BC$, $B$-$CA$ and $C$-$AB$ of systems. In this way, a tri-partite state may be considered as a bi-partite state with respect to one of the above bi-partitions. It was shown in [@bdmsst] that a three qubit state may be entangled even though it is separable as a bi-partite state with respect to any bi-partitions. Therefore, it is natural to classify partial separability in multi-partite systems, as they were suggested in the liturature . We recall that a multi-partite state is (fully) separable if it is a convex sum of pure product states, and entangled if it is not separable.
We will work in the real vector space of all three qubit self-adjoint matrices, and consider the convex cones ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}$ consisting of all unnormalized separable states with respect to the bi-partitions $A$-$BC$, $B$-$CA$ and $C$-$AB$, respectively. Recall that a subset $C$ of a real vector space is called a [*convex cone*]{} when $C+C\subset C$ and $aC\subset C$ for $a\ge 0$. We note that the sum $C_1+C_2$ of two convex cones $C_1$ and $C_2$ is again a convex cone which coincides with the convex hull of $C_1$ and $C_2$, that is, the smallest convex set containing $C_1$ and $C_2$.
The above mentioned result [@bdmsst] tells us that the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$ is strictly bigger than the convex cone of all fully separable states as tri-partite states. The differences ${{\mathcal A}}\setminus ({{\mathcal B}}\cup{{\mathcal C}})$ and $({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}})\setminus {{\mathcal C}}$ have been considered in , together with similar sets obtained by permuting ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}$. On the other hand, the convex hull ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ and the difference $({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}})\setminus
({{\mathcal A}}\cup{{\mathcal B}}\cup{{\mathcal C}})$ have been also considered in [@acin] and [@seevinck-uffink], respectively. More recently, all the possible classes $$\label{partition}
[C_1\cap\cdots \cap C_k]\setminus [C_{k+1}\cup\cdots \cup C_\ell]$$ have been considered in [@sz2012], where $C_i$ is one of the following convex cones $$\label{class}
{{\mathcal A}},\quad {{\mathcal B}},\quad {{\mathcal C}},\quad {{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}},\quad {{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}},\quad {{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}},\quad {{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}.$$ Nontrivial classes of three qubit states obtained by (\[partition\]) are known to be nonempty only recently [@han_kye_bisep_exam].
The main purposes of this note are twofold: Exhibiting three qubit states in the above classes in (\[class\]) and giving criteria for states to be members of the cones. We will do these for so called [X]{}-[*shaped*]{} three qubit states, whose entries are zero, by definition, except for diagonal and anti-diagonal entries. Many important states like GHZ diagonal states are of this form. An [X]{}-shaped state is also called as an -[*state*]{} for brevity. In order to exhibit all the three qubit [X]{}-states in a given cone, we find all the extreme rays of the convex cone. Recall that an element $x$ of a convex cone $C$ generates an extreme ray whenever $x=x_1+x_2$ with $x_i\in C$ implies that $x_i$ is a nonnegative multiple of $x$ for $i=1,2$. By the abuse of the terminology, we say that $x$ itself is an extreme ray in this case. Then all the elements of convex cones in (\[class\]) are the nonnegative sums of extreme rays. Those extreme rays also play essential roles to find criteria for the dual cone. Those criteria will be expressed in terms of algebraic inequalities with the entries of [X]{}-states, which give rise to necessary criteria for general three qubit states to be a member of a given cone, in terms of diagonal and anti-diagonal entries. As for the corresponding results for full separability, we refer to the papers .
Our main tool is the duality between closed convex cones in real vector spaces, and so, we will also consider the dual cones, whose members play roles of witnesses, of the cones in (\[class\]). Since the intersection and the convex hull are dual operations, we also naturally consider the intersections as well as convex hulls through the discussion. Therefore, we will consider the convex cones appearing in the following diagram $$\label{diagram}
\xymatrix{
& {{\mathcal A}}+ {{\mathcal B}}+ {{\mathcal C}}& \\
{{\mathcal A}}+ {{\mathcal B}}\ar[ur] & {{\mathcal C}}+ {{\mathcal A}}\ar[u] & {{\mathcal B}}+ {{\mathcal C}}\ar[ul] \\
{{\mathcal A}}\ar[u] \ar[ur] & {{\mathcal B}}\ar[ul] \ar[ur] & {{\mathcal C}}\ar[ul] \ar[u] \\
{{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\mathcal B}}\ar[u] \ar[ur] & {{\mathcal C}}\cap {{\mathcal A}}\ar[ul] \ar[ur] & {{\mathcal B}}\cap {{\mathcal C}}\ar[ul] \ar[u] \\
& {{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\mathcal B}}\cap {{\mathcal C}}\ar[ul] \ar[u] \ar[ur] &
}$$ which shows us partial order relations by inclusion among convex cones we are considering. The dual cones will be also discussed.
After we explain briefly the duality in the next section, we will consider the convex cones ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}$ in Section \[sec-basic\] together with their dual cones. We will also consider the convex cones ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$ in Section \[zec-bisep\]. Conditions for those convex cones with [X]{}-shaped matrices are already scattered in the literature . Here, we give an alternative proof in the context of duality, together with exhibition of all extreme rays in the convex cone of -shaped matrices in each of them. In Section \[sec-two\], we deal with convex hulls and intersections of two convex cones like ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}$, ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}$ and their duals. We will summarize our results in the final section.
The authors are grateful to the referee for careful reading and valuable suggestions to improve presentation.
duality {#sec-duaity}
=======
Let $C$ be a subset of a finite dimensional real vector space $V$ with a non-degenerating bilinear pairing ${\langle}\ , \ {\rangle}$, that is, ${\langle}x,y{\rangle}=0$ for every $y\in V$ implies $x=0$. We define the [*dual cone*]{} $C^\circ$ by $$C^\circ=\{ x\in V: {\langle}x,y{\rangle}\ge 0\ {\text{\rm for every}}\ y\in C\}.$$ Then $C^\circ$ is a closed convex cone of $V$ in general, and $C^{\circ\circ}$ is the smallest closed convex cone containing $C$ by the Hahn-Banach type separation theorem. If $C$ itself is a closed convex cone then we have $C=C^{\circ\circ}$, and so we see that the following are equivalent:
- $x\notin C$;
- there exists $y\in C^\circ$ such that ${\langle}x,y{\rangle}<0$.
For example, if ${\mathcal S}$ is the closed convex cone consisting of unnormalized fully separable states in the real vector space $V$ of self-adjoint matrices in $M_2\otimes M_2 \otimes M_{2}$, then we see by this principle that $\varrho$ is non-separable, that is, entangled if and only if there exists $W\in {\mathcal S}^\circ$ such that ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}<0$. Such a $W$ must be non-positive, and called an entanglement witness [@terhal]. Here, the bilinear pairing is given by ${\langle}a,b{\rangle}={{\text{\rm Tr}}\,}(ba^{{\text{\rm t}}})$ for matrices $a$ and $b$, as usual. On the other hand, the closed convex cone ${\mathcal P}$ of all positive matrices is self-dual, that is, ${\mathcal P}^\circ={\mathcal P}$, by the Hadamard theorem.
We note that the two operations, convex hull and intersection, are dual to each other. In other words, the following identities $$(C_1+C_2)^\circ= C_1^\circ\cap C_2^\circ,\qquad
(C_1\cap C_2)^\circ = C_1^\circ + C_2^\circ$$ hold for closed convex cones $C_1$ and $C_2$. The first identity follows from the definition. See [@eom-kye]. The second one follows from the first one and the fact that the convex hull of two closed convex cones is closed. This is an easy consequence of Carathéodory theorem which tells us that the convex hull of a compact set is compact. We note that a convex cone $C$ spans the whole space $V$ if and only if $C+(-C)=V$. If we apply the above duality to the four closed convex cones $C$, $-C$, $\{0\}$ and $V$, then we see that the following two properties
1. $C$ spans the whole space;
2. $C\cap (-C)=\{0\}$
are dual to each other. In other words, a closed convex cone $C$ satisfies (${\rm C}_1$) if and only if $C^\circ$ satisfies (${\rm C}_2$). Recall that the real vector space $(M_{n_1}{\otimes}M_{n_2})_{\rm sa}$ of all self-adjoint matrices in the tensor product $M_{n_1}{\otimes}M_{n_2}$ coincides with the tensor product $(M_{n_1})_{\rm sa}{\otimes}(M_{n_2})_{\rm sa}$ of the self-adjoint parts. See [@ha-han-kye Section 7]. This is also true for multi-tensor products by induction. Therefore, the convex cone ${\mathcal S}=M_2^+{\otimes}M_2^+{\otimes}M_2^+$ spans the whole space $V=(M_2{\otimes}M_2{\otimes}M_2)_{\rm sa}$. Since ${\mathcal P}=(M_2{\otimes}M_2{\otimes}M_2)^+$ satisfies ${\mathcal P}\cap (-{\mathcal P})=\{0\}$, we see that all the convex cones ${{\mathcal X}}$ in the diagram (\[diagram\]) also satisfy both conditions, by the relation ${\mathcal S}\subset{{\mathcal X}}\subset{\mathcal P}$. We list up the dual cones of the cones in (\[diagram\]) as follows:
$$\label{diagram1}
\xymatrix{
& {{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \ar[dl] \ar[d] \ar[dr]& \\
{{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \ar[d] \ar[dr] & {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal A}}^\circ \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \ar[dl] \ar[d] \\
{{\mathcal A}}^\circ \ar[d] \ar[dr] & {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \ar[dl] \ar[d] \\
{{\mathcal A}}^\circ + {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \ar[dr] & {{\mathcal C}}^\circ + {{\mathcal A}}^\circ \ar[d] & {{\mathcal B}}^\circ + {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \ar[dl] \\
& {{\mathcal A}}^\circ + {{\mathcal B}}^\circ + {{\mathcal C}}^\circ&
}$$
We note that all the convex cones in the diagram (\[diagram1\]) also satisfy both conditions (${\rm C}_1$) and (${\rm C}_2$), as dual cones of the convex cones satisfying the conditions. An important consequence of (${\rm C}_2$) is that every element of the convex cone is a nonnegative sum of extreme rays. See [@rock Theorem 18.5].
The duality is also very useful to find all the candidates for extreme rays. We say that a subset $S$ of a closed convex cone $C$ is a [*generating set*]{} for $C$ if every element of $C$ is the limit of nonnegative sums of finitely many elements in $S$. This happens if and only if $S^{\circ\circ}=C$ if and only if $S^\circ=C^\circ$. In other words, we have to show that the following two statements
- $y\in C^\circ$, that is, ${\langle}x,y{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $x\in C$;
- ${\langle}x,y{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $x\in S$
are equivalent to each other, in order to show that $S$ is a generating set for $C$. This equivalence, in turn, gives rise to a criterion for the convex cone $C^\circ$ in terms of algebraic inequalities arising from members in the generating set $S$. This principle will be the main tool of our discussion throughout this paper.
We note that generating sets of a convex cone are not determined uniquely. For example, the convex cone $C$ itself is also a generating set for $C$. Furthermore, a generating set need not contain all the extreme rays. If a generating set $S$ for $C$ is closed, then its convex hull is also closed by Carathéodory theorem, and so every element of $C$ is the sum of finitely many elements in $S$. Therefore, we conclude that a [*closed*]{} generating set for $C$ contains all the extreme rays of $C$. In this way, we are looking for the set ${{\rm Ext}\,}(C)$ of all extreme rays of the convex cone $C$. We summarize as follows:
\[tool\] For a subset $S$ of a closed convex cone $C$ in a finite dimensional real vector space $V$, the following are equivalent:
1. $S$ is a generating set for $C$;
2. if $y\in V$ and ${\langle}x,y{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $x\in S$, then $y\in C^\circ$.
If $S$ is a closed generating set for $C$, then we have ${{\rm Ext}\,}(C)\subset S$.
In this paper, we will concentrate on the three qubit system, and so we will work in the real vector space $V$ of all $8\times 8$ self-adjoint matrices. The space $V$ has an important subspace, denoted by ${{\text{\sf X}}}$, consisting of all [X]{}-shaped matrices whose entries are zero except for diagonal and anti-diagonal entries. In the three qubit case, an [X]{}-shaped self-adjoint matrix is of the form $${{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)= \left(
\begin{matrix}
a_1 &&&&&&& z_1\\
& a_2 &&&&& z_2 & \\
&& a_3 &&& z_3 &&\\
&&& a_4&z_4 &&&\\
&&& \bar z_4& b_4&&&\\
&& \bar z_3 &&& b_3 &&\\
& \bar z_2 &&&&& b_2 &\\
\bar z_1 &&&&&&& b_1
\end{matrix}
\right),$$ for $a,b\in\mathbb R^4$ and $z\in\mathbb C^4$, where $\mathbb C^2{\otimes}\mathbb C^2{\otimes}\mathbb C^2$ is identified with the space $\mathbb C^8$ using the lexicographic order of indices. Many important multi-qubit states arise in this form. For example, GHZ diagonal states [@GHZ] are in this form, and an -state ${{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ is a GHZ diagonal if and only if $a=b$ and $z\in\mathbb R^4$.
Note that $V$ and ${{\text{\sf X}}}$ are of $64$ and $16$-dimensional spaces, respectively. For a given matrix $\varrho\in V$, we denote by $\varrho_{{\text{\sf X}}}$ the [X]{}-part of $\varrho$. The map $\varrho\mapsto \varrho_{{\text{\sf X}}}$ from $V$ onto ${{\text{\sf X}}}$ has the following important property.
\[xxx-part\] For every convex cone ${{\mathcal X}}$ in the diagram [(\[diagram\])]{}, we have the following:
1. if $\varrho\in{{\mathcal X}}$, then $\varrho_{\sf X}\in{{\mathcal X}}$;
2. if $W\in{{\mathcal X}}^\circ$, then $W_{\sf X}\in{{\mathcal X}}^\circ$.
It suffices to prove for the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}$. For the statement (i), it also suffices to show for a vector state $\varrho$ associated with a product vector $|x{\rangle}{\otimes}|y{\rangle}\in \mathbb C^2{\otimes}\mathbb C^4$, where $|x{\rangle}=(x_1,x_2)^{{\text{\rm t}}}$ and $|y{\rangle}=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)^{{\text{\rm t}}}$. We consider the following product vectors $$\begin{aligned}
(+x_1,+x_2)^{{\text{\rm t}}}&{\otimes}(+y_1, +y_2, +y_3, +y_4)^{{\text{\rm t}}},\\
(+x_1,+x_2)^{{\text{\rm t}}}&{\otimes}(+y_1, -y_2, -y_3, +y_4)^{{\text{\rm t}}},\\
(+x_1,-x_2)^{{\text{\rm t}}}&{\otimes}(+y_1, -y_2, +y_3, -y_4)^{{\text{\rm t}}},\\
(+x_1,-x_2)^{{\text{\rm t}}}&{\otimes}(+y_1, +y_2, -y_3, -y_4)^{{\text{\rm t}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We take the average of four vector states associated with these four product vectors, to recover the [X]{}-part of $\varrho$. This proves (i). For the statement (ii) with ${{\mathcal X}}={{\mathcal A}}$, take $W\in {{\mathcal A}}^\circ$. For every $\varrho\in{{\mathcal A}}$, we see that ${\langle}W_{\sf X},\varrho{\rangle}={\langle}W,\varrho_{\sf X}{\rangle}$ is nonnegative, because $W\in{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ and $\varrho_{\sf X}\in{{\mathcal A}}$ by (i). Therefore, we have $W_{\sf X}\in{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$.
Corresponding results for full separability are found in Section 3 of [@han_kye_GHZ]. See also Proposition 4.1 of [@ha-han-kye] for multi-qubit cases. If $\varrho$ is an [X]{}-state, then ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}={\langle}W_{{\text{\sf X}}},\varrho{\rangle}$, and so we have the following:
\[xxx-coro\] For a convex cone ${{\mathcal X}}$ in the diagram [(\[diagram\])]{}, we have the following:
1. for a three qubit [X]{}-state $\varrho$, we have $\varrho\in {{\mathcal X}}$ if and only if ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for every [X]{}-shaped $W\in {{\mathcal X}}^\circ$;
2. for a three qubit [X]{}-shaped $W$, we have $W\in {{\mathcal X}}^\circ$ if and only if ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for every [X]{}-state $\varrho\in {{\mathcal X}}$.
\[xxx24\] For convex cones ${{\mathcal X}}_1$ and ${{\mathcal X}}_2$ in diagrams [(\[diagram\])]{} or [(\[diagram1\])]{}, we have the relation $({{\mathcal X}}_1+{{\mathcal X}}_2)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}=({{\mathcal X}}_1\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})+({{\mathcal X}}_2\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$.
Once we characterize [X]{}-shaped matrices in the convex cones in (\[diagram\]) or (\[diagram1\]), these conditions will give rise to necessary conditions for general three qubit self-adjoint matrices to belong to those convex cones, by Proposition \[xxx-part\]. On the other hand, Corollary \[xxx-coro\] tells us that we may restrict ourselves on the bi-linear pairing in the real vector space ${{\text{\sf X}}}$ for this purpose.
basic partial separability {#sec-basic}
==========================
In this section, we consider the three basic convex cones ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}$, ${{\mathcal C}}$ and their dual cones ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ$, ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ$, ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ$. It was shown in [@han_kye_optimal Proposition 5.2] that an [X]{}-shaped multi-qubit state is separable with respect to a bi-partition of systems if and only if it is of positive partial transpose with respect to the same bi-partition. The PPT condition is easily checked for three qubit [X]{}-shaped states by the following inequalities
for $i,j=1,2,3,4$. If $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4))$, then the partial transposes are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho^{\Gamma_A}={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,(\bar z_4,\bar z_3,\bar z_2,\bar z_1)),\\
\varrho^{\Gamma_B}={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,(z_3,z_4,z_1,z_2)),\\
\varrho^{\Gamma_C}={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,(z_2,z_1,z_4,z_3)).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have the following:
\[aa-bbb-ccc\] [[@han_kye_optimal Proposition 5.2]]{} For a three qubit [X]{}-state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, we have the following:
1. $\varrho\in{{\mathcal A}}$ if and only if both $S_1[1,4]$ and $S_1[2,3]$ hold;
2. $\varrho\in{{\mathcal B}}$ if and only if both $S_1[1,3]$ and $S_1[2,4]$ hold;
3. $\varrho\in{{\mathcal C}}$ if and only if both $S_1[1,2]$ and $S_1[3,4]$ hold.
We note that inequalities $S_1[i,j]$’s give us necessary criteria for general three qubit states to belong to ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}$, respectively, by Proposition \[xxx-part\]. Now, we proceed to provide generating sets for the convex cones ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$. To be motivated, we decompose an [X]{}-state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ in ${{\mathcal A}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho &= {{\text{\sf X}}}((a_1,0,0,a_4), (b_1,0,0,b_4),(z_1,0,0,z_4))\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + {{\text{\sf X}}}((0,a_2,a_3,0), (0,b_2,b_3,0),(0,z_2,z_3,0)),
\end{aligned}$$ then two summands satisfy both $S_1[1,4]$ and $S_1[2,3]$. Therefore, we may assume that $a_k=b_k=z_k=0$ for $k=2,3$. If $z_1=0$, then $\varrho$ is the average of two states $${{\text{\sf X}}}((a_1,0,0,a_4),(b_1,0,0,b_4),(z_4,0,0,z_4)), \quad {{\text{\sf X}}}((a_1,0,0,a_4),(b_1,0,0,b_4),(-z_4,0,0,z_4))$$ in ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$. If $0<|z_1|<|z_4|$, then $\varrho$ is a convex combination of $${{\text{\sf X}}}((a_1,0,0,a_4),(b_1,0,0,b_4),(\textstyle{|z_4| \over |z_1|}z_1,0,0,z_4)), \quad {{\text{\sf X}}}((a_1,0,0,a_4),(b_1,0,0,b_4),(-{|z_4| \over |z_1|}z_1,0,0,z_4))$$ in ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$.
By subtracting a suitable diagonal state, it is natural to consider the following conditions
for each $i,j=1,2,3,4$ with $i\neq j$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z): S^e_1[1,4] \ {\text{\rm or}}\ S^e_1[2,3]\ {\text{\rm holds}}\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal B}}=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z): S^e_1[1,3] \ {\text{\rm or}}\ S^e_1[2,4]\ {\text{\rm holds}}\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal C}}=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z): S^e_1[1,2] \ {\text{\rm or}}\ S^e_1[3,4]\ {\text{\rm holds}}\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We also denote by $\Delta$ the set of all extreme diagonal states, that is, $$\Delta=\{{{\text{\sf X}}}(E_i,0,0):i=1,2,3,4\}\cup\{{{\text{\sf X}}}(0,E_i,0):i=1,2,3,4\},$$ where $\{E_i:i=1,2,3,4\}$ denotes the canonical basis of $\mathbb R^4$.
We have ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}\subset {{\mathcal A}}$ by Proposition \[aa-bbb-ccc\], and ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}$ is parameterized by four real variables. The same comments also hold for ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}$. We also consider the following inequalities:
for $i,j=1,2,3,4$ with $i\neq j$, in order to characterize the dual cones ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$. We denote ${{\text{\sf X}}}_i(s_i,t_i,u_i):={{\text{\sf X}}}(s_iE_i,t_iE_i,u_iE_i)$ for $i=1,2,3,4$.
\[new-aaa\] For a given self-adjoint [X]{}-shaped matrix $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$, the following are equivalent:
1. ${\langle}W,\varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $\varrho\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}\cup\Delta$;
2. $s_i,t_i\ge 0$ for $i=1,2,3,4$, and the inequalities $W_1[1,4]$ and $W_1[2,3]$ hold;
3. ${\langle}W,\varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $\varrho\in {{\mathcal A}}$.
For the direction (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii), we obtain $s_i,t_i\ge 0$ from ${\langle}W, \varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for $ \varrho \in \Delta$. Suppose that both $s_i$ and $t_i$ are nonzero for each $i=1,2,3,4$. Then, we can consider the following states $$\varrho_{i, j}:={{\text{\sf X}}}_i\left(\sqrt{t_i \over s_i}, \sqrt{s_i \over t_i}, -e^{-{\rm i}\theta_i}\right)
+ {{\text{\sf X}}}_j\left(\sqrt{t_j \over s_j}, \sqrt{s_j \over t_j}, -e^{-{\rm i}\theta_j}\right)$$ for $(i,j)=(1,4),(2,3)$, with $\theta_k = \arg u_k$. Since $\varrho_{i,j}\in{\mathcal E}_{{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$0 \le {1 \over 2} {\langle}W, \varrho_{i, j} {\rangle}= \sqrt{s_i t_i} + \sqrt{s_j t_j} - |u_i| - |u_j|,$$ by (i). When one of $s_i$ or $t_i$ is zero, we apply the result to $W+\varepsilon I$ to get the inequality $\sqrt{(s_i+\varepsilon)(t_i+\varepsilon)} + \sqrt{(s_j+\varepsilon)(t_j+\varepsilon)}
\ge |u_i| + |u_j|$ for each $\varepsilon>0$.
For the implication (ii) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii), it is enough to prove the following by Corollary \[xxx-coro\] and Proposition \[aa-bbb-ccc\]: $$\label{miuyccj}
S_1[1,4], S_1[2,3], W_1[1,4], W_1[2,3]\ \Longrightarrow
{\langle}{{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u), {{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z){\rangle}\ge 0.$$ Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}
&=(\sqrt{s_1t_1}\sqrt{a_1b_1}+\sqrt{s_4t_4}\sqrt{a_4b_4})+(\sqrt{s_2t_2}\sqrt{a_2b_2}+\sqrt{s_3t_3}\sqrt{a_3b_3})\\
&\ge (\sqrt{s_1t_1}+\sqrt{s_4t_4})\max\{|z_1|,|z_4|\}+(\sqrt{s_2t_2}+\sqrt{s_3t_3})\max\{|z_2|,|z_3|\}\\
&\ge (|u_1|+|u_4|)\max\{|z_1|,|z_4|\}+(|u_2|+|u_3|)\max\{|z_2|,|z_3|\}\\
&\ge \sum_{i=1}^4|u_i||z_i|,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\label{ineq--xx}
\begin{aligned}
\frac 12{\langle}{{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u),{{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z){\rangle}&=\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^4(s_ia_i+t_ib_i+2{{\text{\rm Re}}\,}(u_iz_i))\\
&\ge \sum_{i=1}^4(\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}-|u_i||z_i|)\ge 0.
\end{aligned}$$ as it was required. The direction (iii) $\Longrightarrow$ (i) is clear since ${\mathcal E}_{{\mathcal A}}\cup\Delta\subset{{\mathcal A}}$ by Proposition \[aa-bbb-ccc\].
The equivalence between (ii) and (iii) of Lemma \[new-aaa\] gives rise to a characterization of the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$, whose members are the Choi matrix of $(1,2,2)$-positive bi-linear maps between $2\times 2$ matrices in the sense of [@han_kye_tri]. Therefore, Lemma \[new-aaa\] recovers Theorem 6.2 in [@han_kye_tri], as follows:
\[basic-dual-cri\] [[@han_kye_tri Theorem 6.2]]{} For a self-adjoint $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ with nonnegative diagonals, we have the following:
1. $W\in{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ if and only if both $W_1[1,4]$ and $W_1[2,3]$ hold;
2. $W\in{{\mathcal B}}^\circ$ if and only if both $W_1[1,3]$ and $W_1[2,4]$ hold;
3. $W\in{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ if and only if both $W_1[1,2]$ and $W_1[3,4]$ hold.
The implication (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii) of Lemma \[new-aaa\] tells us that the set ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}\cup\Delta$ is a generating set for the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ by Proposition \[tool\]. We also note that the set ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}\cup\Delta$ is closed, and so we conclude that every extreme ray of ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ must be an element of ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}\cup\Delta$. We show that the converse actually holds. Because states in $\Delta$ generate extreme rays in the cone ${\mathcal P}$, they also generate extreme rays of the smaller convex cones listed in the diagram (\[diagram\]). In order to prove that every state in the set ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}$ generates an extreme ray of the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$, we first prove a technical lemma which will play a key role in characterization of extreme rays of the other cones.
\[CS-S\] Suppose that a three qubit -state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ in ${{\mathcal A}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}$) is decomposed as $$\varrho = {{\text{\sf X}}}(a',b',z') + {{\text{\sf X}}}(a'',b'',z'')$$ in ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal B}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$). If $$\sqrt{a_ib_i}=\sqrt{a_jb_j}=|z_i|$$ for $\{i,j\} = \{1,4\}$ or $\{2,3\}$ (respectively, $\{i,j\} = \{1,3\}$ or $\{2,4\}$, and $\{i,j\} = \{1,2\}$ or $\{3,4\}$), then we have $$(a'_i,a'_j,b'_i,b'_j,z'_i) ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(a''_i,a''_j,b''_i,b''_j,z''_i).$$
Let $k=i,j$. We have $$|z_i| = |z_i' + z_i''|
\le |z_i'| + |z_i''|
\le \sqrt{a_k'} \sqrt{b_k'} + \sqrt{a_k''} \sqrt{b_k''}
\le \sqrt{a_k'+a_k''} \sqrt{b_k'+b_k''}
= \sqrt{a_kb_k}$$ by $S_1[i,j]$ and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Since $|z_i|=\sqrt{a_kb_k}$, we have $$z_i'~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}z_i'', \qquad \sqrt{a_k'b_k'}=|z_i'|, \quad
\sqrt{a_k''b_k''}=|z_i''|, \quad (\sqrt{a_k'},\sqrt{a_k''}) ~
{\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(\sqrt{b_k'},\sqrt{b_k''}).$$ Let $(\sqrt{a_k'},\sqrt{a_k''}) = \lambda_k (\sqrt{b_k'},\sqrt{b_k''})$ for $\lambda_k>0$. Then we have $${z_i'' \over z_i'} = {|z_i''| \over |z_i'|} = {\sqrt{a_k''b_k''} \over \sqrt{a_k'b_k'}}
= {\lambda_k b_k'' \over \lambda_k b_k'} = {b_k'' \over b_k'}
= {a_k'' \slash \lambda_k^2 \over a_k' \slash \lambda_k^2} = {a_k'' \over a_k'},$$ as it was required.
\[basic\_dual\] We have $${\rm Ext}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}\cup\Delta, \quad
{\rm Ext}({{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal B}}\cup\Delta \quad \text{and} \quad
{\rm Ext}({{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal C}}\cup\Delta.$$
It suffices to show that every state in the set ${{\mathcal E}}_{{\mathcal A}}$ generates an extreme ray of the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$. Suppose that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies the condition $S^e_1[1,4]$ and $$\varrho = {{\text{\sf X}}}(a',b',z')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(a'',b'',z'') \quad \text{in} ~{{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ For $j=2,3$, we see that $a_j=b_j=0$ implies $a_j'=b_j'=z_j'=a_j''=b_j''=z_j''=0$. Applying Lemma \[CS-S\] with $(i,j)=(1,4)$ and $(i,j)=(4,1)$, we get $(a',b',z') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(a'',b'',z'')$, as it was required. The same argument works for the case of $S^e_1[2,3]$.
In the remainder of this section, we look for extreme rays of ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$, ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$. To do this, we consider the condition
for $i\neq j$, and define $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}&=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W_1^e[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\ (i,j)=(1,4),(4,1),(2,3),(3,2)\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}&=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W_1^e[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\ (i,j)=(1,3),(3,1),(2,4),(4,2)\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}&=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W_1^e[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\ (i,j)=(1,2),(2,1),(3,4),(4,3)\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We also consider the following set $${{\mathcal W}}^\Delta=
\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}_i(r, r^{-1}, e^{{\rm i}\theta}): i=1,2,3,4,\ r>0,\ \theta\in\mathbb R\}.$$
\[new-aaa-circ\] For a given self-adjoint [X]{}-shaped matrix $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, the following are equivalent:
1. ${\langle}W,\varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $W\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup\Delta\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta$;
2. $\varrho$ is a state satisfying the inequalities $S_1[1,4]$ and $S_1[2,3]$;
3. ${\langle}W,\varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $W\in {{\mathcal A}}^\circ$.
The equivalence between (ii) and (iii) follows from Proposition \[aa-bbb-ccc\]. Therefore, it suffices to show the direction (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii). Since ${\langle}W,\varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for $W \in \Delta$, we have $a_i,b_i \ge 0$. By taking $\varrho+\varepsilon I$ into account as in the proof of Lemma \[new-aaa\], we may assume that $a_i,b_i >0$ without loss of generality. Then, we can consider $$W_{i,j}:={{\text{\sf X}}}_i\left(\sqrt{\frac{b_i}{a_i}},\sqrt{\frac{a_i}{b_i}},0\right)+{{\text{\sf X}}}_j\left(0,0,-e^{{\rm i}\theta_j}\right)
\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta$$ for $(i,j)=(1,4),(4,1),(2,3),(3,2)$ or $i=j$. Note that $W_{i,i}\in{\mathcal W}^\Delta$. We see that $\varrho$ is a state by ${\langle}W_{i,i}, \varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$, and the inequalities $S_1[1,4]$ and $S_1[2,3]$ follow from ${\langle}W_{i,j}, \varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for $(i,j)=(1,4),(4,1),(2,3),(3,2)$.
As for extreme rays of the dual cones, we also begin with a technical lemma which is a witness counterpart to Lemma \[CS-S\].
\[CS-W\] Suppose that a three qubit self-adjoint -shaped matrix $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ in ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ$) is decomposed as $$W = {{\text{\sf X}}}(s',t',u') + {{\text{\sf X}}}(s'',t'',u'')$$ in ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$). If $$\sqrt{s_it_i}=|u_k| \qquad \text{and} \qquad s_j=t_j=0$$ for $\{i,j\} = \{1,4\}$ or $\{2,3\}$ (respectively, $\{i,j\} = \{1,3\}$ or $\{2,4\}$, and $\{i,j\} = \{1,2\}$ or $\{3,4\}$) and $k \in \{i,j\}$, then we have $$s_j'=t_j'=0=s_j''=t_j'', \qquad u_\ell'=0=u_\ell'' \qquad \text{and} \qquad (s'_i,t'_i,u'_k) ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(s''_i,t''_i,u''_k)$$ for $\ell$ with $\{k,\ell\}=\{i,j\}$.
The condition $s_j=t_j=0$ implies $s_j'=t_j'=0=s_j''=t_j''$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
|u_k|
&= |u_k' + u_k''|\\
&\le |u_k'| + |u_k''|\\
&\le \sqrt{s_i'} \sqrt{t_i'} - |u_\ell'| + \sqrt{s_i''} \sqrt{t_i''} - |u_\ell''|\\
&\le \sqrt{s_i'+s_i''} \sqrt{t_i'+t_i''} - |u_\ell'| - |u_\ell''| \\
& = \sqrt{s_it_i} - |u_\ell'| - |u_\ell''| \\
& \le \sqrt{s_it_i}
\end{aligned}$$ by $W_1[i,j]=W_1[k,\ell]$ and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Since $|u_k|=\sqrt{s_it_i}$, we have $$u_k'~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}~u_k'', \quad u_\ell'=0=u_\ell'' \quad \sqrt{s_i't_i'}=|u_k'|, \quad \sqrt{s_i''t_i''}=|u_k''|, \quad
(\sqrt{s_i'},\sqrt{s_i''}) ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}~(\sqrt{t_i'},\sqrt{t_i''}).$$ Let $(\sqrt{s_i'},\sqrt{s_i''}) = \lambda (\sqrt{t_i'},\sqrt{t_i''})$ for $\lambda>0$. Then we have $${u_k'' \over u_k'} = {|u_k''| \over |u_k'|} = {\sqrt{s_i''t_i''} \over \sqrt{s_i't_i'}}
= {\lambda t_i'' \over \lambda t_i'} = {t_i'' \over t_i'} = {s_i'' \slash \lambda^2 \over s_i' \slash \lambda^2} = {s_i'' \over s_i'}.$$
\[basic-dual-ext\] We have $${\rm Ext}({{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup\Delta\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta, \quad
{\rm Ext}({{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}\cup\Delta\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta, \quad
{\rm Ext}({{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cup\Delta\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta.$$
It suffices to show that every ray in ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup\Delta\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta$ is extreme by Proposition \[tool\]. It is easy to see that diagonal states in $\Delta$ generate extreme rays of the convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ by the conditions $W_1[1,4]$ and $W_1[2,3]$. For the remaining cases for ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta$, we take $i=1,4$ and may assume that $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ satisfies $$\sqrt{s_1t_1}=|u_i|>0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad s_k=t_k=u_\ell=0\ {\text{\rm for}}\ k \ne 1\ {\text{\rm and}}\ \ell \ne i.$$ Suppose that $W = {{\text{\sf X}}}(s',t',u')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(s'',t'',u'')$ in ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$. For $k=2,3,4$, the condition $s_k=t_k=0$ implies $s_k'=t_k'=0=s_k''=t_k''$. Combining this with $W_1[2,3]$, we also have $u_2'=u_3'=0=u_2''=u_3''$. Applying Lemma \[CS-W\] with $(i,j,k,\ell)=(1,4,1,4)$, $(1,4,4,1)$, we get $(s',t',u') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(s'',t'',u'')$.
Full bi-separability and bi-separability {#zec-bisep}
========================================
In this section, we consider convex cones ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$ for full bi-separable states and ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ for bi-separable states, together with their dual cones ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ and ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$, respectively. We first note that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)\in{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$ if and only if $S_1[i,j]$ holds for every $i,j=1,2,3,4$, which is equivalent to the PPT condition of $\varrho$ [@han_kye_optimal Theorem 5.3]. In order to find extreme rays of the cone ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$, we consider the condition
and define $${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z):S^e_3\ {\text{\rm holds}}\}.$$ We also recall the inequality
which appears in the characterization of decomposability of -shaped entanglement witnesses in [@han_kye_optimal Theorem 5.5].
\[lemma-ppt-dual\] For a given self-adjoint [X]{}-shaped matrix $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$, the following are equivalent.
1. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $\varrho\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$;
2. $s_i,t_i\ge 0$ for $i=1,2,3,4$, and the inequality $W_3$ holds;
3. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $\varrho\in{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$.
For the direction (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii), we first obtain $s_i,t_i\ge 0$ from ${\langle}W, \varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for $ \varrho \in \Delta$. In order to prove the inequality $W_3$, we may assume that $s_i,t_i>0$ as in the proof of Lemma \[new-aaa\]. We can consider the state $\varrho$ defined by $$\varrho:={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4\right),
\left(r_1^{-1}, r_2^{-1}, r_3^{-1}, r_4^{-1}\right),
\left(-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_1},-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_2},-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_3},-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_4}\right)\right)$$ with $r_i=\sqrt{t_i\over s_i}$ and $\theta_k = \arg u_k$. This state $\varrho$ belongs to ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}$, and so ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ gives rise to the inequality $W_3$. For (ii) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii), it suffices to show that ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfying $S_1[i,j]$ for all $i,j$ and $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ satisfying $W_3$ by Corollary \[xxx-coro\]. Indeed, taking $M$ satisfying $\sqrt{a_ib_i}\ge M\ge |z_j|$ for each $i,j=1,2,3,4$, we have $$\sum_{i=1}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}\ge M\sum_{i=1}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\ge M\sum_{i=1}^4|u_i|\ge\sum_{i=1}^4|z_i||u_i|,$$ which implies ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$, as in (\[ineq–xx\]).
Since $({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}})^\circ={{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$, the equivalence (ii) $\Longleftrightarrow$ (iii) in Lemma \[lemma-ppt-dual\] gives another proof for [@han_kye_optimal Theorem 5.5] which uses the duality principle.
\[coro\_decomp\][@han_kye_optimal Theorem 5.5] An [X]{}-shaped self-adjoint matrix $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ with nonnegative diagonals belongs to ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ if and only if the inequality $W_3$ holds.
For convex cones $C_1$ and $C_2$, it is clear that ${{\rm Ext}\,}(C_1+C_2)\subset {{\rm Ext}\,}(C_1)\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}(C_2)$ in general. Therefore, we see that ${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$ is contained in the union of ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$, ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$ and ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$ by Corollary \[xxx24\]. We show that they actually coincide.
\[ppt-ext\] We have the following:
1. ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$;
2. ${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})=
{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup
{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup
{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$.
For (i), it remains to show that every PPT state in ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}$ generates an extreme ray of the cone ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$. Suppose that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies the condition $S^e_3$ and $$\varrho = {{\text{\sf X}}}(a',b',z')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(a'',b'',z'') \quad \text{in} ~{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ Applying Lemma \[CS-S\] with all the pairs $(i,j)$, we conclude $(a',b',z') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(a'',b'',z'')$, and this completes the proof of (i).
In order to prove (ii), it suffices to show ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\subset{{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$. It is easy to see that diagonal states in $\Delta$ generate extreme rays in the convex cone $({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ by the condition $W_3$. We will show that $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(rE_1,r^{-1}E_1,e^{{\rm i}\theta}E_j)$ generates an extreme ray of the cone $({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ for $j=1,4$. Suppose that $$\label{jhjgjgjhj}
W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s^\prime,t^\prime,u^\prime)+{{\text{\sf X}}}(s^{{\prime}{\prime}},t^{{\prime}{\prime}},u^{{\prime}{\prime}})\qquad {\text{\rm in}}\ ({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ For $i=2,3,4$, $s_i=0=t_i$ implies that $s_i'=t_i'=0=s_i''=t_i''$. By $W_3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
1=|e^{{\rm i}\theta}|=|u_j^{\prime}+u_j^{{\prime}{\prime}}|\le
|u^{\prime}_j|+|u^{{\prime}{\prime}}_j|
&\le\sum_{k=1}^4(|u^{\prime}_k|+|u^{{\prime}{\prime}}_k|)\\
&\le\sqrt{s^{\prime}_1t^{\prime}_1}+\sqrt{s^{{\prime}{\prime}}_1t^{{\prime}{\prime}}_1}
\le\sqrt{s_1^{\prime}+s_1^{{\prime}{\prime}}}\sqrt{t_1^{\prime}+t_1^{{\prime}{\prime}}}=1,
\end{aligned}$$ and so it follows that $u^{\prime}_k=u^{{\prime}{\prime}}_k=0$ for $k\neq j$. Therefore, the summands in (\[jhjgjgjhj\]) belong to the cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ by $W_3$ again, and we may apply Theorem \[basic-dual-ext\].
Now, we turn our attention to the cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ and its dual cone. For each $i=1,2,3,4$, we consider the condition
where $j,k,\ell$ are chosen so that $i,j,k,\ell$ are mutually distinct, and define $${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}
=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W^e_3[i]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\ i=1,2,3,4\}.$$ We also consider the following inequality
These are exactly the inequalities which appear in the necessary criteria [@guhne10] for bi-separability. We also refer to [@gao] for necessary criteria of multi-qubit bi-separable states. If $\varrho$ itself is [X]{}-shaped, then the converse is also true [@Rafsanjani]. The authors have shown in [@han_kye_optimal Corollary 3.4] that even a PPT mixture satisfies the multi-qubit analogue of $S_3$, to recover the above characterization of bi-separability of multi-qubit [X]{}-states. We give here another alternative proof using the duality.
\[lemma-ppt-dual—\] For a given self-adjoint [X]{}-shaped matrix $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, the following are equivalent.
1. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $W\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$;
2. $\varrho$ is a state satisfying the inequality $S_3$;
3. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $W\in {{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$.
For the direction (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii), we first note that $\varrho$ is a state as in the proof of Lemma \[new-aaa-circ\]. Now, we consider $$W:={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(0,\sqrt{\frac{a_2}{b_2}},\sqrt{\frac{a_3}{b_3}},\sqrt{\frac{a_4}{b_4}},\right),
\left(0,\sqrt{\frac{b_2}{a_2}},\sqrt{\frac{b_3}{a_3}},\sqrt{\frac{b_4}{a_4}},\right),
\left(-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_1},0,0,0\right)\right),$$ which belongs to ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}$, where $\theta_1=\arg z_1$. Then, we have $$0 \le {1 \over 2} {\langle}\varrho, W {\rangle}= \sum_{j\neq 1} \sqrt{a_j b_j} - |z_1|.$$ The other inequalities come out by the same way.
For the direction (ii) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii), it suffices to show the following: $$S_3,\ W_1[i,j]\ {\text{\rm for}}\ i,j=1,2,3,4\ {\text{\rm with}}\ i\neq j \
\Longrightarrow\ {\langle}{{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u),{{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z){\rangle}\ge 0$$ by Corollary \[xxx-coro\] and Proposition \[basic-dual-cri\]. The inequality ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ is trivial when $W$ is positive, that is, $\sqrt{s_i t_i} \ge |u_i|$ for all $i=1,2,3,4$. Suppose that $W$ is not positive, and so there exists $i_0\in\{1,2,3,4\}$ such that $\sqrt{s_{i_0} t_{i_0}} < |u_{i_0}|$, say $\sqrt{s_{1} t_{1}} < |u_{1}|$ without loss of generality. We have $$(\sqrt{s_1t_1}+\sqrt{s_it_i})\sqrt{a_ib_i}\ge (|u_1|+|u_i|)\sqrt{a_ib_i},\qquad i=2,3,4,$$ by $W_1[1,i]$. Summing up, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{s_1t_1}\sum_{i=2}^4\sqrt{a_ib_i}+\sum_{i=2}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}
&\ge |u_1|\sum_{i=2}^4\sqrt{a_ib_i}+\sum_{i=2}^4|u_i|\sqrt{a_ib_i}\\
&\ge |u_1|\sum_{i=2}^4\sqrt{a_ib_i}+\sum_{i=2}^4|u_i||z_i|,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=2}^4\left(\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}-|u_i||z_i|\right)
&\ge \left(|u_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1}\right)\sum_{i=2}^4\sqrt{a_ib_i}\\
&\ge \left(|u_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1}\right)|z_1|
\ge |u_1||z_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1}\sqrt{a_1b_1},
\end{aligned}$$ by $S_3$ and $\sqrt{s_{1} t_{1}} < |u_{1}|$. Therefore, we have $\sum_{i=1}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}\ge \sum_{i=1}^4|u_i||z_i|$, which completes the proof by (\[ineq–xx\]).
Since the dual cone of ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ is just ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$, we recover the following characterization of biseparability of three qubit states. Especially, every three qubit biseparable state with the [X]{}-part ${{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ must satisfy the inequalities $S_3$, as it was observed in [@guhne10].
\[i\_join\] For a three qubit -state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, the following are equivalent:
1. $\varrho$ belongs to ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$;
2. the inequality $S_3$ holds.
As for extreme rays, we also have the following:
\[bi-sep-ext\] We have the following:
1. ${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}})\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$;
2. ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$.
For (i), it suffices to show ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\subset{{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}})\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$. Suppose that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies the condition $S^e_1[1,4]$, and $$\label{,lonkhvgfsd}
\varrho = {{\text{\sf X}}}(a',b',z')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(a'',b'',z'') \quad \text{in} ~({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}})\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ Then we have $a_i^{\prime}=a_i^{{\prime}{\prime}}=b_i^{\prime}=b_i^{{\prime}{\prime}}=0$ for $i=2,3$, which also implies that $z_i^{\prime}=z_i^{{\prime}{\prime}}=0$ for $i=2,3$. By the inequality $S_3$, the summands in (\[,lonkhvgfsd\]) must belong to the cone ${{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, we can apply Theorem \[basic\_dual\].
As for (ii), we note that matrices in $\Delta$ and ${{\mathcal W}}^\Delta$ generate extreme rays in ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$, and so they also generate extreme rays in the smaller cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$. Suppose that $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ satisfies $W_3^e[1]$ and $$W = {{\text{\sf X}}}(s',t',u')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(s'',t'',u'') \quad \text{in} ~{{\mathcal A}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ Applying Lemma \[CS-W\] with $(i,j,k,\ell)=(2,1,1,2)$,$(3,1,1,3)$,$(4,1,1,4)$, we get $(s',t',u') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(s'',t'',u'')$.
It was shown in [@han_kye_optimal Theorem 4.1] that $W\in{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}$ is an optimal genuine entanglement witness. This means that the set $\{\varrho\in{\mathcal P}:{\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}<0\}$ of genuine entanglement detected by $W$ is maximal with respect to the inclusion. It is easy to see that extremeness implies optimality. We have shown in Theorem \[bi-sep-ext\] that $W\in{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}$ is extreme in the cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$. It would be interesting to ask if they are extreme in the much bigger convex cone ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$.
intersections and convex hulls of two basic cones {#sec-two}
=================================================
In this section, we consider the following convex cones $${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}},\quad {{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}},\quad {{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}},\quad {{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}},\quad {{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}, \quad {{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}},$$ together with their dual cones: $${{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ,\quad {{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ, \quad {{\mathcal C}}^\circ+{{\mathcal A}}^\circ,\quad
{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ,\quad {{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ,\quad {{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ.$$ We look for inequalities characterizing the above convex cones, together with extreme rays of the cones. As for intersections of two cones, we just put together inequalities for both cones. For a three qubit [X]{}-state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, we have the following:
- $\varrho\in{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}$ if and only if $S_1[1,4], S_1[2,3], S_1[1,3], S_1[2,4]$ hold;
- $\varrho\in{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$ if and only if $S_1[1,3], S_1[2,4], S_1[1,2], S_1[3,4]$ hold;
- $\varrho\in{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}$ if and only if $S_1[1,2], S_1[3,4], S_1[1,4], S_1[2,3]$ hold.
For an [X]{}-shaped $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$, we also have
- $W\in{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ$ if and only if $W_1[1,4], W_1[2,3], W_1[1,3], W_1[2,4]$ hold;
- $W\in{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ if and only if $W_1[1,3], W_1[2,4], W_1[1,2], W_1[3,4]$ hold;
- $W\in{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ if and only if $W_1[1,2], W_1[3,4], W_1[1,4], W_1[2,3]$ hold.
In order to find extreme rays of the cones ${{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$, ${{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$, we consider the condition
for $i,j=1,2,3,4$ with $i\neq j$, where $k,\ell$ are chosen so that $i,j,k,\ell$ are mutually distinct. Here, we point out that $a_j=0=b_j$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}&=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z): S^e_2[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\
(i,j)=(1,4), (4,1),(2,3), (3,2)\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}}&=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z): S^e_2[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\
(i,j)=(1,3), (3,1),(2,4),(4,2)\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}}&=\{\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z): S^e_2[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for some}}\
(i,j)=(1,2), (2,1),(3,4), (4,3)\},
\end{aligned}$$ and consider the following inequalities
for $i,j=1,2,3,4$ with $i\neq j$.
\[lemma-ntersection-state\] For a given self-adjoint [X]{}-shaped matrix $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$, the following are equivalent.
1. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $\varrho\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$ [(]{}respectively, ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}}\cup {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$ and ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}}\cup {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$[)]{};
2. $s_i,t_i\ge 0$ for $i=1,2,3,4$ and the inequalities $W_3$ and $W_2[1,4]$, $W_2[2,3]$ [(]{}respectively, $W_2[1,3],W_2[2,4]$ and $W_2[1,2],W_2[3,4]$[)]{} hold;
3. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $\varrho\in{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$ [(]{}respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}$[)]{}.
The inequalities $s_i,t_i\ge 0$ and $W_3$ follow from Lemma \[lemma-ppt-dual\]. We will prove for ${{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$. The others follow by applying the operator $x_A{\otimes}x_B{\otimes}x_C\mapsto x_{\sigma(A)}{\otimes}x_{\sigma(B)}{\otimes}x_{\sigma(C)}$ for permutations $\sigma$ on $\{A,B,C\}$. To prove (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii), we may assume that all the diagonal elements $s_i$ and $t_i$ are nonzero, and consider four -states $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho_{1,4}:&={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(\sqrt{t_1 \over s_1},\sqrt{t_2 \over s_2},\sqrt{t_3 \over s_3},0\right),
\left(\sqrt{s_1 \over t_1},\sqrt{s_2 \over t_2},\sqrt{s_3 \over t_3},0\right),\left(-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_1},0,0,0\right)\right), \\
\varrho_{2,3}:&={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(\sqrt{t_1 \over s_1},\sqrt{t_2 \over s_2},0,\sqrt{t_4 \over s_4}\right),
\left(\sqrt{s_1 \over t_1},\sqrt{s_2 \over t_2},0,\sqrt{s_4 \over t_4}\right),\left(0,-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_2},0,0\right)\right), \\
\varrho_{3,2}:&={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(\sqrt{t_1 \over s_1},0,\sqrt{t_3 \over s_3},\sqrt{t_4 \over s_4}\right),
\left(\sqrt{s_1 \over t_1},0,\sqrt{s_3 \over t_3},\sqrt{s_4 \over t_4}\right),\left(0,0,-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_3},0\right)\right),\\
\varrho_{4,1}:&={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(0,\sqrt{t_2 \over s_2},\sqrt{t_3 \over s_3},\sqrt{t_4 \over s_4}\right),
\left(0,\sqrt{s_2 \over t_2},\sqrt{s_3 \over t_3},\sqrt{s_4 \over t_4}\right),\left(0,0,0,-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_4}\right)\right),
\end{aligned}$$ with $\theta_k = \arg u_k$. These states belong to ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}$. We expand $\langle W, \varrho_{i,j} \rangle \ge 0$ to obtain $W_2[1,4]$ and $W_2[2,3]$.
For (ii) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii), it suffices to show ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ when $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ satisfies $W_2[1,4]$, $W_2[2,3]$, $W_3$, and $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies $S_1[1,3], S_1[2,4], S_1[1,2], S_1[3,4]$ by Corollary \[xxx-coro\] and Proposition \[aa-bbb-ccc\]. If $\varrho\in{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}$, then this is trivial by $W_3$ and Proposition \[coro\_decomp\]. So, we may assume that $\varrho\notin{{\mathcal A}}$, especially $|z_4| > \sqrt{a_1b_1}$, without loss of generality. We begin with $$\begin{aligned}
{1 \over 2}{\langle}W, \varrho {\rangle}&\ge\sum_{i=1}^4 \left(\sqrt{s_i t_i} \sqrt{a_i b_i} - |u_i| |z_i|\right)\\
& = \left( \sqrt{s_2t_2}\sqrt{a_2b_2} + \sqrt{s_3t_3}\sqrt{a_3b_3} + \sqrt{s_4t_4}\sqrt{a_4b_4} -|u_4||z_4|\right) \\
& \qquad\qquad +\left( \sqrt{s_1t_1}\sqrt{a_1b_1} -|u_1||z_1| -|u_2||z_2| -|u_3||z_3|\right), \\
\end{aligned}$$ as in (\[ineq–xx\]). We have $\sqrt{a_ib_i}\ge |z_4|$ for $i=2,3,4$ by $S_1[2,4]$, $S_1[3,4]$, and $\sqrt{a_1b_1}\ge |z_i|$ for $i=1,2,3$ by $S_1[1,2]$, $S_1[1,3]$. By the inequality $W_2[1,4]$ and the assumption $|z_4| > \sqrt{a_1b_1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{1 \over 2}{\langle}W, \varrho {\rangle}& \ge \left( \sqrt{s_2t_2} + \sqrt{s_3t_3} + \sqrt{s_4t_4} -|u_4| \right) |z_4|
+ \left( \sqrt{s_1t_1} -|u_1| -|u_2| -|u_3|\right)\sqrt{a_1b_1} \\
& \ge \left( \sqrt{s_2t_2} + \sqrt{s_3t_3} + \sqrt{s_4t_4} -|u_4| \right) \sqrt{a_1b_1}
+ \left( \sqrt{s_1t_1} -|u_1| -|u_2| -|u_3|\right)\sqrt{a_1b_1} \\
& = \sqrt{a_1b_1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^4 \sqrt{s_i t_i} -\sum_{i=1}^4|u_i|\right).
\end{aligned}$$ This is nonnegative by the inequality $W_3$, as it was desired.
By the equivalence (ii) $\Longleftrightarrow$ (iii), we have the following criteria for the convex hull of two basic dual cones:
\[dual-join...\] For a self-adjoint $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ with nonnegative diagonals, we have the following:
1. $W\in{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ if and only if $W_2[1,4]$, $W_2[2,3]$ and $W_3$ hold;
2. $W\in{{\mathcal C}}^\circ+{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ if and only if $W_2[1,3]$, $W_2[2,4]$ and $W_3$ hold;
3. $W\in{{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ$ if and only if $W_2[1,2]$, $W_2[3,4]$ and $W_3$ hold.
If $W$ is a self-adjoint three qubit matrix with the [X]{}-part ${{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$, then the only if parts hold.
\[ext-inter-states\] We have the following:
1. ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\mathcal A}}}\cup {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}}\cup {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}}\cup\Delta$;
2. ${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}) \cup {{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal C}}^\circ+{{\mathcal A}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}) \cup {{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}) \cup {{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$.
(i). We will prove the first identity. Suppose that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies $S_2^e[1,4]$ and $$\varrho = {{\text{\sf X}}}(a',b',z')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(a'',b'',z'') \quad \text{in} ~{{\mathcal B}}\cap {{\mathcal C}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ The condition $a_4=b_4=0$ implies $a_4'=b_4'=z_j'=0=a_4''=b_4''=z_j''$ for $j=2,3,4$ by $S_1[2,4]$, $S_1[3,4]$. Applying Lemma \[CS-S\] with $(i,j)=(1,2)$ and $(1,3)$, we get $(a',b',z') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(a'',b'',z'')$.
Next, suppose that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies $S_3^e$ and $$\varrho = {{\text{\sf X}}}(a',b',z')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(a'',b'',z'') \quad \text{in} ~{{\mathcal B}}\cap {{\mathcal C}}\cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ Applying Lemma \[CS-S\] with $(i,j)=(1,2)$,$(2,1)$,$(3,1)$, $(4,2)$, we get $(a',b',z') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(a'',b'',z'')$.
(ii). States in ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}) \cup {{\rm Ext}\,}({{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$ generate extreme rays of the convex cone $({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ) \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ by Theorem \[ppt-ext\]. Therefore, they also generate extreme rays in the smaller cone $({{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ) \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$.
Now, we look for extreme rays of ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$) to get conditions for the cone ${{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}$). To do this, we consider the condition
for $i\neq j$, where $k$ and $\ell$ are chosen so that $i,j,k,\ell$ are mutually distinct, and define $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}&=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W^e_2[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for}}\ (i,j)=(1,4)\ {\text{\rm or}}\ (2,3)\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}&=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W^e_2[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for}}\ (i,j)=(1,3)\ {\text{\rm or}}\ (2,4)\},\\
{{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}&=\{W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u): W^e_2[i,j]\ {\text{\rm holds for}}\ (i,j)=(1,2)\ {\text{\rm or}}\ (3,4)\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We also consider the following inequalities
for $i\neq j$, where $k,\ell$ are chosen so that $i,j,k,\ell$ are mutually distinct.
These inequalities have been used in [@han_kye_bisep_exam] to get necessary conditions for a three state $\varrho$ with the [X]{}-part ${{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ to belong to ${{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$, ${{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}$ respectively. We show in Theorem \[join-state\] that they provide actually sufficient conditions when $\varrho$ itself [X]{}-shaped. Note that
- $S_2[1,4]$ holds if and only if $S_2[2,3]$ holds;
- $S_2[1,3]$ holds if and only if $S_2[2,4]$ holds;
- $S_2[1,2]$ holds if and only if $S_2[3,4]$ holds.
\[lemma-ntersection-witness\] For a given self-adjoint [X]{}-shaped matrix $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, the following are equivalent.
1. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $W\in {{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$ [(]{}respectively, ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$ and ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$[)]{};
2. $\varrho$ is a state satisfying the inequalities $S_2[1,4]$ [(]{}respectively, $S_2[1,3]$ and $S_2[1,2]$[)]{} hold;
3. ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ for each $W\in{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ [(]{}respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ and ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ$[)]{}.
Although the proof of the direction (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii) already appears in [@han_kye_bisep_exam], we include it here for the completeness. We consider -shaped three qubit self-adjoint matrices $$\begin{aligned}
W:={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(\sqrt{b_1 \over a_1},0,0,\sqrt{b_4 \over a_4}\right),\left(\sqrt{a_1 \over b_1},0,0,\sqrt{a_4 \over b_4}\right),\left(0,-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_2},-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_3},0\right)\right) \\
W':={{\text{\sf X}}}\left(\left(0,\sqrt{b_2 \over a_2},\sqrt{b_3 \over a_3},0\right),\left(0,\sqrt{a_2 \over b_2},\sqrt{a_3 \over b_3},0\right), \left(-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_1},0,0,-e^{-{\rm i}\theta_4}\right)\right),
\end{aligned}$$ for $\theta_i = \arg z_i$. Then, both $W$ and $W'$ belong to ${{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\le {1 \over 2} {\langle}\varrho, W {\rangle}= \sqrt{a_1b_1}+\sqrt{a_4b_4}-|z_2|-|z_3|,\\
0 &\le {1 \over 2} {\langle}\varrho, W' {\rangle}= \sqrt{a_2b_2}+\sqrt{a_3b_3}-|z_1|-|z_4|.
\end{aligned}$$
For the implication (ii) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii), suppose that $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ satisfies $S_2[1,4]$. By Corollary \[xxx-coro\], it suffices to show ${\langle}W, \varrho {\rangle}\ge 0$ for every $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)\in{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$. This is trivial when ${{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ is positive, that is, $\sqrt{s_i t_i} \ge |u_i|$ for all $i=1,2,3,4$. We may assume without loss of generality that $$\label{vvvv}
0>\sqrt{s_1t_1}-|u_1| = \min \{ \sqrt{s_it_i}-|u_i| : i=1,2,3,4 \}.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sqrt{s_1t_1}+\sqrt{s_2t_2}\right)\sqrt{a_2b_2} &\ge \left(|u_1|+|u_2|\right)\sqrt{a_2b_2},\\
\left(\sqrt{s_1t_1}+\sqrt{s_3t_3}\right)\sqrt{a_3b_3} &\ge \left(|u_1|+|u_3|\right)\sqrt{a_3b_3},\\
\left(|u_1|+\sqrt{s_4t_4}\right)|z_4| &\ge \left(\sqrt{s_1t_1}+|u_4|\right)|z_4|,
\end{aligned}$$ where the first and second inequalities follow from $W_1[1,2]$ and $W_1[1,3]$, respectively, and the last one comes out from the equality in (\[vvvv\]). Put $M=\sqrt{a_2b_2}+\sqrt{a_3b_3}-|z_4|$. Summing up the above three inequalities, we have $$\sqrt{s_1t_1}M
+\sum_{i=2}^3\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}+\sqrt{s_4t_4}|z_4|
\ge
|u_1|M + \sum_{i=2}^3|u_i|\sqrt{a_ib_i}+|u_4||z_4|,$$ which implies $$\sqrt{s_1t_1}M
+\sum_{i=2}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}
\ge |u_1|M
+\sum_{i=2}^4|u_i||z_i|.$$ Because $M\ge |z_1|$ by $S_2[1,4]$ and $|u_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1}>0$ by (\[vvvv\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=2}^4(\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}-|u_i||z_i|)
&\ge (|u_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1})M\\
&\ge (|u_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1})|z_1|
\ge |u_1||z_1|-\sqrt{s_1t_1}\sqrt{a_1b_1}.
\end{aligned}$$ This gives $\sum_{i=1}^4\sqrt{s_it_i}\sqrt{a_ib_i}\ge\sum_{i=1}^4|u_i||z_i|$, and ${\langle}W,\varrho{\rangle}\ge 0$ by by (\[ineq–xx\]).
Because ${{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}$) is the dual of ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ$ and ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ$), the equivalence between (ii) and (iii) of Lemma \[lemma-ntersection-witness\] gives rise to the following characterization of the cone ${{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}$) for [X]{}-states.
\[join-state\] For a three qubit [X]{}-state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, we have the following:
1. $\varrho\in{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}$ if and only if $S_2[1,4]$ holds;
2. $\varrho\in{{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}}$ if and only if $S_2[1,3]$ holds;
3. $\varrho\in{{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}$ if and only if $S_2[1,2]$ holds.
For a general three qubit state $\varrho$ with the [X]{}-part ${{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$, the only if parts hold.
\[ext-inter-wit\] We have the following:
1. ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\mathcal E}}_{{{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ}\cup{{\mathcal W}}^\Delta\cup\Delta$;
2. ${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}})\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal C}}+{{\mathcal A}})\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$,\
${{\rm Ext}\,}(({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}})\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})={{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$.
(i). We will prove the first identity. Since elements in $\Delta$ and ${{\mathcal W}}^\Delta$ are extremal in ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$, they are also extremal in the smaller cone ${{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$. Suppose that $W={{\text{\sf X}}}(s,t,u)$ satisfies $W_2^e[1,4]$ and $$W = {{\text{\sf X}}}(s',t',u')+{{\text{\sf X}}}(s'',t'',u'') \quad \text{in} ~{{\mathcal B}}^\circ \cap {{\mathcal C}}^\circ \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}.$$ Applying Lemma \[CS-W\] with $(i,j,k,\ell)=(1,2,2,1)$,$(4,2,2,4)$,$(1,3,3,1)$,$(4,3,3,4)$, we get $(s',t',u') ~ {\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}(s'',t'',u'')$.
(ii). Since states in ${{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})\cup{{\rm Ext}\,}({{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}})$ are extremal in the convex cone $({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}) \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ by Theorem \[bi-sep-ext\], they are also extremal in the smaller cone $({{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}) \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$.
Summary
=======
In this paper, we have considered the convex cones in the diagrams (\[diagram\]) and (\[diagram1\]) arising from classification of partial separability/entanglement of three qubit states and their witnesses. For those convex cones, we got the following results:
- characterization for [X]{}-shaped matrices by algebraic inequalities, which give rise to necessary criteria for general three qubit states/witnesses in terms of diagonal and anti-diagonal entries;
- finding all the extreme rays of the cones consisting of [X]{}-shaped matrices, with which we may exhibit all [X]{}-shaped matrices in the cones.
criteria extreme states witnesses extreme criteria
--------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------
$S_1[1,4]$, $S^e_1[1,4]$ $W^e_1[1,4]$ $W_1[1,4]$
$W^e_1[4,1]$
$S_1[2,3]$ $S^e_1[2,3]$ ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $W^e_1[2,3]$ $W_1[2,3]$
$W^e_1[3,2]$
Prop.\[aa-bbb-ccc\] Th.\[basic\_dual\] Th.\[basic-dual-ext\] Prop.\[basic-dual-cri\]
$S_1[i,j]$ $S_3^e$ ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\mathcal C}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ+{{\mathcal C}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $W_1^e[i,j]$ $W_3$
Prop.\[aa-bbb-ccc\] Th.\[ppt-ext\](i) Th.\[ppt-ext\](ii) Prop.\[coro\_decomp\]
$S_3$ $S^e_1[i,j]$ $({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}}+{{\mathcal C}}) \cap {{\text{\sf X}}}$ ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal C}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $W^e_3[i]$ $W_1[i,j]$
Prop.\[i\_join\] Th.\[bi-sep-ext\](i) Th.\[bi-sep-ext\](ii) Prop.\[basic-dual-cri\]
$S_1[1,4]$ $S^e_3$ $W_1^e[1,4]$ $W_3$
$W_1^e[4,1]$
$S_1[2,3]$ $S^e_2[1,2]$ $W_1^e[2,3]$ $W_2[1,2]$
$S^e_2[2,1]$ $W_1^e[3,2]$
$S_1[1,3]$ ${{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal B}}\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $({{\mathcal A}}^\circ+{{\mathcal B}}^\circ)\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $W_1^e[1,3]$
$S^e_2[3,4]$ $W_1^e[3,1]$ $W_2[3,4]$
$S_1[2,4]$ $S^e_2[4,3]$ $W_1^e[2,4]$
$W_1^e[4,2]$
Prop.\[aa-bbb-ccc\] Th.\[ext-inter-states\](i) Th.\[ext-inter-states\](ii) Th.\[dual-join...\]
$S^e_1[1,4]$ $W_1[1,4]$
$S_2[1,2]$ $S^e_1[2,3]$ $W^e_2[1,2]$ $W_1[2,3]$
$S^e_1[1,3]$ $({{\mathcal A}}+{{\mathcal B}})\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ ${{\mathcal A}}^\circ\cap{{\mathcal B}}^\circ\cap{{\text{\sf X}}}$ $W^e_2[3,4]$ $W_1[1,3]$
$S^e_1[2,4]$ $W_1[2,4]$
Th.\[join-state\] Th.\[ext-inter-wit\](ii) Th.\[ext-inter-wit\](i) Prop.\[basic-dual-cri\]
: Criteria and extreme rays of convex cones: Conditions for criteria and extreme are connected by and , respectively.
We summarize the results in Table 1. We note our characterizion is one of very few cases when we may check separability by inequalities, without decomposing into the sum of pure product states. For example, we may check separability for $2\otimes 2$ and $2\otimes 3$ cases by the PPT condition. We may also check full separability of multi-qubit [X]{}-states by inequalities . Checking separability with inequalities in this paper was possible through the duality and characterizing extreme rays of the dual cones.
This work has been partly motivated by the questions [@sz2012] on the existence of states in the seven classes arising in the classification of partial entanglement, including the following classes: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal C}}^{2,6,1} &:= {{\mathcal A}}\cap ({{\mathcal B}}+ {{\mathcal C}})\cap {{\mathcal B}}^{\rm c} \cap {{\mathcal C}}^{\rm c},\\
{{\mathcal C}}^{2,4} &:= ({{\mathcal A}}+ {{\mathcal B}}) \cap ({{\mathcal B}}+ {{\mathcal C}}) \cap ({{\mathcal C}}+ {{\mathcal A}})\cap {{\mathcal A}}^{\rm c} \cap {{\mathcal B}}^{\rm c} \cap {{\mathcal C}}^{\rm c},\\
{{\mathcal C}}^{2,3,1} &:= ({{\mathcal A}}+ {{\mathcal B}}) \cap ({{\mathcal C}}+ {{\mathcal A}}) \cap {{\mathcal A}}^{\rm c} \cap ({{\mathcal B}}+ {{\mathcal C}})^{\rm c},
\end{aligned}$$ together with the convex cones obtained by permuting systems. Here, ${{\mathcal C}}^{2,6,1}$, ${{\mathcal C}}^{2,4}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^{2,3,1}$ are notations in [@sz2012]. The authors [@han_kye_bisep_exam] gave examples of [X]{}-shaped states belonging to those classes. In this paper, we gave complete necessary and sufficient conditions for [X]{}-states to be members of the classes. For example, an [X]{}-state $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}(a,b,z)$ belongs to the class ${{\mathcal C}}^{2,6,1}$ if and only if the following hold:
- $\varrho$ satisfies the inequalities $S_1[1,4]$, $S_1[2,3]$ and $S_2[1,4]$;
- $\varrho$ violates $S_1[1,3]$ or $S_1[2,4]$;
- $\varrho$ violates $S_1[1,2]$ or $S_1[3,4]$.
The example $\varrho={{\text{\sf X}}}((0,1,1,2),(0,1,1,2),(0,1,1,0))$ given in [@han_kye_bisep_exam] satisfies $S_1[1,4]$, $S_1[2,3]$ and $S_2[1,4]$, but violates $S_1[1,3]$ and $S_1[1,2]$.
It is natural to ask what happens in the four qubit system, or arbitrary qubit systems. We began with the result [@han_kye_optimal] that an [X]{}-shaped multi-qubit state is separable with respect to a [*bi-partition*]{} of systems if and only if it is of positive partial transpose with respect to the same [*bi-partition*]{}. This was crucial to give characterizations in terms of diagonal entries and the [*modulus*]{} of anti-diagonal entries. But this is not the case for tri-partitions. In the three qubit system, considering tri-partition is amount to full separability. We need the phase parts, that is, the angular parts of anti-diagonal entries, as well as the modulus parts to characterize full separability of three qubit -states. See . We note that all kinds of partial separability come out from bi-partitions in the three qubit case. But, it is necessary to consider tri-partitions as well as bi-partitions in the four qubit case. See [@sz2015; @sz2018]. Therefore, exploring partial separability/entanglement in general qubit system must be a very challenging project even for [X]{}-shaped states.
[99]{} C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin and B. M. Terhal, *Unextendible product bases and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82 (1999), 5385–5388.***
A. Acin, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein and A. Sanpera, *Classification of mixed three-qubit states, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001), 040401.*
V. Coffman, J. Kundu and W. K. Wootters, *Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{} (2000), 052306.*
W. D" ur and J. I. Cirac, *Classification of multi-qubit mixed states: separability and distillability properties, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{} (2000), 042314.*
W. D" ur, J. I. Cirac and R. Tarrach, *Separability and Distillability of Multiparticle Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999), 3562–3565.*
W. D" ur, G. Vidal and J. I. Cirac, *Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{} (2000), 062314.*
M. Seevinck and J. Uffink, *Partial separability and etanglement criteria for multiqubit quantum states, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{} (2008), 032101.*
S. Szalay, *Separability criteria for mixed three-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{} (2011), 062337.*
S. Szalay, *Multipartite entanglement measures, Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{} (2015), 042329.*
S. Szalay and Z. K" ok' enyesi, *Partial separability revisited: Necessary and sufficient criteria, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{} (2012), 032341.*
K. H. Han and S.-H. Kye, *Construction of three-qubit biseparable states distinguishing kinds of entanglement in a partial separability classification, Phys. Rev. A, [99]{} (2019), 032304.*
K. H. Han and S.-H, Kye, *Separability of three qubit Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger diagonal states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**50**]{} (2017), 145303. K. H. Han and S.-H, Kye, *The role of phases in detecting three qubit entanglement, J. Math. Phys. [**58**]{} (2017), 102201.**
L. Chen, K. H. Han and S.-H, Kye, *Separability criterion for three-qubit states with a four dimensional norm, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**50**]{} (2017) 345303.*
K.-C. Ha, K. H. Han and S.-H. Kye, *Separability of multi-qubit states in terms of diagonal and anti-diagonal entries, Quantum Inf. Process. [**18**]{} (2019), 34.*
O. G" uhne and M. Seevinck, *Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entanglement, New J. Phys. [[[**1**]{}]{}2]{} (2010), 053002.*
T. Gao and Y. Hong, *Separability criteria for several classes of $n$-partite quantum states, Eur. Phys. J. D [**61**]{} (2011), 765–771.*
S. M. H. Rafsanjani, M. Huber, C. J. Broadbent and J. H. Eberly, *Genuinely multipartite concurrence of N-qubit X matrices, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{} (2012), 062303.*
K. H. Han and S.-H, Kye, *Various notions of positivity for bi-linear maps and applications to tri-partite entanglement, J. Math. Phys. [**57**]{} (2016), 015205.*
K. H. Han and S.-H, Kye, *Construction of multi-qubit optimal genuine entanglement witnesses, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**49**]{} (2016), 175303.*
B. M. Terhal, *Bell Inequalities and the Separability Criterion, Phys. Lett. A **271 (2000), 319–326. M.-H. Eom and S.-H. Kye, *Duality for positive linear maps in matrix algebras, Math. Scand. **86 (2000), 130–142.******
R. T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton Univ. Press, 1970.
D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne and A. Zeilinger, *Going beyond Bell’s theorem, in Kafatos M. (eds) Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe. Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 37, Springer, Dordrecht, 1989.*
S. Szalay, *The classification of multipartite quantum correlation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**51**]{} (2018), 485302 .*
[^1]: Both KHH and SHK were partially supported by NRF-2017R1A2B4006655, Korea
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Once considered essential to the explanation of electromagnetic phenomena, the ether was eventually discarded after the advent of special relativity. The lack of empirical signature of realist interpretative schemes of quantum mechanics, like Bohmian trajectories, has led some to conclude that, just like the ether, they can be dispensed with, replaced by the corresponding emergence of the concept of information. Although devices like Bohmian trajectories and the ether do present important analogies, I argue that there is also a crucial difference, related to distinct explanatory functions of quantum mechanics.'
---
**Bohmian trajectories and the ether: Where does the analogy fail?**\
**Louis Marchildon**\
Département de physique, Université du Québec,\
Trois-Rivières, Qc. Canada G9A 5H7\
email: marchild$\hspace{0.3em}a\hspace{-0.8em}
\bigcirc$uqtr.ca\
**KEY WORDS:** Bohmian trajectories, ether, information, quantum mechanics, interpretation.
Introduction
============
Quantum information theory has been one of the most active areas of development of quantum mechanics in the past two decades. The realization that transfer protocols based on quantum entanglement may be absolutely secure has opened new windows in the field of cryptography (Bennett & Brassard, 1984). And the development of quantum algorithms thought to be exponentially faster than their best classical counterparts has drawn great interest in the construction of quantum computers (Shor, 1994). These face up extraordinary challenges on the experimental side (Vandersypen *et al.*, 2001). But attempts to build them are likely to throw much light on the fundamental process of decoherence (Zurek, 1991) and perhaps on the limits of quantum mechanics itself (’t Hooft, 1999; Leggett, 2002).
Along with quantum information theory came also a reemphasis of the view that the wave function (or state vector, or density matrix) properly represents knowledge, or information (Rovelli, 1996; Fuchs & Peres, 2000; Fuchs, 2002). This is often called the *epistemic view* of quantum states. On what the wave function is knowledge of, proponents of the epistemic view do not necessarily agree. The variant most relevant to the present discussion is that rather than referring to objective properties of microscopic objects (such as electrons, photons, etc.), the wave function encapsulates probabilities of results of eventual macroscopic measurements. The Hilbert space formalism is taken as complete, and its objects in no need of a realistic interpretation. Additional constructs, like value assignments (van Fraassen, 1991; Vermaas, 1999), multiple worlds (Everett, 1957; DeWitt, 1970; Wallace, 2003), or Bohmian trajectories (Bohm, 1952; Bohm & Hiley, 1993; Holland, 1993) are viewed as superfluous at best.
The methodological rule calling to discard additional constructs to the Hilbert space has been likened to the one that led to abandon the concept of the ether in the early part of the twentieth century[^1] (Bub, 2004, 2005; Bohr, Mottelson, & Ulfbeck, 2004). H. A. Lorentz and his contemporaries viewed electromagnetic phenomena as taking place in a hypothetical medium called the ether. From this, Lorentz developed a description of electromagnetism in moving reference frames, and he found that the motion is undetectable (Lorentz, 1909). Following Einstein’s formulation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies (Einstein, 1905), the ether was recognized as playing no role, and was henceforth discarded. So should it be, according to most proponents of the epistemic view of quantum states, with interpretations of quantum mechanics which posit observer-independent elements of reality. They predict no empirical differences with the Hilbert space formalism, and therefore should be discarded.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse, in their respective contexts, the explanatory roles of the ether and additional constructs to the Hilbert space formalism. To be specific, and because earlier discussions have largely focussed on them, I shall formulate my argument in terms of Bohmian trajectories, without however implying any fundamental commitment to that choice.[^2] I will first recall that Bohmian trajectories coexist rather well with the notion of a preferred reference frame, which the ether traditionally defines. I will next point out what was involved in the transition between ether theories and special relativity. The function of Bohmian trajectories will then be investigated, in connection with two distinct explanatory roles of quantum mechanics. This will evince a crucial difference between Bohmian trajectories and the ether, and illustrate why interpretative schemes cannot be dispensed with in quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics and special relativity
========================================
The ether has long been viewed as defining a preferred inertial frame of reference. In this sense, it can find room in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics, at least in some of the ways the formalism is presented.
Take, for instance, the theory’s highly influential articulation proposed by von Neumann (1932). There the wave function of a quantum system evolves in two very different ways. Outside the context of measurements, it obeys the Schrödinger equation or, equivalently, it evolves through the action of a unitary operator (von Neumann’s process 2). At the end of a measurement, however, it stochastically transforms into one of the eigenfunctions of the observable being measured (process 1, or collapse).[^3] That evolution is not unitary, and does not obey the Schrödinger equation.
It is not difficult (for one particle at least) to make process 2 consistent with the special theory of relativity. One just has to replace the Schrödinger equation by the Dirac equation. Process 1, however, is much more tricky. The wave function of a quantum system usually covers the whole of three-dimensional space, that is, its support is unbounded. Since the collapse is taken to occur instantaneously (or very nearly so), the wave function, as a consequence of measurement, changes values everywhere at the same time. It is very difficult to make this process relativistically covariant. Indeed wave function collapse seems to single out a preferred inertial reference frame.
Due to the statistical character of the predictions of quantum mechanics, wave function collapse does not, as is well known, allow the transfer of information faster than the speed of light. In this sense, at least, it is consistent with special relativity. It would thus seem that the frame being singled out cannot be determined experimentally.
Similar considerations can be made in the context of Bohmian mechanics. Consider a set of $N$ particles of masses $m_a$ and charges $e_a$, in an electromagnetic field specified by the four-potential $A^{\mu}$. The Dirac wave function $\Psi$ then has $4^N$ components, which if needed can be specified by $N$-tuples of four-valued indices. Let $\gamma_{a \mu}$ represent Dirac matrices acting on the $a^{\text{th}}$ index, and let $\alpha_{a k} =
\gamma_{a 0} \gamma_{a k}$. The Dirac equation can then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{i}{c} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}
&+ \sum_a \left\{ \frac{e_a}{\hbar}
A^{0}(\mathbf{r}_a, t) \Psi
- i \alpha_{a k}
\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x_{a k}} \right. \notag\\
& \qquad\qquad \mbox{} + \left. \frac{e_a}{\hbar} \alpha_{a k}
A^{k}(\mathbf{r}_a, t) \Psi
+ \frac{m_a c}{\hbar} \gamma_{a 0} \Psi \right\} = 0 .
\label{dirac}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[dirac\]) entails that $$\frac{\partial j_0}{\partial t}
+ c \sum_a \frac{\partial j_{a k}}{\partial x_{a k}} = 0 ,
\label{conser}$$ where $$j_0 = \Psi^{\dagger} \Psi , \qquad
j_{a k} = \Psi^{\dagger} \alpha_{a k} \Psi .
\label{current}$$ Bohmian trajectories can be introduced by specifying that the three-velocity of particle $a$ at the space-time point $(\mathbf{r}_a, t)$ is given by $$v_a^i = c \, j_a^i (j^0)^{-1} .
\label{velocity}$$ It can be shown (Bohm & Hiley, 1993; Holland, 1993) that the magnitude of the velocity never exceeds $c$, and that if particles are distributed according to the probability density $\Psi^{\dagger} \Psi$ at a given time, they will be distributed according to $\Psi^{\dagger} \Psi$ at any other time.
The $N$-particle Dirac equation being relativistically covariant (Bohm & Hiley, 1993), it can be used indifferently in any inertial reference frame. Probabilities obtained in one frame transform correctly into probabilities obtained in any other frame. Since, however, the quantities $(j^0 , j_a^i)$ do not make up a four-vector (for $N>1$), the Bohmian trajectories are not covariant. That is, trajectories computed in frame $\Sigma$ through Eqs. (\[velocity\]), when transformed into $\Sigma '$ by means of the Lorentz transformations, will not match trajectories computed in $\Sigma '$ directly through (\[velocity\]). Hence Eqs. (\[velocity\]) can hold in only one inertial reference frame (modulo rotations and space-time translations).
The upshot is that Bohmian trajectories, like von Neumann’s collapse, naturally coexist with the ether construed as defining a preferred, albeit unobservable, reference frame.[^4] There remains to see whether the justification of the former, in quantum mechanics, is of the same nature as that of the latter, in electromagnetic theories.
Ether and field
===============
The concept of ether has a long history (Whittaker, 1951; Darrigol, 2000), and it was used in a number of different contexts. In one of these, mainly developed in the nineteenth century, the ether was viewed as a substratum wherein electric and magnetic phenomena take place. Much effort was spent on detailed mechanical models of the substratum. It is not the purpose of this paper to recapitulate them, but it may be worthwhile to recall one proposed by Maxwell, as he described it in an 1861 letter to W. Thomson (quoted in Whittaker, 1951, p. 250).
> I suppose that the “magnetic medium” is divided into small portions or cells, the divisions or cell walls being composed of a single stratum of spherical particles, these particles being “electricity.” The substance of the cells I suppose to be highly elastic, both with respect to compression and distorsion; and I suppose the connection between the cells and the particles in the cell walls to be such that there is perfect rolling without slipping between them and that they act on each other tangentially.
>
> I then find that if the cells are set in rotation, the medium exerts a stress equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure combined with a longitudinal tension along the lines of axes of rotation.
Maxwell goes on drawing detailed analogies between his cells and cell walls and “a system of magnets, electric currents and bodies capable of magnetic induction.” It should be pointed out, however, that such models played a less important role in Maxwell’s great treatise (1873), which relied more on a Lagrangian formulation. Model building was progressively abandoned in the most fruitful late nineteenth century contributions to electromagnetic theory, those of Lorentz in particular.
Lorentz’s largely definitive views on electromagnetic theory were expounded in his 1906 Columbia University lectures, published a few years later. His ontology is threefold: there is ponderable matter,[^5] there are electric charges (“electrons”), and there is the ether, “the receptacle of electromagnetic energy and the vehicle for many and perhaps for all the forces acting on ponderable matter” (Lorentz, 1909, p. 30). The ether is supposed to be at rest, and this determines an absolute inertial reference frame.
As there was no reason to expect that the earth is at rest with respect to the ether,[^6] the question arose as to how to describe electromagnetic phenomena in a moving frame. The calculation would go roughly as follows. Maxwell’s equations, assumed to hold in the frame where the ether is at rest, would be used to compute the electric and magnetic fields of moving electrons and matter. These fields would act back on charges and matter, and (partly at least) determine their configuration. It could be shown, in particular, that if all forces in moving matter shared the characteristics of electric and magnetic forces, the so-called Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction would naturally follow.[^7]
In this context, Lorentz and others were able to prove a rather remarkable result. Suppose we introduce spatial coordinates $\mathbf{r}'$ at rest in the moving frame, and define a “local time” $t'$ as $t' = t - (\mathbf{r}' \cdot \mathbf{w})/c^2$, where $\mathbf{w}$ is the velocity of the moving frame. Furthermore, introduce new electric and magnetic fields related to the old ones by what is now called a Lorentz transformation.[^8] Then the numerical values of the new fields coincide with values of the (old) fields that would be obtained from electrons and matter having a similar configuration in the frame where the ether is at rest. Moreover, the new fields and space-time coordinates satisfy Maxwell’s equations.
The above result was interpreted, by Lorentz and most generally by Poincaré, as showing that motion with respect to the ether is undetectable (Poincaré, 1905; Paty, 1993). Yet Lorentz and Poincaré never abandoned the ether, and Lorentz maintained that the local time is just a definition, the true time always referring to the rest frame of the ether.[^9] It was Einstein’s fundamental contribution to view the local time as the time genuinely measured in the moving frame, with no more and no less reality than the time measured in any other inertial frame. Suddenly the ether was seen as playing no useful role, and was eventually discarded.
Many now believe that Lorentz’s conception of (unobservable) true time and absolute rest, and Einstein’s notion of complete equivalence between inertial frames, are both logically consistent and in agreement with empirical results (Grünbaum, 1973; Bell, 1976). Yet in less than a decade, most people adopted Einstein’s views (Pais, 1982). The great simplicity of Einstein’s purely kinematical approach and the fact that it allowed complete freedom in the choice of the inertial frame where calculations would be made no doubt contributed to that decision.
It is important to realize, however, that the rejection of the ether has not left a void in its stead. From Maxwell’s quotation to Lorentz’s final views, we have seen that the ether was progressively deprived of much of its complicated mechanical attributes. There only remained something to define a preferred frame and transmit the electric and magnetic forces. But as the ether was discarded, the electromagnetic field acquired by itself an independent reality. For Einstein, this way of seeing the field was one of the most important consequences of the conceptual development leading to special relativity (Einstein, 1949; Paty, 1993).
Even before the full development of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, the electromagnetic field was generally considered as being real, as anything carrying energy and momentum is. The ether was discarded in its role as defining absolute time and absolute motion. The methodological choice, however, was not one between the ether and nothing, but one between the ether as sustaining the field and a self-sustaining field.
Bohmian trajectories and information
====================================
Bohmian trajectories and the ether are elements of two different theoretical structures. They present both analogies and differences. The analogy that is relevant here is that neither Bohmian trajectories in quantum mechanics nor the ether in special relativity lead to specific empirical consequences. Does that mean that the trajectories, or other interpretative devices, have in quantum mechanics the same status as the ether in special relativity? And if one can dispense with such devices, is there something which, like the field, plays the role they would otherwise have?
To examine these questions, it is appropriate to start with the following observation. Although all measurements are made by means of macroscopic apparatus, quantum mechanics is used, as an explanatory theory, in two different ways: it is meant to explain (i) nonclassical correlations between macroscopic objects and \[ultimately through quantum field theory\] (ii) the small-scale structure of macroscopic objects. That these two functions are distinct is shown by considering a hypothetical situation where only one of them is operating.[^10]
Consider a world which, as far as macroscopic objects are concerned, is very similar to our own. By this I mean that the laws of classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, and thermodynamics apply to these objects with at least as much generality as in our world. They may even apply better, in the sense that their scope may reach scales smaller than the $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-10}$ m characteristic of molecules and atoms in our world. I shall not, however, specify the microscopic structure of the hypothetical world, except for one restriction soon to be made.
In the hypothetical world, the macroscopic objects sometimes behave in ways that cannot be explained by the classical theories. In one class of situations, for instance, there are devices (much like our Geiger counters) that click when specific objects (like our radioactive materials) are brought nearby. We label the former $D$ and the latter $E$. Although the clicks are random, their probability distributions follow well-defined and reproducible laws. We assume that these laws coincide with the quantum-mechanical rules for the propagation of wave packets. If, for instance, there is some material between $E$ and $D$, the number and distribution of clicks are influenced just like the quantum-mechanical theory of scattering predicts.
To account for these correlations, one can envisage at least two very different explanatory schemes. In the first one, we postulate that $E$ emits “particles” that are detected by $D$ after possibly interacting with intervening objects. In the second one, we postulate that $D$ clicks in a way that is genuinely fortuitous (Ulfbeck & Bohr, 2001; Bohr, Mottelson, & Ulfbeck, 2004), the spatiotemporal probability distribution of the clicks, however, being dependent on the distribution of various types of nearby macroscopic objects.
Now I make the assumption (and this is the crucial way in which the hypothetical world differs from our own) that the “particles” used in one explanatory scheme to account for the macroscopic correlations have no function whatsoever in any attempt to explain the microscopic structure of macroscopic objects. That is, whether matter is discrete or continuous at microscopic scales, its small-scale constituents have nothing to do with whatever is responsible for the clicks described above.
How similar would the ether and the particles be, as explanatory devices, in this hypothetical world? Very much indeed. Neither would have predictive power not already contained in the alternative explanations provided by the principle of relativity, in one case, and probabilistic correlations, in the other. And both could be dispensed with in a rational and completely articulated account of nature. Those who would keep the ether might do so because of some prejudice in favour of absolute simultaneity or motion. Those who would keep the particles might be influenced by the greater or smaller number and types of them necessary to explain the phenomena, or might find such contact interactions more palatable.
Let us now leave the hypothetical world and turn to the actual world, the one we live in. Here quantum mechanics is also used to explain the ultimate structure of macroscopic objects. Moreover, it does so with the same mathematical tools as the ones it uses to account for the correlations described above. That is, the state spaces and parameters associated with the “particles” are also the ones (or at least part of the ones) associated with the building blocks of macroscopic objects.
In this context, what is the function of Bohmian trajectories (or, for that matter, of other interpretative schemes of quantum mechanics)? They provide us with one clear way that the particles can behave so as to reproduce the quantum-mechanical rules and, therefore, the observable behaviour of macroscopic objects.[^11] Although they could be dispensed with in the hypothetical world, they cannot in the real world unless, just like the ether was replaced by the field, they are replaced by something that can account for the structure of macroscopic objects.
It has been argued that the emergence of the notion of an autonomous field, connected with the development of special relativity, has a parallel in the emergence of the concept of information in the context of quantum mechanics. The motivation for this is an important result recently obtained by Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson (2003; Halvorson, 2004). Working in the setting of $C^*$-algebras, these investigators characterized the quantum theory by three properties: (i) kinematic independence, i.e. the commutativity of the algebras of observables pertaining to distinct physical systems; (ii) the noncommutativity of an individual system’s algebra of observables; and (iii) nonlocality, i.e. the existence of entangled states for spacelike-separated systems. They then showed that these properties are equivalent to three information-theoretic constraints, namely, the impossibility of superluminal information transfer, of perfect broadcasting, and of unconditionally secure bit commitment.
Drawing on this result, Bub (2005) has proposed that quantum theory should be treated as “*a theory about the representation and manipulation of information*” (p. 557), where quantum information is “a new physical primitive not reducible to the behaviour of mechanical systems (the motion of particles and/or fields)” (p. 546). This, he argues, renders Bohmian trajectories no more useful in quantum mechanics than the ether is in special relativity (Bub, 2004, p. 262):
> \[J\]ust as Einstein’s analysis (based on the assumption that we live in a world in which natural processes are subject to certain constraints specified by the principles of special relativity) shows that we do not need the mechanical structures in Lorentz’s theory (the aether, and the behaviour of electrons in the aether) to explain electromagnetic phenomena, so the \[Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson\] analysis (based on the assumption that we live in a world in which there are certain constraints on the acquisition, representation, and communication of information) shows that we do not need the mechanical structures in Bohm’s theory (the guiding field, the behaviour of particles in the guiding field) to explain quantum phenomena.
To assess the validity of this claim, one should point out that there is a fundamental ontological difference between field and information. The electromagnetic field, in the framework of special relativity, is an autonomous entity that carries energy and momentum. Since Maxwell’s equations have solutions corresponding to vanishing charge and current densities, the field can exist, in principle, even in the complete absence of matter. This is not the case with information, not in the sense of Shannon at least. To exist, it needs some kind of material (or other) support. Whether in classical or quantum mechanics, information is a functional on states of objects. It does not live autonomously.
This means that information-theoretic considerations are relevant to the first explanatory function of quantum mechanics, the one that pertains to nonclassical correlations of macroscopic objects. But is information, as “a new physical primitive,” of any help in the second explanatory function, i.e. in accounting for the structure of macroscopic objects? It seems that no proponent of the epistemic view would go so far as suggesting that information is a fundamental building block of nature, something objects are made of. This is very much unlike the electromagnetic field, which at the turn of the twentieth century was thought to account for part or even for all the mass of charged particles (McCormmach, 1970). Hence the question about the relevance of information to the second explanatory function should be answered in the negative.[^12]
Discussion
==========
Several objections can be made to the claims that Bohmian trajectories and the ether fulfill distinct explanatory functions, and that information is not a fundamental entity. They must now be addressed.
I have argued that quantum mechanics is used to explain both (i) the nonclassical correlations between macroscopic objects and (ii) the small-scale structure of macroscopic objects. But are these two functions really different? Suppose, for instance, that we use the quantum theory to explain properties of a macroscopic crystal, such as its elasticity or heat capacity. We should then make hypotheses on, among other things, the atomic structure of the lattice and the quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian. But none of these hypotheses can be tested directly. They are tested indirectly through their consequences on macroscopic parameters such as elasticity constants or heat capacity. And the values of these parameters are measured through correlations established between experimental preparations and results displayed by macroscopic pointers.
This is also the case with molecular properties. Suppose that chemical analysis has revealed that a given substance is chemically pure, so that we ascribe its constitution to one type of molecule only. Properties of the substance, such as its visible or infrared absorption, can then be explained by applying the quantum theory to the electrons and nuclei making up the molecule. But again, none of this can be tested directly. Absorption frequencies, in the end, show up as readings on some macroscopic device, and the whole experimental protocol reduces to correlations between macroscopic preparations and macroscopic measurements.
I should readily admit that the empirical consequences of both types of explanation provided by quantum mechanics are of the same nature. But the explanations themselves are very different epistemologically, as was illustrated in the last section by the example of the hypothetical world. The explanation given of the structure of macroscopic objects, in terms of atomic or subatomic constituents obeying the laws of quantum mechanics, essentially answers the question, What happens when objects are repeatedly split? That question seems unavoidable in a complete understanding of macroscopic objects.
In advocating the rejection of hidden variable theories, Bub (2005, p. 557) argues that
> our measuring instruments *ultimately remain black boxes* at some level. That is, a quantum description will have to introduce a “cut” between what we take to be the ultimate measuring instrument in a given measurement process and the quantum phenomenon revealed by the instrument, which means that the measuring instrument is treated simply as a probabilistic source of a range of labelled events or “outcomes”\[.\]
As the phrase “at some level” indicates, our measuring instruments are not total black boxes. Indeed we can go a long way explaining the properties of their parts on the basis of atomic structure. Should one argue that the atomic structure is not to be taken literally, he should be prepared to specify at what scale ought the analysis of matter stop, or the reality of objects dissolve.[^13]
This brings us to a somewhat different objection to the claims being made here. What if the structure of matter did not require explanation, or at least could be accounted for by a very different type of explanation than the one we are used to? It is well known that in the history of science, criteria for what requires explanation, or what counts as a valid explanation, have often changed (Klein, 1972; Gardner, 1979; Cushing, 1990). Gravitation through action at a distance, considered impossible within the seventeenth-century mechanistic worldview, became less and less problematic in the eighteenth century (McMullin, 1989). Indeed the Laplacian school tried to account for all terrestrial phenomena on the basis of central forces which, though either attractive or repulsive, were modeled on gravitation. By then such forces were considered mechanical (Fox, 1974). In the late nineteenth century, mechanical explanations were challenged both by energetics (Ostwald, 1895) and by the electromagnetic view of matter (McCormmach, 1970).
Yet it seems that in all these instances, answers were given to the question, What are objects made of? They could be made of point particles acting on each other (partly at least) without intermediaries. Or else they could be made of energy, or of electromagnetic fields. But again, information is not on a par with such potential constituents. Objects are not made of information.
Few people would go as far as advocating that the small-scale structure of macroscopic objects simply does not require explanation. Yet something close to this might be entailed by the idea of *genuine fortuitousness*. The idea “implies that the basic event, a click in a counter, comes without any cause and thus as a discontinuity in spacetime” (Bohr, Mottelson, & Ulfbeck, 2004, p. 405). Indeed
> \[i\]t is a hallmark of the theory based on genuine fortuitousness that it does not admit physical variables. It is, therefore, of a novel kind that does not deal with things (objects in space), or measurements, and may be referred to as the theory of no things. (p. 410)
Genuine fortuitousness, it turns out, could pretty well fulfill the first explanatory function of quantum mechanics, the one concerned with nonclassical correlations of macroscopic objects. Indeed it would be quite unobjectionable, as an explanation of these correlations, in the hypothetical world I have described in Sec. 4. But it fails to fulfill the second explanatory function of quantum mechanics. When its proponents claim to eliminate atoms or elementary particles, they seem always to have in mind their alleged role in producing a click or an ionisation track, rather than their role in accounting for the structure of matter. In fact they cannot help contemplating the structure of macroscopic counters, when for instance they point out that “the click involves such an immense number of degrees of freedom that two clicks are never identical” (Ulfbeck and Bohr, 2001, p. 761). One can immediately ask, How many degrees of freedom are there? What objects do they characterize? Are these objects irreducible? And so on.
To sum up, neither the ether nor Bohmian trajectories have specific empirical consequences. Yet in addition to defining a reference frame where simultaneity would be absolute, the ether functioned as a kind of support for electromagnetic phenomena. That role was transferred to the field when the ether was discarded with the advent of special relativity. Bohmian trajectories, or other interpretative schemes of quantum mechanics, try to make the basic variables of the theory, in terms of which the structure of macroscopic objects is ultimately explained, intelligible. This role, I have argued, cannot be dispensed with.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank Pierre Gravel, Karl Hess, and Pierre Mathieu for comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to several anonymous referees whose comments contributed in sharpening the ideas presented in this paper.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Bell, J. S. (1976). How to teach special relativity. Reprinted in J. S. Bell, *Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics* (pp. 67–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1987).
Bennett, C. H., & Brassard, G. (1984). Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computers, systems and signal processing* (pp. 175–179). New York: IEEE.
Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables (I and II). *Physical Review, 85*, 166–193.
Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). *The undivided universe*. London: Routledge.
Bohr, A., Mottelson, B. R., & Ulfbeck, O. (2004). The principle underlying quantum mechanics. *Foundations of Physics, 34*, 405–417.
Brown, H. R. (2001). The origins of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald-Lorentz deformation hypothesis. *American Journal of Physics, 69*, 1044–1054.
Brown, H. R., & Wallace. D. (2005). Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm loses out to Everett. *Foundations of Physics, 35*, 517–540.
Bub, J. (2004). Why the quantum? *Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35*, 241–266.
Bub, J. (2005). Quantum mechanics is about quantum information. *Foundations of Physics, 35*, 541–560.
Clifton, R., Bub, J., & Halvorson, H. (2003). Characterizing quantum theory in terms of information-theoretic constraints. *Foundations of Physics, 33*, 1561–1591.
Cushing, J. T. (1990). *Theory construction and selection in modern physics. The S Matrix*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cushing, J. T. (1998). *Philosophical concepts in physics*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darrigol, O. (2000). *Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeWitt, B. S. (1970). Quantum mechanics and reality. *Physics Today, 23*(9), 30–35.
Einstein, A. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Translated in *The theory of relativity* (pp. 35–65). New York: Dover (1952).
Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), *Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist* (pp. 1–95). La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Everett, H. (1957). ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. *Reviews of Modern Physics, 29*, 454–462.
Fox, R. (1974). The rise and fall of Laplacian physics. *Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 4*, 89–136.
Fuchs, C. A. (2002). Quantum mechanics as quantum information (and only a little more). In A. Khrennikov (Ed.), *Quantum theory: reconsideration of foundations* (pp. 463–543). Växjö, Sweden: Växjö University Press. Also available as quant-ph/0205039.
Fuchs, C. A., & Peres, A. (2000). Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’. *Physics Today, 53*(3), 70–71.
Gardner, M. R. (1979). Realism and instrumentalism in 19th-century atomism. *Philosophy of Science, 46*, 1–34.
Grünbaum, A. (1973). *Philosophical problems of space and time* (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Halvorson, H. (2004). Remote preparation of arbitrary ensembles and quantum bit commitment. quant-ph/0310001.
Holland, P. R. (1993). *The quantum theory of motion*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, M. J. (1972). Mechanical explanation at the end of the nineteenth century. *Centaurus, 17*, 58–82.
Leggett, A. J. (2002). Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: motivation, state of play, prospects. *Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 14*, R415–R451.
Lorentz, H. A. (1909). *The theory of electrons*. Mineola, NY: Dover (Reprint published 2003).
Marchildon, L. (2004). Why should we interpret quantum mechanics? *Foundations of Physics, 34*, 1453–1466.
Maudlin, T. (1994). *Quantum non-locality and relativity*. Oxford: Blackwell.
Maxwell, J. C. (1873). *A treatise on electricity and magnetism, Vols. 1 & 2*. New York: Dover (Reprint published 1954).
McCormmach, R. (1970). H. A. Lorentz and the electromagnetic view of nature. *Isis, 61*, 459–497.
McMullin, E. (1989). The explanation of distant action: historical notes. In J. T. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), *Philosophical consequences of quantum theory* (pp. 272–302). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ostwald, F. W. (1895). Emancipation from scientific materialism. Translated in M. J. Nye (Ed.), *The question of the atom* (pp. 337–354). Los Angeles: Tomash/American Institute of Physics (1984).
Pais, A. (1982). *‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The science and the life of Albert Einstein*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paty, M. (1993). *Einstein philosophe*. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Poincaré, H. (1898). La mesure du temps. Translated in *The value of science* (Chap. 2). New York: Dover (1958).
Poincaré, H. (1905). Sur la dynamique de l’électron. Reprinted in *Oeuvres de Henri Poincaré, Vol. 9* (pp. 494–550). Paris: Gauthier-Villars (1950–65).
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. *International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35*, 1637–1678.
Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In *Proceedings of the 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science* (pp. 124–134). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
t Hooft, G. (1999). Quantum gravity as a dissipative deterministic system. *Classical and Quantum Gravity, 16*, 3263–79.
Timpson, C. G. (2004). Quantum information theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Oxford University thesis. quant-ph/0412063.
Tumulka, R. (2004). Understanding Bohmian mechanics: a dialogue. *American Journal of Physics, 72*, 1220–1226.
Ulfbeck, O., & Bohr, A. (2001). Genuine fortuitousness. Where did that click come from? *Foundations of Physics, 31*, 757–774.
Vandersypen, L. M. K., Steffen, M., Breyta, G., Yannoni, C. S., Sherwood, M. H., & Chuang, I. L. (2001). Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance. *Nature, 414*, 883–887.
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1991). *Quantum mechanics: an empiricist view*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vermaas, P. E. (1999). *A philosopher’s understanding of quantum mechanics. Possibilities and impossibilities of a modal interpretation*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Von Neumann, J. (1932). *Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics*. Princeton: Princeton University Press (Translation published 1955).
Wallace, D. (2003). Everett and structure. *Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34*, 87–105.
Whittaker, E. T. (1951). *A history of the theories of aether and electricity. I. The classical theories*. Los Angeles: Tomash/American Institute of Physics (Reprint published 1987).
Zurek, W. H. (1991). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical. *Physics Today, 44*(10), 36–44.
[^1]: Of course the chronology of added constructs is reversed in the two episodes. Ether theories predated special relativity, whereas Bohmian trajectories came after the Hilbert space formalism. Cushing (1998) has argued that history could plausibly have been reversed in the latter episode.
[^2]: See Tumulka (2004) and Brown and Wallace (2005) for two different recent assessments of Bohmian mechanics.
[^3]: Von Neumann really writes that the pure state density matrix transforms into a mixture, but for a given quantum system, only one component of the mixture obtains.
[^4]: Maudlin (1994) gives a detailed argument why the introduction of a preferred frame may be the more rational choice to make in a quantum-mechanical theory.
[^5]: Lorentz does not commit himself on whether all matter is made of electric charges, nor on whether all mass has an electromagnetic origin.
[^6]: Everyone realized that if the earth is at rest in the ether now, it should not be in a few months, due to its orbital velocity around the sun. Unless perhaps the ether is dragged along the motion, but this causes numerous other problems.
[^7]: Brown (2001) points out that a simple contraction is not the only deformation that can account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, a fact which Lorentz, and probably FitzGerald, fully realized.
[^8]: The argument was first made with terms of first order in $w/c$, and then more generally.
[^9]: Poincaré (1898) saw the conventional character of the simultaneity of distant events. Later he recognized that clocks synchronized by means of light signals mark the local time, which however he contrasted with the true time (Pais, 1982, Chap. 6).
[^10]: More about the world described in the following paragraphs can be found in Marchildon (2004), where it was introduced in terms of slightly different experimental instruments.
[^11]: Indeed from a Bohmian perspective, the trajectories are just the kind of variables that show up in a measurement, in sharp contrast with the ether in electromagnetic theories.
[^12]: Timpson (2004) has provided an in-depth analysis of the Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson result. He first investigated the extent to which the no bit-commitment constraint is needed in characterizing quantum mechanics in the framework of $C^*$-algebras. He then examined the relevance and generality of that formalism. Closer to the aim of the present paper, he next enquired whether viewing quantum mechanics as a theory about the manipulation of information can constitute an interpretation in an interesting sense. Based on a distinction between the technical and everyday senses of information, and on the observation that “in both settings ‘information’ functions as an abstract noun, hence does not refer to a particular or substance,” his answer is largely negative.
[^13]: This, by the way, is related to the reason why the epistemic view, *even on its own terms*, won’t solve the measurement problem. The epistemic view is concerned with probabilities of results of eventual macroscopic measurements. But it is not prepared to precisely specify what a macroscopic apparatus is. It won’t tell us, for instance, just how small an apparatus can be. To the credit of its proponents, none (as far as I know) has proposed a purely arbitrary criterion like “an apparatus must have a mass greater than .” But are there really any others?
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Fisher’s phenomenological renormalization method is used to calculate the mass gap and the correlation length of the $O(N)$ nonlinear $\sigma$ model on a semi-compact space ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$. This shows that the ultraviolet momentum cut-off does not conflict with the infrared cut-off along the $S^{1}$ direction. The mass gap on ${S^{2}\times{\bf R}^{1}}$ is also discussed.'
author:
- |
Akira FUJII [^1]\
[*Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics,*]{}\
[*Kyoto University,*]{}\
[*Kyoto 606-01, Japan.*]{}
date: 'August 3, 1994'
title: |
[YITP-K-1082]{}
Finite-size Analysis of $O(N)$ Nonlinear $\sigma$ Model on Semi-compact Spaces
---
=0truecm =0truecm
The $O(N)$ nonlinear $\sigma$ (NL$\sigma$) model on a semi-compact space ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$ has been intensively studied recently in the context of two-dimensional quantum spin systems[@spin] and in researching the critical phenomena in three dimensions[@fujii][@rajeev]. The calculation of the partition functions and correlation length (or mass gap) is done with the ultraviolet (UV) momentum cut-off in the ${\bf R}^{2}$ direction and usually without any UV momentum cut-off along the $S^{1}$ direction being imposed[@spin][@sachdev]. This procedure is quite natural in the view of the imaginary time path integral method, which discritizes only the spatial coordinates and leaves the temporal one continuous. However, this scheme might conflict with the infrared (IR) cut-off along the $S^{1}$ direction because of its unrenormalizability.
In this paper, we consider the gap equation on the lattice and make use of Fisher’s phenomenological renormalization (PR) method[@bresin][@fisher] to clarify the above point. The Pr method is a renormalization method in the real space based on a hypothesis of the pseudo-scale invariance for large but finite systems. In this scheme, we have the advantage that the UV cut-off does not appear explicitly. In terms of the PR method, the correlation length can be calculated exactly on $S^{1}\times S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{1}$ or $S^{1}\times
S^{1}\times S^{1}$[@bresin]. We apply the PR method to the $O(N)$ NL$\sigma$ model on ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$ and ${S^{2}\times{\bf R}^{1}}$. These PR procedures reproduce the mass-gap obtained previously in the cut-off regularization[@spin]. Therefore, we consider that the UV cut-off regularization does not conflict with the IR cut-off along the $S^{1}$ or $S^{2}$ direction. Of course, it is widely believed that the physical quantities can be calculated independently of the regularization in renormalizable systems. Our results are consistent with this intuition despite its unrenormalizablilty in the ordinary meaning.
We consider the $O(N)$ NL$\sigma$ model on a semi-compact space ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$ with the radius of $S^{1}$, $L$. The partition function is given by $$Z=\int D{\vec{n}}(x)
\exp\left(-{N\over 2g}\int_{{S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}}d^{3}x({\partial_{\mu}}{\vec{n}}(x))^{2}\right),$$ where ${\vec{n}}(x)$ is an $N$-dimensional vector field normalized to $({\vec{n}}(x))^{2}=1$. This model is believed to describe the long range behavior of the two-dimensional antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model as $$H=J\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{S}_{j},$$ with large spin $S$ at finite temperature. We now follow the PR method. To begin with we solve the constraint $({\vec{n}}(x))^{2}=1$ by means of the auxiliary field as $$\begin{aligned}
Z&=&\int D{\vec{n}}(x)D\mu(x)\exp\left(-{N\over 2g}\int_{{S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}}d^{3}x
{\mbox{[}}({\partial_{\mu}}{\vec{n}}(x))^{2}
+\mu(x)(({\vec{n}}(x))^{2}-1){\mbox{]}}\right), {\nonumber}\\
&=&\int D\mu(x)\exp(-(N/2)S_{\it eff}), \label{effective}\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$S_{\it eff}=-{{1 \over {g}}}\int_{{S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}}d^{3}x\mu(x)+\log\det(-\partial^{2}+\mu(x)).$$ We consider the large $N$ limit, which enables us to make use of the saddle point method[@arefeva]. If we impose the periodic boundary condition in the direction of $S^{1}$, the gap equation on ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$ with lattice regularization is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{1 \over {g}}}&=&{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{{1 \over {\xi_{L}^{-2}+2\sum_{\mu=0}^{2}(1-\cos q_{\mu})}}}
\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}(2\pi)\delta\left(q_{0}-{2\pi\over L}n\right) {\nonumber}\\
&=&{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{{1 \over {\xi_{L}^{-2}+2\sum_{\mu=0}^{2}(1-\cos q_{\mu})}}}
\sum_{n\in{\bf Z}}e^{iq_{0}nL}, \label{anten}\end{aligned}$$ where we apply Poisson’s summation formula and $\xi_{L}=({\langle{\mu(x)}\rangle})^{-1/2}$ is denoted as the correlation length in ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$, which is a function of $L$ and $g$. We put $\xi_{\infty}=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\xi_{L}$, which is divergent when the coupling constant $g$ corresponds to the critical value $g_{c}$. Here we denote $g_{c}$ as the UV fixed point of the renormalization group. If we subtract the equation (\[anten\]) for $\xi_{\infty}$ from that for $\xi_{L}$, the difference gives $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\xi_{\infty}^{-2}-\xi_{L}^{-2}){\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{{1 \over {\xi_{\infty}^{-2}+2\sum_{\mu=0}^{2}(1-\cos q_{\mu})}}}
{{1 \over {\xi_{L}^{-2}+2\sum_{\mu=0}^{2}(1-\cos q_{\mu})}}}{\nonumber}\\
&&{\quad\quad\quad\quad}+{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}\sum_{n\neq0}
{e^{iq_{0}nL}\over\xi_{L}^{-2}+2\sum_{\mu=0}^{2}(1-\cos q_{\mu})}=0.\end{aligned}$$ If we choose the coupling constant $g$ to be close to the critical value $g_{c}$, we can replace the propagator $1/(\xi_{L}^{-2}+\sum(1-\cos q_{\mu}))$ by $1/(\xi_{L}^{-2}+q^{2})$ and expand the momentum region ${\mbox{[}}-\pi,\pi{\mbox{]}}$ to $(-\infty,\infty)$. Therefore the first term can be further simplified as $$(\xi_{\infty}^{-2}-\xi_{L}^{-2})
{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{{1 \over {\xi_{\infty}^{-2}+q^{2}}}}{{1 \over {\xi_{L}^{-2}+q^{2}}}}=
(\xi_{\infty}^{-2}-\xi_{L}^{-2}){\Gamma(1/2)\over (4\pi)^{3/2}}
\int^{1}_{0}{dt\over(t\xi_{L}^{-2}+(1-t)\xi_{\infty}^{-2})^{1/2}}.$$ The second term can be also simplified as $$\sum_{n\neq 0}{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{e^{iq_{0}nL}\over\xi_{L}^{-2}+q^2}=
{{1 \over {L}}}\int^{\infty}_{0}dte^{-t(L/\xi_{L})^{2}}u(t),$$ where we put $u(t)=\sum_{n\neq 0}e^{-n^2/4t}/(4\pi t)^{3/2}$. Therefore, the gap equation is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[ \left({L\over\xi_{\infty}}\right)^{2}-
\left({L\over\xi_{L}}\right)^{2}\right]
\left({\xi_{L}\over L}\right)
{\Gamma(1/2)\over (4\pi)^{3/2}}
\int^{1}_{0}dt{{1 \over {\sqrt{(t(\xi_{L}/\xi_{\infty})+(1-t))}}}}
{\nonumber}\\ && {\quad\quad\quad\quad}+\int^{\infty}_{0}dte^{-t(L/\xi_{L})^{2}}u(t)=0.\end{aligned}$$ If we choose the coupling constant $g$ to be the critical value $g_{c}$, the correlation length in ${\bf R}^{3}$ becomes infinite and the gap equation simplifies to $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{(\xi_{L}/L)\over n}e^{-n/(\xi_{L}/L)}=
-{\xi_{L}\over L}\log (1-e^{-L/\xi_{L}})=
{{1\over 2}},$$ which reproduces the mass gap obtained in Ref.[@spin] as $$\xi_{L}/L=1/(2\log{\sqrt{5}+1\over 2}).$$ From this mass gap, the finite size correction can be calculated as $$F_{L}-F_{\infty}={4N\over 5}{\zeta(3)\over L^{3}},$$ making use of the addition formula of Roger’s polylogarithmic function[@sachdev].
We can also calculate the correlation length in this PR procedure as follows.
The UV stable critical coupling constant $g_{c}$ in ${\bf R}^{3}$ is given by $${{1 \over {g_{c}}}}=\int_{{\bf R}^{3}}{d^{3}q\over (2\pi)^{3}}{{1 \over {q^{2}}}}. \label{gc}$$ If we subtract Eq. (\[gc\]) from Eq. (\[anten\]), we obtain the equation $$\begin{aligned}
{{1 \over {g}}}-{{1 \over {g_{c}}}}&=&-{{1 \over {\xi_{L}^{2}}}}
{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{{1 \over {q^{2}}}}{{1 \over {\xi_{L}^{-2}+q^{2}}}}+
2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\int{d^{3}q \over (2\pi)^3}}{e^{iq_{0}nL}\over \xi_{L}^{-2}+q^{2}}, {\nonumber}\\
&=&-{{1 \over {4\pi\xi_{L}}}}-{{1 \over {2\pi L}}}\log (1-e^{-L/\xi_{L}}), \label{corr}\end{aligned}$$ which determines the correlation length $\xi_{L}$ on ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$. We solve Eq.(\[corr\]) in two regions of the coupling constant $g$ in the large $L$ ([*i.e.*]{} low temperature) limit. First, we consider the region $g\ll g_{c}$, which is called the [*renormalized classical region*]{} in Ref.[@spin]. In this region, the correlation length is given by $$\xi_{L}=L\exp\left(2\pi L\left({{1 \over {g}}}-{{1 \over {g_{c}}}}\right)\right).$$
Second we consider the region $g\gg g_{c}$, which is called the [*quantum disordered region*]{} in Ref.[@spin]. In this region, the solution of Eq. (\[corr\]) is $$\xi_{L}^{-1}={2\pi\over g_{c}}\left(1-{g_{c}\over g}\right),$$ which is independent of the size of $S^{1}$, $L$. These expressions for the correlation lengths in the two regions correspond to those obtained by the momentum cut-off method[@spin].
From the above calculations, we can see that the UV momentum cut-off procedure does not conflict with the IR cut-off $L$ in the case of the $O(N)$ NL$\sigma$ model on $S^{1} \times {\bf R}^{2}$.
Furthermore, we can discuss the dependence of the correlation length in $S^{2} \times {\bf R}$, with $R$, which is the radius of $S^{2}$. In this case, denoting the correlation length with the radius $R$ as $\xi_{R}$, the gap equation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{1 \over {g}}}&=&{{1 \over {4\pi R^{2}}}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
{2n+1\over \xi_{R}^{-2}+p^{2}+n(n+1)/R^{2}} {\nonumber}\\
&=&\int{d^{3}\vec{p}\over (2\pi)^{3}}{{1 \over {(\xi_{R}^{-2}-{{1 \over {4R^{2}}}})
+\vec{p}^{2}}}}
+2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-)^{n}\int{d^{3}\vec{p}\over (2\pi)^{3}}
{{1 \over {(\xi_{R}^{-2}-{{1 \over {4R^{2}}}})+\vec{p}^{2}}}}
\cos(2\pi Rn|{\bf p}_{\perp}|). {\nonumber}\\
&& \label{s2r1}\end{aligned}$$ Here we make a use of Poisson’s summation formula again and denote the three-dimensional vector $\vec{p}=({\bf p}_{\perp},p)$. In a similar manner to the case of ${S^{1}\times{\bf R}^{2}}$, we subtract Eq. (\[s2r1\]) for $R=\infty$ from that for finite $R$. If we put the coupling constant $g$ at the critical value $g_{c}$, the difference gives $$-{m\over 4\pi}+2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int {d^{3}\vec{p}\over (2\pi)^{3}}
{{1 \over {{\vec p}^{2}+m^{2}}}}(-)^{n}\cos(2\pi Rn|{\bf p}_{\perp}|)=0, \label{r2s1c}$$ where we put $m^{2}=\xi_{R}^{-2}-(1/4R^{2})$. The solution of Eq.(\[r2s1c\]) is [@fujii] $$m=0 \quad\quad\quad i.e. \quad \xi_{R}=2R, \label{gaps2r1}$$ which is consistent with the expected value of the conformal coupling in the three-dimensional space[@cardy]. The conformally invariant free scalar theory in a three-dimensional space ${\it M}$ is given by $$S={{1\over 2}}\int_{\it M}{\mbox{[}}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi+
\eta R^{(2)}\phi^{2}
{\mbox{]}}\sqrt{g}d^{3}x,$$ where $\eta=1/8$ and $R^{(2)}$ is the scalar curvature of $M$. If $M=S^{2} \times {\bf R}$, the conformal coupling takes the value of $\eta
R^{(2)}=1/2R$, which corresponds to the obtained value of $\xi_{R}^{-1}$ in Eq. (\[gaps2r1\]). Therefore with the coupling constant $g_{c}$, the $O(N)$ NL$\sigma$ model is conformally invariant on $S^{2} \times {\bf R}$.
Even though we do not have the exact form of the correlation length on $S^{2}\times S^{1}$, even with the critical coupling constant $g_{c}$, we expect that the UV cut-off regularization method does not conflict with the IR cut-off in this case either, and therefore that the UV cut-off regularization is available for $S^{2} \times S^{1}$. [**Acknowledgment**]{} The author would like to acknowledge Professors Hikaru Kawai and Hisashi Yamamoto for useful comments. He also thanks Dr. Michael Gagen for reading the manuscript.
[99]{} D. R. Nelson and R. A. Pelcovits, Phys. Rev. [**B16**]{} (1977) 2191; S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. [**B39**]{} (1989) 2344; T.Yanagisawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{} (1992) 1026; A. H. Castro Neto and E. Fradkin, Nucl. Phys. [**B400**]{} (1993) 525. A. Fujii and T.Inami, Kyoto Univ. preprint YITP-K-1053 (1994). S. Guruswamy, S. G. Rajeev and P. Vitale, Univ. Rochester preprint UR-1357 (1994). S. Sachdev, Phys. Lett. [**B309**]{} (1993) 285. E. Br[' e]{}zin, J. Physique [**43**]{}(1982) 15. M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**28**]{} (1972) 1516; M. P. Nightingale, Physica [**83A**]{} (1976) 561. E. Br[' e]{}zin and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. [**B14**]{} (1976) 3110; I. Ya. Aref’eva, Ann. Phys. [**117**]{} (1979) 393 and references therein; R. Abe and S. Hikami, Prog. Theo. Phys. [**57**]{} (1977) 1932; A. M. Polyakov, [*Gauge Fields and Strings*]{} (Harwood, Chur, 1987). J. L. Cardy, J. Phys. [**A18**]{} (1985) L757.
[^1]: e-mail address: [[email protected]]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, a distributed average tracking problem is studied for Lipschitz-type nonlinear dynamical systems. The objective is to design distributed average tracking algorithms for locally interactive agents to track the average of multiple reference signals. Here, in both the agents’ and the reference signals’ dynamics, there is a nonlinear term satisfying the Lipschitz-type condition. Three types of distributed average tracking algorithms are designed. First, based on state-dependent-gain designing approaches, a robust distributed average tracking algorithm is developed to solve distributed average tracking problems without requiring the same initial condition. Second, by using a gain adaption scheme, an adaptive distributed average tracking algorithm is proposed in this paper to remove the requirement that the Lipschitz constant is known for agents. Third, to reduce chattering and make the algorithms easier to implement, a continuous distributed average tracking algorithm based on a time-varying boundary layer is further designed as a continuous approximation of the previous discontinuous distributed average tracking algorithms.'
address: 'School of Automation, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an Shaanxi, 710129, China'
author:
- Yu Zhao
- Yongfang Liu
title: 'Distributed Average Tracking for Lipschitz-Type Nonlinear Dynamical Systems'
---
,
,
Distributed average tracking, nonlinear dynamics, adaptive algorithm, continuous algorithm.
Introduction
============
[In the past two decades, there [have]{} been lots of interests in the distributed cooperative control [@OlfatiSaber1], [@Ren:07], [@Hong:08], [@Cao:12], [@Litac], [@Tuna:2008], [@Zhang:11], [@Liu:15], [@Liu:16], [@Zhao:16], [@Zhao:15], [@Zhao:15scl], and [@Ji], for multi-agent systems due to its [potential]{} applications in formation flying, path planning and so forth. Distributed average tracking, as a generalization of consensus and cooperative tracking [problems]{}, has received increasing attentions and been applied in many different perspectives, such as distributed sensor networks [@Spanos2], [@Bai2011] and distributed coordination [@Yang], [@Sun]. For practical applications, distributed average tracking should be investigated for signals modeled by more and more complex dynamical systems.]{}
The objective of distributed average tracking problems is to design a distributed algorithm for multi-agent systems to track the average of multiple reference signals. The motivation of this problem comes from the coordinated tracking for multiple camera systems. Spurred by the pioneering works in [@Spanos1], and [@Freeman] on the distributed average tracking via linear algorithms, [ real applications of related results can be found]{} in distributed sensor fusion [@Spanos2], [@Bai2011], and formation control [@Yang]. In [@Bai], distributed average tracking problems were investigated by considering the robustness to initial errors in algorithms. The above-mentioned results are important for scientific researchers to build up a general framework to investigate this topic. [However, a common assumption in the above works is that the multiple reference signals are constants [@Freeman] or achieving to values [@Spanos1].]{} In practical applications, reference signals may be produced by more general dynamics. [For this reason,]{} a class of nonlinear algorithms were designed in [@Nosrati:12] to track multiple reference signals with bounded deviations. Then, based on non-smooth control [approaches]{}, a couple of distributed algorithms were proposed in [@Chengfei:12] and [@Chengfei:13] for agents to track arbitrary time-varying reference signals with bounded [deviations]{} and [bounded second deviations]{}, respectively. Using discontinuous algorithms, further, [@Zhaoyuicca] studied the distributed average tracking problems for multiple signals generated by linear dynamics.
Motivated by the above mentioned observations, this paper is devoted to solving the distributed average tracking problem for Lipschitz-type nonlinear dynamical systems. Three DAT algorithms are proposed in this paper. First of all, based on relative states of neighboring agents, a class of distributed discontinuous DAT algorithms are proposed with robustness to initial conditions. [Then, a novel class of distributed algorithms with adaptive coupling strengths are designed by utilizing an adaptive control technique.]{} [Different from [@Chengfei:12], [@Chengfei:13] and [@Zhaoyuicca]]{}, the proposed algorithms are based on node adaptive lows. Further, a class of continuous algorithms are given to reduce chattering. [Compared with the above existing results, the contributions of this paper are three-fold. First, main results of this paper extend the dynamics of the reference signals and agents from linear systems [@Chengfei:12] and [@Chengfei:13] to nonlinear systems, which can describe more complex dynamics. Second, by using adaptive control approaches, the requirements of all global information [are]{} removed, which greatly reduce the computational complexity for large-scale networks. Third, compared with existing results in [@Zhaoyuicca], new continuous algorithms are redesigned via the boundary layer concept to reduce [ the ]{} chattering phenomenon. Continuous algorithms in this paper is more appropriate for real engineering applications.]{}
*Notations*: Let $R^n$ and $R^{n\times n}$ be sets of real numbers and real matrices, respectively. $I_n$ represents the identity matrix of dimension $n$. Denote by $\mathbf{1}$ a column vector with all entries equal to one. The matrix inequality $A> (\geq) B$ means that $A-B$ is positive (semi-) definite. Denote by $A\otimes B$ the Kronecker product of matrices $A$ and $B$. For a vector $x=(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)^T\in R^n$, let $\|x\|$ denote the 2-norm of $x$, $h(x)=\frac{x}{\|x\|}$, $h_\varepsilon(x)=\frac{x}{\|x\|+\varepsilon e^{-ct}}$. For a set $V$, $|V|$ represents the number of elements in $V$.
Preliminaries
=============
Graph Theory
------------
An undirected (simple) graph $\mathcal{G}$ is specified by a vertex set $\mathcal{V}$ and an edge set $\mathcal{E}$ whose elements characterize the incidence relations between distinct pairs of $\mathcal{V}$. The notation $i\sim j$ is used to denote that node $i$ is connected to node $j$, or equivalently, $(i, j)\in \mathcal{E}$. We make use of the $|\mathcal{V}|\times|\mathcal{E}|$ incidence matrix, $D(\mathcal{G})$, for a graph with an arbitrary orientation, i.e., a graph whose edges have a head (a terminal node) and a tail (an initial node). The columns of $D(\mathcal{G})$ are then indexed by the edge set, and the $i$th row entry takes the value $1$ if it is the initial node of the corresponding edge, $-1$ if it is the terminal node, and zero otherwise. The diagonal matrix $\Delta(\mathcal{G})$ of the graph contains the degree of each vertex on its diagonal. The adjacency matrix, $A(\mathcal{G})$, is the $|\mathcal{V}|\times|\mathcal{V}|$ symmetric matrix with zero in the diagonal and one in the $(i,j)$th position if node $i$ is adjacent to node $j$. The graph Laplacian [@GraphTheory] of $\mathcal{G}$, $L:= {\frac{1}{2}}D(\mathcal{G})D(\mathcal{G})^T=\Delta(\mathcal{G})-A(\mathcal{G})$, is a rank deficient positive semi-definite matrix. An undirected path between node $i_1$ and node $i_s$ on undirected graph means a sequence of ordered undirected edges with the form $(i_k; i_{k+1}), k = 1, \cdots, s-1$. A graph $\mathcal{G}$ is said to be connected if there exists a path between each pair of distinct nodes.
\[ass\] Graph $\mathcal{G}$ is undirected and connected.
\[lemma1\][@GraphTheory] Under Assumption \[ass\], zero is a simple eigenvalue of $L$ with $\mathbf{1}$ as an eigenvector and all the other eigenvalues are positive. Moreover, the smallest nonzero eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ of L satisfies $\lambda_2=\min\limits_{ x\neq 0, \mathbf{1}^Tx=0 } \frac{x^TLx}{x^Tx}$.
Main results
============
Robust distributed average tracking algorithms design
-----------------------------------------------------
Consider a multi-agent system consisting of $N$ physical agents described by the following nonlinear dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
\label{agent}
\dot{x}_i(t)=Ax_i(t)+Bf(x_i,t)+Bu_i,\end{aligned}$$ where $A\in R^{n\times n}$ and $B\in R^{n\times p}$ both are constant matrices with compatible dimensions, $x_i(t)\in R^{n}$ and $u_i(t)\in R^{p}$ is the state and control input of the $i$th agent, respectively, and $f: R^{n}\times R^+\to R^{p}$ is a nonlinear function. Suppose that there is a time-varying reference signal, $r_i(t)\in R^n, i=1,2,\cdots, N$, which generated by the following Lipschitz-type nonlinear dynamical systems: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L referencesignals}
\dot{r}_i(t)=Ar_i(t)+Bf(r_i,t),\end{aligned}$$ where [$r_i(t)\in R^{n}$]{} is the state of the $i$th reference signal.
It is assumed that agent $i$ has access to $r_i(t)$, and agent $i$ can obtain the relative information from its neighbors denoted by $\mathcal{N}_i$.
\[ass2\] $(A,B)$ is stabilizable.
The main objective of this paper is to design a class of distributed controller $u_i(t)$ for physical agent $i$ in (\[agent\]) to track the average of multiple reference signals $r_i(t)$ generated by the general nonlinear dynamics (\[L referencesignals\]), i.e., $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(x_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)\bigg)=0,$$ where each agent has only local interaction with its neighbors.
As it was mentioned, there are many applications that the physical agents should track a time varying trajectory, where each agent has an incomplete copy of this trajectory. While, the physical agents and reference trajectory might be described by more complicated dynamics rather than the linear dynamics in real applications. Therefore, we consider a more general group of physical agents, where the nonlinear function $f(\cdot, t)$ in their dynamics satisfies the Lipschitz-type condition.
Therefore, a distributed average tracking controller algorithm is designed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{control input}
u_i(t) &=&K_1(p_i(t)-r_i(t))+K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)
+\mu\phi_ih[K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)]\nonumber\\
&&+\alpha\vartheta_iBh\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ with a distributed average tracking filter algorithm is proposed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L distributed control algorithm}
{p}_i(t) &=& s_i(t)+r_i(t),\nonumber \\
\dot{s}_i(t) &=&As_i(t)+BK_1(p_i(t)-r_i(t))\nonumber\\
&&+\alpha\vartheta_iBh\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{x}_i(t)=x_i(t)-p_i(t)$, $s_i(t), \;i=1,2,\cdots,N$, are the states of the DAT algorithm, $\phi_i=\|x_i(t)-r_i(t)\|+\nu$, and $\vartheta_i=\|r_i(t)\|+\beta$ state-dependent time-varying parameters, $\mu$, $\nu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ constant parameters, $K_1$ and $K_2$ control gain matrices, respectively, to be determined.
Then, using the controller (\[control input\]) for (\[agent\]), one gets the tracking error system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eagents_u}
\dot{\tilde{x}}_i(t)&=&(A+BK_2)\tilde{x}_i(t)+B(f(x_i,t)-f(r_i,t))\nonumber\\
&&+\mu\phi_iBh[K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)].\end{aligned}$$ Following from (\[L referencesignals\]) and (\[L distributed control algorithm\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L closedloop}
\dot{p}_i(t)&=&(A+BK_1)p_i(t)-BK_1r_i(t)+Bf(r_i,t)\nonumber\\
&+&\alpha\vartheta_iBh\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tilde{x}(t)=(\tilde{x}_1^T(t),\tilde{x}_2^T(t),\cdots,\tilde{x}_N^T(t))^T$, $p(t)=(p_1^T(t),\\
p_2^T(t),\cdots,p_N^T(t))^T$, $r(t)=(r_1^T(t),
r_2^T(t),\cdots,r_N^T(t))^T$, $\Phi=\mathrm{diag}(\phi_1,\phi_2,
\cdots,\phi_N)$, $\Theta=\mathrm{diag}(\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2,
\cdots,\vartheta_N)$, $F(r,t)=(f^T(r_1,t),f^T(r_2,t),
\cdots,f^T(r_N,t))^T$, and $F(x,t)=(f^T(x_1,t),f^T(x_2,t),\cdots,f^T(x_N,t))^T$. In matrix form, one obtains the closed-loop system as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Meagents_u}
\dot{\tilde{x}}(t)&=&(I\otimes(A+BK_2))\tilde{x}(t)
+(I\otimes B)(F(x,t)-F(r,t))\nonumber\\
&&+\mu (\Phi\otimes B) H[(I\otimes K_2)\tilde{x}(t)],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LM closedloop}
\dot{p}(t)&=&(I\otimes (A+BK_1))p(t)-(I\otimes BK_1)r(t)\nonumber\\
&+&(I\otimes B)F(r,t)+\alpha(\Theta\otimes B) H((L\otimes K_1)p(t)),\end{aligned}$$ where $$H((I\otimes K_2)\tilde{x}(t))=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
h(K_2\tilde{x}_1(t)) \\
\vdots \\
h(K_2\tilde{x}_N(t)) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ and $$H((L\otimes K_1)p(t))=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
h\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_1} K_2(p_1(t)-p_j(t))\bigg) \\
\vdots \\
h\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_N} K_2(p_N(t)-p_j(t))\bigg) \\
\end{array}
\right).$$
[Define $M=I_N-\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T$. Then $M$ satisfies following properties: Firstly, it is easy to see that $0$ is a simple eigenvalue of $M$ with $\mathbf{1}$ as [the]{} corresponding right eigenvector and $1$ is the other eigenvalue with multiplicity $N-1$, i.e., $M\mathbf{1}=\mathbf{1}^TM=0$. Secondly, since $L^T=L$, one has $LM=L(I_N-\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T)=L-\frac{1}{N}L\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T=L=L-\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^TL=(I_N-\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T)L=
ML$. Finally, $M^2=M(I_N-\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T)=M-\frac{1}{N}M\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T=M$. ]{}
Define $\xi(t)=(M\otimes I)p(t)$, where $\xi(t)=(\xi_1^T(t),\xi_2^T(t),\cdots,\\
\xi_N^T(t))^T$. Then, it follows that $\xi(t)= 0$ if and only if $p_1(t)=p_2(t)=\cdots=p_N(t)$. Therefore, the consensus problem of (\[L closedloop\]) is solved if and only if $\xi(t)$ asymptotically converges to zero. Hereafter, we refer to $\xi(t)$ as the consensus error. By noting that $LM = L=ML$, it is not difficult to obtain from (\[LM closedloop\]) that the consensus error $\xi(t)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LME closedloop}
\dot{\xi}(t)&=&(M\otimes (A+BK_1))\xi(t)-(M\otimes BK_1)r(t)\nonumber\\
\!\!&+&\alpha(M\Theta\otimes B) H(L\otimes K_1)\xi(t)+(M\otimes B)F(r,t).\end{aligned}$$
**Algorithm 1:** [Under Assumptions 1 and 2,]{} for multiple reference signals in (\[L referencesignals\]), the distributed average tracking algorithms (\[L distributed control algorithm\]) and (\[control input\]) can be constructed as follows
1. Solve the following algebraic Ricatti equations (AREs): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LMI}
P_iA+A^TP_i-P_iBB^TP_i+Q_i=0,\end{aligned}$$ with $Q_i>0$ to obtain matrices $P_i>0$, where $i=1,2$. Then, choose $K_i=-B^TP_i,\; i=1,2$.
2. Choose the parameters $\alpha\geq \gamma+\|B^TP_1\|$, $\beta>0$ $\mu\geq \gamma$ and $\nu>0$.
\[L theorem1f\] Under Assumptions 1-3, by using the distributed average tracking controller algorithm (\[control input\]) with the distributed average tracking filter algorithm (\[L distributed control algorithm\]), the state $x_i(t)$ in (\[agent\]) will track the average of multiple reference signals $r_i(t),\;i=1,2,\cdots, N$, generated by the Lipschitz-type nonlinear dynamical systems (\[L referencesignals\]) if the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\mu$, $\nu$ and the feedback gains $K_i, i=1,2,$ are designed by Algorithm 1.
**Proof**: The proof contains three steps. First, it is proved that for the $i$th agent, $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_k(t)\bigg)
=0
$. Consider the Lyapunov function candidate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LV 1}
V_1(t)= \xi^T(L\otimes P_1)\xi.\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $\xi(t)$, it is easy to see that $(\mathbf{1}^T\otimes I)\xi = 0$. For the connected graph $\mathcal{G}$, it then follows from Lemma \[lemma1\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gLV 1}
V_1(t)\geq \lambda_2\lambda_{\min}(P_1)\|\xi\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{\min}(P_1)$ is the smallest eigenvalue of the positive matrix $P_1$. The time derivative of $V_1$ along (\[LME closedloop\]) can be obtained as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_1&=& \dot{\xi}^T(L\otimes P_1)\xi+ \xi^T(L\otimes P_1)\dot{\xi} \nonumber\\
&=& \xi^T(M\otimes (A+BK_1)^T)(L\otimes P_1)\xi\nonumber\\
&&+\xi^T(L\otimes P_1)(M\otimes (A+BK_1))\xi\nonumber\\
&&-2\xi^T(L\otimes P_1)(M\otimes BK_1)r(t)\nonumber\\
&&+2 \alpha\xi^T(L\otimes P_1)(M\Theta\otimes B) H(L\otimes K_1)\xi(t) \nonumber\\
&&+2\xi^T(L\otimes P_1)(M\otimes B)F(r,t).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $K_1=-B^TP_1$ into (\[dLV1\]), it follows from the fact $LM=ML=L$ and Assumption \[assumpf\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ddLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_1
&=& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&+2\xi^T(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)r(t)\nonumber\\
&&-2 \alpha\xi^T(L\Theta\otimes PB) H[(L\otimes B^TP_1)\xi] \nonumber\\
&&+2\xi^T(L\otimes P_1B)F(r,t)\nonumber\\
&=& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{i=1}^N \bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg)^TB^TP_1r_i\nonumber\\
&&-2 \alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\vartheta_i\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg)^T\nonumber\\
&&h\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{i=1}^N \bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg)^T[f(r_i,t)-f(0,t)]\nonumber\\
&\leq& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&+2\bigg\|\sum_{i=1}^N \bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg)^T\bigg\| \|B^TP_1r_i\| \nonumber\\
&&-2 \alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\vartheta_i\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\| \nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{i=1}^N \bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|\|f(r_i,t)-f(0,t)\|\nonumber\\
&\leq& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&-2 \alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\vartheta_i\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|
\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{i=1}^N \bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|(\gamma+\|B^TP\|_1)\|r_i\|\nonumber\\
&=& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&-2 \sum_{i=1}^N[(\alpha-\gamma-\|B^TP_1\| )\|r_i\| +\alpha\beta]\nonumber\\
&&\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|
.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\alpha>\gamma+\|B^TP_1\|, \beta>0$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ddddLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_1
&\leq&\xi^T(L {\otimes} (P_1A{+}A^TP_1-2P_1BB^TP_1))\xi
\nonumber\\
&\leq&\lambda_2\xi^T(I {\otimes} (P_1A{+}A^TP_1-2P_1BB^TP_1))\xi
%\Big(\|B^TP(\xi_i-\xi_j)\|\nonumber\\
%&&-\frac{\|B^TP(\xi_i-\xi_j)\|^2}{\|B^TP(\xi_i-\xi_j)\|+\varepsilon e^{-\varphi {t_i}}}\Big)\nonumber\\
%%&=&\xi^T(M {\otimes} (PA{+}A^TP){-}2c_1L{\otimes} PBB^TP)\xi\nonumber\\
%%&&+c_2 \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}
%%\frac{\|B^TP(\xi_i-\xi_j)\|\varepsilon e^{-\varphi t}}{\|B^TP(\xi_i-\xi_j)\|+\varepsilon e^{-\varphi t}}\nonumber\\
%&\leq&\xi^T(M {\otimes} (PA{+}A^TP){-}2c_1L{\otimes} PBB^TP)\xi\nonumber\\
%&&+c_2 \sum_{i=1}^N {|\mathcal{N}_i|}
%\varepsilon e^{-\varphi {t_i}}
.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from (\[LMI\]) that $P_1A+A^TP_1-P_1BB^TP_1\leq-Q_1$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ddddddLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_1&<&- \eta_1 V_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_1=\frac{\lambda_{\min}(Q_1)}{\lambda_{\max}(P_1)}$. Thus, one has $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\xi_i(t)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_k(t)\bigg)
=0.$$ Second, it is proved that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}r_k(t)\bigg)=0$. Let $r^*(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)$. It follows from (\[L referencesignals\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AL referencesignals}
\dot{r}^*(t)=Ar^*(t)+\frac{1}{N}B\sum_{i=1}^Nf(r_i(t),t).\end{aligned}$$ Let $p^*(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Np_i(t)$. It follows from (\[L referencesignals\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AX referencesignals}
\dot{p}^*(t)&=&(A+BK_1)p^*(t)-BK_1r^*(t)+\frac{1}{N}B\sum_{i=1}^Nf(r_i(t),t)\nonumber\\
&+&\alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\vartheta_ih\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Denote $\zeta(t)=p^*(t)-r^*(t)$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EAL referencesignals}
\dot{\zeta}(t)
&=&\dot{p}^*(t)-\dot{r}^*(t)\nonumber\\
&=&(A+BK_1)p^*(t)-BK_1r^*(t)-Ar^*(t)\nonumber\\
&+&\alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\vartheta_ih\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&(A+BK_1){\zeta}(t)+\omega(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega(t)=\alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\vartheta_ih\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg)$. We then use input-to-state stability to analyze the system (\[EAL referencesignals\]) by treating the term $\omega(t)$ as the input and $\zeta(t)$ as the states. Since (\[LMI\]) with $K_1=-B^TP_1$, one has $A+BK_1$ is Hurwitz. Thus, the system (\[EAL referencesignals\]) with zero input is exponentially stable and hence input-to-state stable. Since $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_k(t)\bigg)
=0$. One has $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\omega(t)=0$. Thus, it follows that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\zeta(t)=0$, which implies that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Np_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)\bigg)=0$. Therefore, one obtains $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}r_k(t)\bigg)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Np_i(t)\bigg)+\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Np_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)\bigg)=0$.\
Third, it is proofed that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(x_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)\bigg)=0$. Consider the candidate Lyapunov function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V2}
V_2=\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes P_2)\tilde{x},\end{aligned}$$ with $P_2>0$. By taking the derivative of $V_2$ along (\[Meagents\_u\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dV2}
\dot{V}_2&=&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes ((A+BK_2)^TP_2+P_2(A+BK_2)))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&+2\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes P_2B)(F(x,t)-F(r,t))\nonumber\\
&&+2\mu (\Phi\otimes P_2B) H[(I\otimes K_2)\tilde{x}(t)].\end{aligned}$$ Using $K_2=-B^TP_2$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ddV2}
\dot{V}_2&=&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}
\nonumber\\
&&+2\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes P_2B)(F(x,t)-F(r,t))\nonumber\\
&&-2\mu \tilde{x}^T(\Phi\otimes P_2B) H[(I\otimes B^TP_2)\tilde{x}(t)]\nonumber\\
&=&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&
+2\sum_{i=1}^N(B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t))^T(f(x_i,t)-f(r_i,t))\nonumber\\
&&-2\mu\sum_{i=1}^N\phi_i (B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t))^Th(B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i)\nonumber\\
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&
+2\sum_{i=1}^N\|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|\|(f(x_i,t)-f(r_i,t))\|\nonumber\\
&&-2\mu\sum_{i=1}^N\phi_i \|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|
\nonumber\\
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&
+2\sum_{i=1}^N\|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|\gamma\|x_i-r_i\|\nonumber\\
&&-2\mu\sum_{i=1}^N(\|x_i-r_i\|+\nu) \|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|\nonumber\\
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&-2\sum_{i=1}^N((\mu-\gamma)\|x_i-r_i\|+\mu\nu) \|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\mu\geq \gamma$ and $\nu>0$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dddV2}
\dot{V}_2
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}.\end{aligned}$$ Using $A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2\leq -Q_2$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dddV2}
\dot{V}_2
&\leq&-\eta_2{V}_2.\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_2=\frac{\lambda_{\min}(Q_2)}{\lambda_{\max}(P_2)}$. Thus, one has $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(x_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)\bigg)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(x_i(t)-p_i(t))+\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nr_i(t)\bigg)=0$. Therefore, the distributed average tracking problem is solved. This completes the proof.
Adaptive distributed average tracking algorithms design
-------------------------------------------------------
Note that, in above subsection, the proposed distributed average tracking algorithms (\[control input\]) and (\[L distributed control algorithm\]) require that the parameters $\alpha$ and $\mu$ satisfy the conditions $\alpha\geq \gamma+\|B^TP_1\|$ and $\mu\geq \gamma$, which depend the Lipschitz constant $\gamma$. Since the $\gamma$ is a global information, for a local agent, it becomes difficult to obtain $\gamma$. Therefore, to overcome the global information restriction, we design an adaptive distributed average tracking controller algorithm $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Adaptive control input}
u_i(t) &=&K_1(p_i(t)-r_i(t))+K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)
+\mu_i(t)\phi_ih[K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)]\nonumber\\
&&+\alpha_i(t)\vartheta_iBh\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ and an adaptive distributed average tracking filter algorithm $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Adaptive DAT algorithm}
{p}_i(t) &=& s_i(t)+r_i(t),\nonumber \\
\dot{s}_i(t) &=&As_i(t)+BK_1(p_i(t)-r_i(t))\nonumber\\
&&+\alpha_i(t)\vartheta_iBh\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ with two time-varying parameters $\mu_i(t)$ and $\alpha_i(t)$ satisfying the following adaptive update strategies: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Adaptive mu}
\dot{\mu}_i(t)=\kappa_i \phi_i\|K_2\widetilde{x}_i(t)\|,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Adaptive alpha}
\dot{\alpha}_i(t)\!\!=\!\!\chi_i \vartheta_i\bigg\|
\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}K_1(\xi_i(t){-}\xi_j(t))\bigg\|,\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $\kappa_i, \chi_i$ are adaptive parameters to be determined.
By substituting adaptive controller (\[Adaptive control input\]) into (\[agent\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Aeagents_u}
\dot{\tilde{x}}_i(t)&=&(A+BK_2)\tilde{x}_i(t)+B(f(x_i,t)-f(r_i,t))\nonumber\\
&&+\mu_i(t)\phi_iBh[K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_i(t)$ is given by (\[Adaptive mu\]). According to (\[L referencesignals\]) and (\[Adaptive DAT algorithm\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A closedloop}
\dot{p}_i(t)&=&(A+BK_1)p_i(t)-BK_1r_i(t)+Bf(r_i,t)\nonumber\\
&+&\alpha_i(t)\vartheta_iBh\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i(t)$ is given by (\[Adaptive alpha\]).
Then, the closed-loop systems in matrix form are obtained, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AMeagents_u}
\dot{\tilde{x}}(t)&=&(I\otimes(A+BK_2))\tilde{x}(t)
+(I\otimes B)(F(x,t)-F(r,t))\nonumber\\
&&+ (\mu(t)\Phi\otimes B) H[(I\otimes K_2)\tilde{x}(t)],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AM closedloop}
\dot{\xi}(t)&=&(I\otimes (A+BK_1))\xi(t)-(M\otimes BK_1)r(t)\nonumber\\
&+&(M\otimes B)F(r,t)+(M\alpha(t)\Theta\otimes B) H((L\otimes K_1)\xi(t)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu(t)=\mathrm{diag}(\mu_1(t),\mu_2(t),\cdots, \mu_N(t))$, and $\alpha(t)=\mathrm{diag}(\alpha_1(t),\alpha_2(t),\cdots, \alpha_N(t))$, respectively.
**Algorithm 2:** Under Assumptions 1-4, for multiple reference signals in (\[L referencesignals\]), the adaptive distributed average tracking algorithms (\[Adaptive control input\])-(\[Adaptive alpha\]) is designed by the following two steps:
1. Solve the AREs (\[LMI\]) to obtain $K_i, i=1,2$.
2. Choose the parameters $\kappa>0, \chi>0, \beta>0,$ and $\nu>0$.
\[A theorem1f\] Under Assumptions 1-4, the adaptive distributed average tracking algorithms (\[Adaptive control input\])-(\[Adaptive alpha\]) solve the distributed average tracking problem of the multi-agent system (\[agent\]) with the reference dynamical system (\[L referencesignals\]) if the parameters are given by Algorithm 2.
**Proof**: First, consider the following Lyapunov candidate, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AV3}
V_3 &=&\xi^T(L\otimes P_1)\xi+\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\widetilde{\alpha}_{i}(t)^2}
{\chi_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\alpha}_{i}(t)= \alpha_{i}(t){-} {\alpha}$. As proved in Theorem 1, the derivation of (\[AV3\]) along (\[AM closedloop\]) and (\[Adaptive alpha\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AddLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_3
&\leq& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&-2 \sum_{i=1}^N[(\alpha_i(t)-\gamma-\|B^TP_1\| )\|r_i\| +\alpha_i(t)\beta]\nonumber\\
&&\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|\nonumber\\
&&
+2\sum_{i=1}^N \widetilde{\alpha}_{i}(t)\vartheta_i\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t){-}\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|\nonumber\\
&=& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&-2 \sum_{i=1}^N[(\alpha-\gamma-\|B^TP_1\| )\|r_i\| +\alpha\beta]\nonumber\\
&&\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|.\end{aligned}$$ Adaptively updating $\alpha>\gamma+\|B^TP_1\|>0$, and choosing $\beta>0$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AdddLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_3
&\leq& -\xi^T(L\otimes Q_1)\xi\triangleq-U(t)\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $V_3(t)$ is non-increasing. Then, according to (\[AV3\]), it follows that $\xi, \alpha_i(t)$ are bounded. It is following from Assumption 4 that $r$ is bounded. One has $\|F(r, t)\|=\|F(r, t)-F(0, t)\|\leq \gamma \|r\|$, which implies that $F(r, t)$ is bounded. Therefore, $\dot{\xi}$ is bounded, which implies that $\lim_{t\to\infty} V_3 (t)$ exists and is finite. Since (\[AdddLV1\]), one has one has $\int_0^\infty U(t)dt$ exists and is finite. By noting that $\dot{U}(t)$ is also bounded. Therefore, ${U}(t)$ is uniform continuity. By utilizing Barbalat’s Lemma, it guarantees $\lim_{t\to\infty}U(t) = 0$. Thus, one has $\lim_{t\to\infty}\xi(t) = 0$. Noting that $\chi>0, \beta>0$, one has $\alpha_i(t)$ is monotonically increasing and bounded. Thus, $\alpha_i(t)$ converges to some finite constants. Thus, it follows that $
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\xi_i(t)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_k(t)\bigg)
=0.
$\
Second, similar to the proof in Theorem 1, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AEAL referencesignals}
\dot{\zeta}(t)
&=&(A+BK_1){\zeta}(t)+\varpi(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varpi(t)=\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_i(t)\vartheta_ih\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg)$. Note that $\alpha_i(t)$ converges to some finite constants. By leveraging input-to-state stability to analyze the system (\[AEAL referencesignals\]), one has $\lim_{t\to\infty}{\zeta}(t) = 0$. Then, one has $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(p_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}r_k(t)\bigg)=0$.\
Third, consider the following Lyapunov candidate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V4}
V_4=\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes P_2)\tilde{x}+\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\mu}_{i}(t)^2}
{\kappa_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\mu}_{i}(t)={\mu}_{i}(t)-{\mu}$. As the proof given by Theorem 1, one has the derivation of (\[V4\]) along (\[AMeagents\_u\]) and (\[Adaptive mu\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AddV2}
\dot{V}_4
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&-2\sum_{i=1}^N(({\mu}_{i}(t)-\gamma)\|x_i-r_i\|+{\mu}_{i}(t)\nu) \|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{i=1}^{N} \widetilde{\mu}_{i}(t)\phi_i\|B^TP_2\widetilde{x}_i(t)\|\nonumber\\
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&-2\sum_{i=1}^N(({\mu}-\gamma)\|x_i-r_i\|+{\mu}\nu) \|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|
.\end{aligned}$$ Adaptively updating $\mu\geq \gamma$ and choosing $\nu>0$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AdddV2}
\dot{V}_4
&\leq&-\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes Q_2)\tilde{x}\triangleq -W(t)\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $V_4(t)$ is non-increasing. Then, according to (\[V4\]), it follows that $\widetilde{x}, \mu_i(t)$ are bounded. It is following from Assumption 4 and (\[A closedloop\]) that $r$ and $p$ are bounded. One has $\|F(x, t)-F(r, t)\|\leq \gamma\|x-r\|\leq \gamma (\|\widetilde{x}\|+\|p\|+\|r\|)$, which implies that $F(x, t)-F(r, t)$ is bounded. Therefore, from (\[AMeagents\_u\]), one has $\dot{\widetilde{x}}$ is bounded, which implies that $\lim_{t\to\infty} V_4 (t)$ exists and is finite. Thus, $\int_0^\infty W(t)dt$ exists and is finite. By noting that $\dot{W}(t)$ is also bounded. Therefore, ${W}(t)$ is uniform continuity. By utilizing Barbalat’s Lemma, it guarantees $\lim_{t\to\infty}W(t) = 0$. Thus, one has $\lim_{t\to\infty}\widetilde{x}(t) = 0$. Noting that $\kappa_i>0, \nu>0$, one has $\mu_i(t)$ is monotonically increasing and bounded. Thus, $\mu_i(t)$ converges to some finite constants. It follows that $
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\widetilde{x}_i(t)=0$, which implies $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bigg(x_i(t)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}r_k(t)\bigg)
=0.
$ The proof is completed.
Continuous distributed average tracking algorithms design
---------------------------------------------------------
In the [above]{} subsections, the distributed average tracking algorithms are designed based on the discontinuous function $h(z)$, which may generate chattering phenomenon. In order to reduce the chattering in real applications and make the controller easier to implement, based on the boundary layer concept, we replace the discontinuous function $h(z)$ by a continuous approximation $h_\varepsilon(z)$, and propose a continuous distributed average tracking controller algorithm: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Continuous Adaptive control input}
u_i(t) &=&K_1(p_i(t)-r_i(t))+K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)
+\mu\phi_ih_\varepsilon[K_2\tilde{x}_i(t)]\nonumber\\
&&+\alpha\vartheta_iBh_\varepsilon\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ and an continuous distributed average tracking filter algorithm $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Continuous Adaptive DAT algorithm}
{p}_i(t) &=& s_i(t)+r_i(t),\nonumber \\
\dot{s}_i(t) &=&As_i(t)+BK_1(p_i(t)-r_i(t))\nonumber\\
&&+\alpha \vartheta_iBh_\varepsilon\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Submitting (\[Continuous Adaptive control input\]) into (\[agent\]), one obtains the closed-loop systems in matrix form like: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Continuous Adaptive control inputM}
\dot{\tilde{x}}(t)&=&(I\otimes(A+BK_2))\tilde{x}(t)
+(I\otimes B)(F(x,t)-F(r,t))\nonumber\\
&&+ (\mu \Phi\otimes B) H_\varepsilon[(I\otimes K_2)\tilde{x}(t)].\end{aligned}$$ It follows from (\[L referencesignals\]) and (\[Continuous Adaptive DAT algorithm\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{continuous AM closedloop}
\dot{\xi}(t)&=&(I\otimes (A+BK_1))\xi(t)-(M\otimes BK_1)r(t)\nonumber\\
&+&(M\otimes B)F(r,t)+(\alpha M \Theta\otimes B) H_\varepsilon((L\otimes K_1)\xi(t)).\end{aligned}$$
\[Continuous A theorem1f\] Under Assumptions 1-4, the adaptive DAT algorithms (\[Continuous Adaptive control input\]) and (\[Continuous Adaptive DAT algorithm\]) solve the DAT problem of the multi-agent system (\[agent\]) with the reference dynamical system (\[L referencesignals\]) if the parameters are given by Algorithm 1.
**Proof**: First, consider the Lyapunov candidate (\[AV3\]). As proved in Theorem 1, the derivation of (\[AV3\]) along (\[continuous AM closedloop\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AddLV1}
\dot{ {V}}_1
&\leq& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&+2 \sum_{i=1}^N[(\gamma+\|B^TP_1\| )\|r_i\|]\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|\nonumber\\
&&-2\sum_{i=1}^N{\alpha}\vartheta_i\bigg(
\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}K_1(\xi_i(t){-}\xi_j(t))\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&h_\varepsilon\bigg(
\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}K_1(\xi_i(t){-}\xi_j(t))\bigg).
%-2\varrho\sum_{i=1}^N \widetilde{\alpha}_{i}(t, \varepsilon) {\alpha}_i(t, \varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\alpha>\gamma+\|B^TP_1\|$ and $\beta>0$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aaa}
\dot{V}_1(t)&\leq& \xi^T[L\otimes (A^TP_1+P_1A)-2(L\otimes P_1BB^TP_1)]\xi\nonumber\\
&&+2 \sum_{i=1}^N\alpha\vartheta_i\bigg[\bigg\|\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}[B^TP_1(\xi_i(t)-\xi_j(t))]\bigg\|\nonumber\\
&&-\bigg(
\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}K_1(\xi_i(t){-}\xi_j(t))\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&h_\varepsilon\bigg(
\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}K_1(\xi_i(t){-}\xi_j(t))
\bigg)\bigg] \nonumber\\
&\leq&
-\eta V_1+2 \sum_{i=1}^N\alpha\vartheta_i\varepsilon e^{-ct}. \end{aligned}$$ In light of the well-known Comparison Lemma, one gets that $$\begin{aligned}
{V}_1(t)
&\leq&
e^{-\eta(t)} V_1(0) +2 \sum_{i=1}^N\alpha\overline{\vartheta}_i
\int_0^t\varepsilon e^{-\eta(t-\tau)-c\tau}d\tau,\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{\vartheta}_i$ is the supper bound of ${\vartheta}_i$. According to $\lim_{t\to \infty}\int_0^t\varepsilon
e^{-\eta(t-\tau)-c\tau}d\tau=0$, one has $V_1(t)$ exponentially converges to the origin as $t\to \infty$. Therefore, $\lim_{t\to \infty}\|p_i-\sum_{k=1}^Np_k\|=0$. Second, similar to Theorem 1, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Continuous AEAL referencesignals}
\dot{\zeta}(t)
&=&(A+BK_1){\zeta}(t)+\varpi(t, \varepsilon),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varpi(t, \varepsilon)=\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha\vartheta_ih_\varepsilon\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))\bigg)$. Since $\lim_{t\to \infty} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} K_1(p_i(t)-p_j(t))=0$. One has $\lim_{t\to \infty} \varpi(t, \varepsilon)=0$. It follows that $\lim_{t\to \infty} {\zeta}(t)=0$. Thus, $\lim_{t\to \infty}\|p_i-\sum_{k=1}^Nr_k\|=0$. Third, consider derivative of $V_2$ along (\[Continuous Adaptive control inputM\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Continuous ddV2}
\dot{V}_2
&\leq&\tilde{x}^T(I\otimes (A^TP_2+P_2A-2P_2BB^TP_2))\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&&
+2\sum_{i=1}^N\|B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t)\|\gamma\|x_i-r_i\|\nonumber\\
&&-2\mu\sum_{i=1}^N\phi_i (B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i(t))^Th_\varepsilon(B^TP_2\tilde{x}_i)\nonumber\\
&\leq&-\eta_2V_2+2\sum_{i=1}^N\mu\phi_i \varepsilon e^{-ct}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\lim_{t\to \infty}V_2(t)=0$, which implies $\lim_{t\to \infty} \|x_i(t)-p_i(t)\|=0$. Thus, $\lim_{t\to \infty}\|x_i-\sum_{k=1}^Nr_k\|=0$. This completes the proof.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have studied the distributed average tracking problem of multiple time-varying signals generated by nonlinear dynamical systems. In [the]{} distributed fashion, a pair of discontinuous algorithms with static and adaptive coupling strengths have been developed. Then, in light of the boundary layer concept, a continuous algorithm is designed. Besides, sufficient conditions for the existence of distributed algorithms are given. The future topic will be focused on the distributed average tracking problem for the case with only the relative output information of neighboring agents.
[10]{} R. Olfati-Saber, J. Fax, and R. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” *in Proc. IEEE*, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, 2007.
W. Ren, R. Beard, and E. Atkins, “Information consensus in multivehicle cooperative control,” *IEEE Control Syst. Mag.*, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 71–82, 2007.
Y. Hong, G. Chen, and L. Bushnell, “Distributed observers design for leader-following control of multi-agent networks,” *Automatica*, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 846–850, 2008.
Y. Cao and W. Ren, “Distributed coordinated tracking with reduced interaction via a variable structure approach,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 33–48, 2012.
Z. Li, X. Liu, W. Ren, and L. Xie, “Distributed tracking control for linear multiagent systems with a leader of bounded unknown input,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 518–523, 2013.
[ S. E. Tuna, “Synchronizing linear systems via partial-state coupling,” *Automatica*, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 2179-2184, 2008.]{}
H. Zhang, F. Lewis, and A. Das, “Optimal design for synchronization of cooperative systems: State feedback, observer, and output feedback,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1948–1952, 2011.
Y. F. Liu, and Z. Y. Geng, “Finite-time formation control for linear multi-agent systems: A motion planning approach,” *Systems and Control Letters*, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 54–60, 2015.
Y. F. Liu, Y. Zhao, and Z. Y. Geng, “Finite-time formation tracking control for multiple vehicles: A motion planning approach,” *International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control*, DOI: 10.1002/rnc.3496, 2015.
Y. Zhao, Z. S, Duan, G. H. Wen, and G. R. Chen, “Distributed finite-time tracking of multiple non-identical second-order nonlinear systems with settling time estimation,” *Automatica*, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 86–93, 2016.
Y. Zhao, Z. S, Duan and G. H. Wen, “Distributed finite-time tracking of multiple Euler-Lagrange dynamics without velocity measurements,” *International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control*, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1688–1703, 2015.
Y. Zhao, Z. S, Duan, G. H. Wen, and G. R. Chen, “Distributed finite-time tracking for a multi-agent system under a leader with bounded unknown acceleration,” *Systems $\&$ Control Letters*, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 8–13, 2015.
M. Ji, G. Ferrari-Trecate, M. Egerstedt, and A. Buffa, “Containment control in mobile networks,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1972–1975, 2008.
D. Spanos and R. Murray, “Distributed sensor fusion using dynamic consensus,” *in Proc. 16th IFAC World Congress*, 2005.
H. Bai, R. Freeman, and K. Lynch, “Distributed kalman filtering using the internal model average consensus estimator,” *in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.*, pp. 1500–1505.
P. Yang, R. Freeman, and K. Lynch, “Multi-agent coordination by decentralized estimation and control,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 2480–2496, 2008.
Y. Sun and M. Lemmon, “Swarming under perfect consensus using integral action,” *in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.*, pp. 4594–4599, 2007.
D. Spanos, R. Olfati-Saber, and R. Murray, “Dynamic consensus on mobile networks,” *in Proc. 16th IFAC World Congress*, 2005.
R. Freeman, P. Yang, and K. Lynch, “Stability and convergence properties of dynamic average consensus estimators,” *in Proc. 45th IEEE Conf. Decision Control*, pp. 338–343, 2006.
H. Bai and R. F. nd K. Lynch, “Robust dynamic average consensus of time-varying inputs,” *in Proc. 49th IEEE Conf. Decision Control*, pp. 3104–3109, 2010.
S. Nosrati, M. Shafiee, and M. Menhaj, “Dynamic average consensus via nonlinear protocols,” *Automatica*, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2262–2270, 2012.
F. Chen, Y. Cao, and W. Ren, “Distributed average tracking of multiple time-varying reference signals with bounded derivatives,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 3169–3174, 2012.
F. Chen, W. Ren, W. Lan, and G. Chen, “Distributed average tracking for reference signals with bounded accelerations,” *IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 863–869, 2015.
Y. Zhao, Z. Duan and Z. Li, “Distributed average tracking for multiple signals with linear dynamics: an edge-based framework,” *in Proc. 11th IEEE Inter. Conf. Control Auto.* 2014.
C. Godsil and G. Royle, *Algebraic Graph Theory*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emNew York: Springer, 2001.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new CMB temperature likelihood approximation called the Gaussianized Blackwell-Rao (GBR) estimator. This estimator is derived by transforming the observed marginal power spectrum distributions obtained by the CMB Gibbs sampler into standard univariate Gaussians, and then approximate their joint transformed distribution by a multivariate Gaussian. The method is exact for full-sky coverage and uniform noise, and an excellent approximation for sky cuts and scanning patterns relevant for modern satellite experiments such as WMAP and Planck. The result is a stable, accurate and computationally very efficient CMB temperature likelihood representation that allows the user to exploit the unique error propagation capabilities of the Gibbs sampler to high $\ell$’s. A single evaluation of this estimator between $\ell =2$ and 200 takes $\sim 0.2$ CPU milliseconds, while for comparison, a singe pixel space likelihood evaluation between $\ell = 2$ and 30 for a map with $\sim2500$ pixels requires $\sim20$ seconds. We apply this tool to the 5-year WMAP temperature data, and re-estimate the angular temperature power spectrum, $C_{\ell}$, and likelihood, $\mathcal{L}(C_{\ell})$, for $\ell \le 200$, and derive new cosmological parameters for the standard six-parameter $\Lambda$CDM model. Our spectrum is in excellent agreement with the official WMAP spectrum, but we find slight differences in the derived cosmological parameters. Most importantly, the spectral index of scalar perturbations is $n_{\textrm{s}} = 0.973\pm 0.014$, $1.9\sigma$ away from unity and $0.6\sigma$ higher than the official WMAP result, $n_{\textrm{s}} = 0.965\pm 0.014$. This suggests that an exact likelihood treatment is required to higher $\ell$’s than previously believed, reinforcing and extending our conclusions from the 3-year WMAP analysis. In that case, we found that the sub-optimal likelihood approximation adopted between $\ell=12$ and 30 by the WMAP team biased $n_{\textrm{s}}$ low by $0.4\sigma$, while here we find that the same approximation between $\ell=30$ and 200 introduces a bias of $0.6\sigma$ in $n_{\textrm{s}}$.'
author:
- 'Ø. Rudjord, N. E. Groeneboom, H. K. Eriksen, Greg Huey, K. M. Górski and J. B. Jewell'
title: 'CMB likelihood approximation by a Gaussianized Blackwell-Rao estimator'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Detailed measurements of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have established cosmology as a high-precision science. One striking illustration of this is the fact that it is today possible to predict a vast number of observables based on six numbers only, with only a few (but nevertheless intriguing) “glitches” overall. The key to this success has been making accurate measurements of the CMB power spectrum, perhaps most prominently exemplified by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP; Bennett et al. 2003; Hinshaw et al. 2007, Hinshaw et al. 2008).
The primary connection between theoretical models and CMB observations is made through the CMB likelihood, $\mathcal{L}(C_{\ell}) =
P(\mathbf{d}|C_{\ell})$. This is a multivariate, non-Gaussian function that quantifies the match between the data and a given power spectrum, $C_{\ell}$. Unfortunately, it is impossible to evaluate this function explicitly for modern high-resolution data sets, due to the sheer size of the problem, and one therefore instead typically resolves to various approximations.
However, given the importance of the CMB in modern cosmology, it is of critical importance to characterize this likelihood accurately, and all approximations must be thoroughly verified. One example is the approximation of the large angular scale likelihood, where $\mathcal{L}(C_{\ell})$ is strongly non-Gaussian. This turned out to be a non-trivial issue after the original analysis of the 3-year WMAP temperature data by @hinshaw:2007, in which a Master-based [@hivon:2002; @verde:2003] approximation was used at $\ell > 12$. An exact likelihood analysis [@eriksen:2007b] later demonstrated that this sub-optimal approximation, when applied to harmonic modes between $\ell=13$ and 30, biased the spectral index of scalar perturbations, $n_{\textrm{s}}$, low by $0.4\sigma$.
A second example is that of non-cosmological foregrounds. Unless properly accounted for, such foregrounds bias the observed power spectrum to high values, and can seriously compromise any cosmological conclusions. While important for temperature observations, this is an absolutely crucial issue for polarization observations, as the desired CMB in amplitude is comparable to or weaker than the interfering foregrounds over most of the sky.
In recent years, a new set of statistical methods have been developed that allows the user to address these issues within a single well-defined framework [@jewell:2004; @wandelt:2004; @eriksen:2004]. The heart of this method is the Gibbs sampling algorithm (see, e.g, Gelfand and Smith 1990), in which samples from a (typically complicated) joint distribution are drawn by alternately sampling from (simpler) conditional distributions. In the CMB setting, this is realized by drawing joint samples from $P(\mathbf{s},
C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$, by alternately sampling from $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s}, \mathbf{d})$, where $C_{\ell}$ is the CMB power spectrum, $\mathbf{s}$ is the CMB sky signal, and $\mathbf{d}$ are the observed data. In addition to allow for exact likelihood analysis at reasonable computational cost, an equally important feature of this framework is its unique capability of including additional degrees of freedom, such as non-cosmological foregrounds, into the analysis [@eriksen:2008a; @eriksen:2008b]. Further, very recently an additional Metropolis-Hastings MCMC sampling step was introduced by @jewell:2008, that effectively resolves the previously described inefficiency of the Gibbs sampler at low signal-to-noise [@eriksen:2004]. The framework has also been extended to handle polarization [@larson:2007; @eriksen:2007b] and anisotropic universe models [@groeneboom:2008].
By now, the CMB Gibbs sampler is well established and demonstrated to sample efficiently from the exact CMB posterior. However, a long-standing issue has been the characterization of the joint likelihood, given a set of such samples. Originally, @wandelt:2004 proposed to use the so-called Blackwell-Rao (BR) estimator for this purpose, and this approach was later implemented and studied in detail by @chu:2005. While highly accurate for the large angular scale and high signal-to-noise temperature likelihood, it suffers from one major drawback: Because it attempts to describe the full $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$-dimensional likelihood without any constraints on allowed correlations, the number of samples required for convergence scales exponentially with $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$. In practice, this limits the BR estimator to $\ell \lesssim 30$ for temperature data, and just $\ell \lesssim 3-4$ for low signal-to-noise polarization data.
In this paper, we introduce a new temperature likelihood approximation based on samples drawn from the CMB posterior, by modifying the original BR estimator in a way that restricts the allowed $N$-point functions of $\mathcal{L}(C_{\ell})$, but still captures most of the relevant information. Explicitly, this is done through a specific change of variables, such that the observed marginal posterior for each multipole, $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$, is transformed into a Gaussian. Then, in these new variables the joint distribution is approximated by a multivariate Gaussian. As long as the correlation between any two multipoles is reasonably small, as is the case for nearly full-sky experiments such as WMAP and Planck, we shall see that this provides an excellent approximation to the exact joint likelihood. As a result, the new approach greatly reduces the overall number of samples required for convergence, and allows us to obtain a highly accurate likelihood approximation to arbitrary $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$. Generalization to a full polarized likelihood will be discussed in a future paper (Eriksen et al., in preparation).
This paper is organized as follows: In §\[sec:review\], we first briefly review the Gibbs sampling algorithm together with the original Blackwell-Rao estimator, and in §\[sec:method\] we introduce the new Gaussianized Blackwell-Rao estimator. Next, in §\[sec:application\], we apply the new estimator to simulated data, and compare results with brute-force likelihood evaluations in pixel space. In §\[sec:analysis\], we analyze the 5-year WMAP temperature data, and provide an updated power spectrum and set of cosmological parameters. We summarize and conclude in §\[sec:conclusion\].
Review of the CMB Gibbs sampler {#sec:review}
===============================
We start by reviewing the current state of the CMB Gibbs sampling framework, as previously developed through a series of papers [@jewell:2004; @wandelt:2004; @eriksen:2004; @larson:2007; @eriksen:2008a], and highlight the problem of likelihood modelling as currently presented in the literature.
Elementary CMB Gibbs sampling
-----------------------------
First, we assume that our observations, $\mathbf{d}$, in direction $\hat{n}$ may be modelled in terms of a signal, $\mathbf{s}$ and a noise, $\mathbf{n}$, component, $$\mathbf{d}(\hat{n}) = \mathbf{s}(\hat{n}) + \mathbf{n}(\hat{n}).$$ Further, we assume that both $\mathbf{s}$ and $\mathbf{n}$ are Gaussian distributed with vanishing mean and covariances $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{N}$, respectively. The CMB is in this paper additionally assumed to be isotropic, such that in spherical harmonic space ($\mathbf{s}(\hat{n}) = \sum_{\ell,m} a_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m}(\hat{n})$) the CMB covariance matrix may be written as $\mathbf{S}_{\ell m,\ell'
m'} = C_{\ell} \delta_{\ell \ell'} \delta_{mm'}$, where $C_{\ell} =
\left<a_{\ell m} a_{\ell m}^*\right>$ is the angular power spectrum. Our goal is now to map out the CMB posterior distribution $P(\mathbf{s}, C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$ and the CMB likelihood $\mathcal{L}(C_{\ell}) = P(\mathbf{d}|C_{\ell})$. Note that we in this paper are concerned with the problem of likelihood characterization only, which is a post-processing step relative to the Gibbs sampler. For notational transparency, we therefore neglect issues such as foreground marginalization, instrumental beams, multi-frequency observations etc. For full details on these issues, see, e.g., Eriksen et al. 2008a.
When working with real-world CMB data, there are a number of issues that complicate the analysis. Two important examples are anisotropic noise and Galactic foregrounds. First, because of the scanning motion of a CMB satellite, the pixels in a given data set are observed over unequal amounts of time. This implies that the effective noise is a function of pixel location on the sky. Second, large regions of the sky are obscured by Galactic foregrounds (e.g., synchrotron, free-free and dust emission), and these regions must be rejected from the analysis by masking.
Because of such issues, the total data covariance matrix $\mathbf{S}+\mathbf{N}$ is dense in both pixel and harmonic space. As a result, it is computationally unfeasible to evaluate and sample directly from $P(\mathbf{s}, C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$. Fortunately, this problem was originally solved by @jewell:2004, @wandelt:2004 and @eriksen:2004, who developed a particular CMB Gibbs sampler for precisely this purpose. For full details on this method, we refer the interested reader to the original papers, and in the following we only describe the main ideas. The practical implementation of the algorithm used in this paper is called “Commander”, and has been described in detail by @eriksen:2004 [@eriksen:2008a].
The idea behind the CMB Gibbs sampler is to draw samples from the joint posterior by alternately sampling from the two corresponding conditionals. The sampling scheme may thus be written on the symbolic form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{s}^{i+1} &\leftarrow P(\mathbf{s}|C_{\ell}^{i}, \mathbf{d}) \\
C_{\ell}^{i+1} &\leftarrow P(C_{\ell} |\mathbf{s}^{i+1}, \mathbf{d}),\end{aligned}$$ where the left arrow implies sampling from the distribution on the right-hand side. Then, after some burn-in period, $(\mathbf{s}^{i},
C_{\ell}^{i})$ will be drawn from the desired distribution. The only remaining step is to write down sampling algorithms for each of the two above conditional distributions, both of which are readily available for our problem, since the former is simply a multivariate Gaussian, and the second is a product of independent inverse Gamma distributions. For one possible general sampling algorithm for $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s})$, see, e.g., @wehus:2008.
The Blackwell-Rao estimator
---------------------------
The Gibbs sampler produces a set of samples drawn from the joint CMB posterior, $P(\mathbf{s}, C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$. However, for these samples to be useful for estimation of cosmological parameters, we have to transform the information contained in this sample set into a smooth approximation to the likelihood $\mathcal{L}(C_{\ell}) =
P(\mathbf{d}|C_{\ell})$. In principle, we could simply generate a multi-variate histogram and read off corresponding values, but this does not work in practice because of the large dimensionality of the parameter space.
In the current literature, the best approach for handling this problem is the Blackwell-Rao (BR) estimator [@wandelt:2004; @chu:2005], which attempts to smooth the sampled histogram by taking advantage of the known analytic distribution, $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s})$: First, we define the observed power spectrum, $\sigma_{\ell}$, of the current CMB sky Gibbs sample, $\mathbf{s}(\hat{n}) = \sum_{\ell,m} a_{\ell m}
Y_{\ell m}(\hat{n})$, $$\sigma_\ell \equiv \frac{1}{2\ell +1}\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell |a_{\ell m}|^2.$$ Then the BR estimator is derived as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d}) &= \int P(C_{\ell}, \mathbf{s}|\mathbf{d})
\,d\mathbf{s}\notag\\
&= \int P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s},\mathbf{d})
P(\mathbf{s}|\mathbf{d})\,d\mathbf{s} \notag\\
&= \int P(C_{\ell}|\sigma_{\ell})
P(\sigma_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})\,D\sigma_{\ell}\notag\\ &
\approx \frac{1}{N_{\textrm{G}}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\textrm{G}}}
P(C_{\ell}|\sigma_{\ell}^{i}).
\label{eq:br}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the BR estimator is nothing but the average of $P(C_{\ell}|\sigma_{\ell})$ over the sample set, where $\sigma_{\ell}$ refers to the power spectrum of a full-sky noiseless CMB signal Gibbs sample. This distribution has a simple analytic expression [e.g., @chu:2005], $$P(C_\ell | \mathbf \sigma_\ell) \propto \prod_{\ell}
\frac{e^{-\frac{2\ell+1}{2} \frac{\sigma_{\ell}}{C_{\ell}}}}
{C_{\ell}^{\frac{2\ell+1}{2}}}.
\label{eq:prob_sigma}$$
While Equation \[eq:br\] does constitute a computationally convenient and accurate approximation to the full likelihood for some special applications, it suffers badly from poor convergence properties with increasing dimensionality of the sampled space. This behaviour may be understood in terms of relative distribution widths: Suppose we want to map out an $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$-dimensional distribution, and each of the univariate Blackwell-Rao functions \[i.e., $P(C_{\ell}|\sigma_{\ell})$\] have a standard deviation of, say, 90% of the corresponding marginal distributions. The total volume fraction spanned by a single sample in $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$ dimensions is then $f = 0.9^{\ell_{\textrm{max}}}$, an exponentially decreasing function with $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$. Therefore it also takes an exponential number of samples in order to build up the full histogram, and this becomes computationally unfeasible for realistic data sets already at $\ell_{\textrm{max}} \gtrsim 30-50$ [@chu:2005].
The main problem with this approach is that one attempts to map out all possible $N$-point correlation functions between all multipoles. The number of such $N$-point functions is obviously overwhelming with increasing dimensionality. But this also hints at a possible resolution of the problem: We know by experience that the CMB likelihood is a reasonably well behaved function, in that 1) there are only weak correlations between multipoles for data sets with nearly full-sky coverage, and 2) that even including just two-point correlations (in transformed variables) produces very reasonable results (e.g., Bond, Jaffe & Knox 2000; Verde et al. 2003). This intuition will be used in the next section to define a stable likelihood estimator.
The Gaussianized Blackwell-Rao estimator {#sec:method}
========================================
We now introduce a new Gibbs-based likelihood estimator we call the “Gaussianized Blackwell-Rao estimator” (GBR). The basic idea behind this approach is similar to that employed by, e.g., @bond:2000 and @hamimeche:2008, namely approximation by a multivariate Gaussian in a transformed set of variables.
Explicitly, our approximation is defined by transforming the univariate marginal distributions $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$ into Gaussianized variables, $x_{\ell}$, and then assuming a multivariate Gaussian distribution in these transformed variables, $$P(C_\ell | \mathbf d) = \left(\prod_{\ell}\frac{\partial
C_\ell}{\partial x_{\ell}}\right)^{-1} P(\mathbf{x} | \mathbf
d).
\label{eq:transformation}$$ Here $\frac{\partial C_\ell}{\partial x_{\ell}}$ is the Jacobian of the transformation, and $\mathbf{x} = \{x_{\ell}\}$ is a Gaussian random vector with mean $\mu = \{\mu_{\ell}\}$ and covariance matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\ell \ell'} = \left
<(x_{\ell}-\mu_{\ell})(x_{\ell'}-\mu_{\ell'})\right>$. Thus, the approximation of our likelihood estimator relies on the assumption that $$P(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{d}) \approx e^{-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{x}-\mu)^T \mathbf{C}^{-1} (\mathbf{x}-\mu)}.$$ Note that this is by construction exact for the full-sky uniform noise case, because the covariance matrix in this case is diagonal, and the full expression factorizes in $\ell$; in that case we are only performing an identity operation.
Transformation to Gaussian marginal variables
---------------------------------------------
The first step in our algorithm is to compute the change-of-variables rule from $C_{\ell}$ to $x_{\ell}$ that transforms the marginal distribution, $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$, for each $\ell$ into a Gaussian distribution, $P(x_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$. The data used for this process are the $\sigma_{\ell}$ samples drawn from the joint posterior $P(C_{\ell}, \mathbf{s}|\mathbf{d})$ by the CMB Gibbs sampler.
We use two different methods of estimating the marginal distributions from these samples. The first approach is to estimate $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$ with the Blackwell-Rao estimator as defined by Equation \[eq:br\], over a grid in $C_{\ell}$ for each $\ell$. Then, a cubic spline is fitted to the resulting distribution. This is the preferred approach for high signal-to-noise or low-$\ell$ modes.
However, for low signal-to-noise and high-$\ell$ modes one observes similarly poor convergence properties of this marginal estimator as for the full joint estimator. In these cases we therefore instead compute a simple histogram directly from the $C_{\ell}$ samples, and fit a smooth spline [@green:1994] through this histogram. For further stability, we also produce $\mathcal{O}(10^6)$ $C_{\ell}$ samples from $P(C_{\ell}|\sigma_{\ell})$ based on the same $\sigma_{\ell}$ set as used for the BR estimator. This essentially corresponds to computing the Blackwell-Rao estimator by Monte Carlo, and the computational cost of producing these extra samples is small. (The computational expense of the Gibbs sampler is driven by sampling from $P(\mathbf{s}|C_{\ell},\mathbf{d})$, not by $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s})$.) Note that this approach naturally supports arbitrary $C_{\ell}$ binning schemes [@wehus:2008], and also interfaces naturally with the hybrid MCMC scheme described by @jewell:2004.
Given these spline approximations to $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$ for each $\ell$, we compute the corresponding cumulative distributions by numerical integration, $$F(C_\ell | \mathbf{d}) = \int_{0}^{C_\ell} P(C_\ell' | \mathbf{d}) dC_\ell'.$$ This is subsequently identified with a standard Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unity variance. Explicitly, we find $x_\ell(C_\ell)$ over a grid in $C_\ell$ such that $$F(C_\ell|\mathbf{d}) = F_{\textrm{Gauss}}(x_\ell) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\textrm{erf}\left(\frac{x_{\ell}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right),$$ where $\textrm{erf}$ is the error function. This equation is straightforward to solve using standard numerical root-finding routines. The result is a convenient set of look-up tables $x_{\ell}(C_{\ell})$, again stored in the form of cubic splines, that allows for very efficient transformation from standard to Gaussian variables for arbitrary values of $C_{\ell}$. From these splines, it is also easy to compute the derivatives required for the Jacobian in Equation \[eq:transformation\].
Estimation of the joint Gaussian density
----------------------------------------
Having defined a change-of-variables for each $\ell$, the remaining task is to estimate the joint distribution, $P(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{d})$, in the new variables. In this paper, we approximate this distribution by a joint Gaussian, but any parametric function could of course serve this purpose. For example, we implemented support for the skew-Gaussian distribution [e.g., @azzalini:2003] in our codes, but found that the improvement over a simple Gaussian was very small.
The only free parameters in this multivariate Gaussian distribution are the mean, $\mu$, and the covariance, $\mathbf{C}$. These are again estimated from the samples produced by the Gibbs sampler. First, we draw $N \sim \mathcal{O}(10^6)$ $C_{\ell}$ samples from $P(C_{\ell}|\sigma_{\ell})$, as described above, but this time including all $\ell$’s for each sample. Then we Gaussianize these $\ell$-by-$\ell$, by evaluating $x_{\ell}(C_{\ell})$ for each sample and multipole moment. Finally, we compute the corresponding means and standard deviations, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\ell} &= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} x_{\ell}^i \\
C_{\ell\ell'} &= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}
(x_{\ell}^i-\mu_{\ell})(x_{\ell'}^i - \mu_{\ell'}),\end{aligned}$$ where the sums run over sample index.
Application to simulated data {#sec:application}
=============================
Before applying the machinery described in the previous section to the 5-year WMAP data, we verify the method by a analyzing a simulated low-resolution data set. The reason for considering a low-resolution simulation is that only in this case is it possible to evaluate the exact likelihood by brute force in pixel space, without making any approximations.
The simulation is made by drawing a Gaussian realization from the best-fit 5-year WMAP $\Lambda$CDM power spectrum [@komatsu:2008], smoothing this with a $10^{\circ}$ FWHM Gaussian beam, and projecting it on an $N_{\textrm{side}}=16$ HEALPix[^1] grid. Finally, $20\mu\textrm{K}$ RMS white noise is added to each pixel, and the (degraded) WMAP KQ85 sky cut [@gold:2008] is applied to the data. The maximum multipole considered in this analysis was $\ell_{\textrm{max}} = 47$, and the spectrum was binned with a bin size of $\Delta \ell=5$ from $\ell=20$. The signal-to-noise is unity at $\ell=19$, and negligible beyond $\ell \ge 30$.
We now compute slices for each $\ell$ through the full multivariate likelihood, both with the method described in §\[sec:method\] and by brute-force pixel space evaluation [e.g., @eriksen:2007a], fixing all other $\ell$’s at the input $\Lambda$CDM spectrum. For comparison, we also compute the the marginal distributions for each $\ell$.
The results from this exercise are shown in Figure \[fig:verification\]. Black lines indicate the brute-force likelihoods, and red lines show the Gaussianized Blackwell-Rao likelihoods. The green lines show the marginal distributions, visualizing the effect of mode coupling due to the sky cut.
First, we see that all distributions agree very closely at $\ell\le8$. In this very large-scale regime, all harmonic modes are sufficiently well sampled with the KQ85 sky cut that mode coupling is negligible. However, from $\ell\ge10$ the marginal distributions are noticeably different from the likelihood slices, with a typical shift in peak position of $\sim100\mu\textrm{K}^2$’s. We also see that these correlations are accurately captured by the Gaussian approximation implemented in the GBR estimator, as the GBR likelihoods are essentially identical to the brute-force slices up to $\ell = 18$.
At the very high $\ell$ and low signal-to-noise end, we see slight differences between the GBR and the pixel space slices, and in fact, the agreement is better with the marginal distributions. This is caused by poor convergence of the covariance matrix in this particular run, and is included here for pedagogical purposes only: In a real analysis, one must always make sure that all distributions have converged well, typically by analyzing different chain sets separately. Note also that with sufficiently wide bins, the correlations to neighboring bins eventually vanish, and in this case it may be better to remove these correlations by hand from the covariance matrix, rather than trying to estimate them by sampling. Whether this is the case or not for a given set can again be estimated by jack-knife tests. Finally, for the 5-year WMAP analysis presented in this paper, we will only use the GBR estimator in the high signal-to-noise regime, and in that case the distributions converge very quickly.
5-year WMAP temperature analysis {#sec:analysis}
================================
We now apply the tools described in §\[sec:method\] to the 5-year WMAP temperature data. We only consider $\ell \le 200$ in this paper, to avoid issues with error propagation for unresolved point sources and beam estimation. However, we do correct for the mean spectrum of unresolved point sources, as described below.
Data
----
We analyze the foreground reduced 5-year WMAP V-band temperature sky maps, which are available from Lambda[^2]. The V-band data was chosen because these are considered to be the cleanest in terms of foregrounds out of the five WMAP bands [@gold:2008]. Further, at $\ell \le 200$ the V-band alone is strongly cosmic variance dominated, and one does therefore not gain any significant statistical power by co-adding with other bands. Instead, one only increases the chance of introducing foreground biases by adding more frequencies. We work with the individual differencing assembly (DA) maps [@hinshaw:2003], and take into account the beam and noise pattern for each map separately.
The WMAP sky maps are pixelized at a HEALPix resolution of $N_{\textrm{side}}=512$, corresponding to a pixel size of $7'$, and the instrumental beam of the two V-band channels has a FWHM of 21’. We therefore impose an upper harmonic mode limit of $\ell_{\textrm{max}}=700$ in the Gibbs sampling (Commander) step, probing deeply into the noise dominated regime. Note, however, that we only use $\ell \le 200$ in the GBR estimator, to avoid high-$\ell$ complications, such as beam and point source error propagation, in the cosmological parameter stage.
We correct the spectrum for unresolved point sources using the WMAP model. Explicitly, the mean spectrum due to unresolved point sources in a single frequency, $\nu$, for the 5-year WMAP data is modelled as [@hinshaw:2003; @hinshaw:2007; @nolta:2008] $$C_{\ell}^{\textrm{ps}} = A_{\textrm{ps}} a(\nu)^2 \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_0}\right)^{2\beta},$$ where $A_{\textrm{ps}} = 0.011\pm0.001$ is the point source amplitude relative to the Q-band channel ($\nu_0 = 41\textrm{GHz}$), $\beta=-2.1$ is the best-fit spectral index of the point sources, and $a(\nu)$ is the conversion factor between antenna and thermodynamic temperature units. To correct for this in our analysis, we subtract $C_{\ell}^{\textrm{ps}}$, evaluated at $\nu=61\textrm{GHz}$, from each $\sigma_{\ell}$ sample before computing the GBR estimator.
Finally, we impose the WMAP KQ85 sky cut [@gold:2008] on the data that masks point sources, removing 18% of the sky. Note that we adopt the template corrected maps provided by the WMAP team in this analysis, and postpone an internal Gibbs sampling based foreground analysis to a future paper; for now our main focus is the new likelihood approximation, not the impact of foregrounds.
Analysis overview
-----------------
The analysis consists of the following steps:
1. Generate 4000 $\sigma_{\ell}$ samples with Commander from the 5-year V1 and V2 differencing assemblies , including $\ell$’s up to $\ell_{\textrm{max}}=700$, divided over 8 chains.
2. Generate 500000 $C_{\ell}$ samples from these $\sigma_{\ell}$’s, including $\ell$’s between $\ell=2$ and 250.
3. Compute the corresponding GBR parameters, i.e., transformation tables, means $\mu$ and covariance matrix $\mathbf{C}$.
4. Modify the 5-year WMAP temperature likelihood by replacing the existing low-$\ell$ part with Equation \[eq:transformation\], with the parameters given in (3). The transition multipole between the low-$\ell$ and high-$\ell$ is increased from $\ell=32$ to 200. Multipoles between $\ell=201$ and 250 are included in the GBR estimator to avoid truncation effects, but the spectrum in this range is kept fixed at a fiducial spectrum, in order not to count these multipoles twice.
5. Cosmological parameters are estimated using CosmoMC [@lewis:2002].
Convergence analysis
--------------------
Before presenting the results from the WMAP analysis, we consider the question of convergence. First, we compute the Gelman-Rubin statistic [@gelman:1992] for each $\sigma_{\ell}$ using the eight chains computed with Commander and removing the first 20 samples for burn-in. We find that $R-1$ is less than 0.01 for $\ell \lesssim 300$ and less than 1.1 for $\ell \lesssim 500$, indicating very good convergence in terms of power spectra.
However, the fact that each $\sigma_{\ell}$ individually is well converged does not automatically imply that the full likelihood is well converged, since the latter depends crucially on the correlations between $\sigma_{\ell}$’s. To assess the convergence in terms of cosmological parameters, we therefore analyse a toy model, by fitting a simple two-parameter amplitude and tilt, $q$ and $n$, model, $$C_{\ell} = q \,\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell_{\textrm{pivot}}}\right)^{n}\,C_{\ell}^{\textrm{fid}},$$ to the WMAP data between $\ell=2$ and 250 with the GBR likelihood. Here $C_{\ell}^{\textrm{fid}}$ is a fiducial power spectrum, which is chosen to be the best-fit 5-year WMAP $\Lambda$CDM power spectrum [@komatsu:2008], and $\ell_{\textrm{pivot}}=150$. We then map out the likelihood in a grid over $q$ and $n$. This is repeated twice, first including samples from chains number 1 to 4 and then from chains number 5 to 8.
The results from this exercise are shown in Figure \[fig:qn\_model\] in terms of two sets of likelihood contours, corresponding to each of the two chain sets, respectively. The agreement between the two is excellent, indicating that we also have good convergence in terms of cosmological parameters with the existing sample set. Note also that the point $(q,n) = (1,0)$ lies well inside the $1\sigma$ confidence region, indicating that the best-fit WMAP model, which is obtained including $\ell$’s between $\ell=2$ and 1024, also is a good fit to $\ell=2$ to 250 separately.
Third, as described in §\[sec:method\], we construct the GBR covariance matrix from $N=\mathcal{O}(10^6)$ $C_{\ell}$ samples drawn from the (smaller) set of $\sigma_{\ell}$ samples. An outstanding question is how large $N$ should be in order for this covariance matrix to reach convergence, as a function of $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$. To settle this question, we carry out the following simple exercise: First we produce two $C_{\ell}$ sample sets, each containing $N$ samples, and all drawn from a single $\sigma_{\ell}$ sample. Second, we compute the two corresponding covariance matrices, invert these, then subtract them from each other, and finally compute the standard deviation of all elements. Third, we define the inverse covariance matrix to be converged if the RMS MCMC noise is less than 0.005, corresponding to 0.5% of the diagonal elements. (We have checked that this produces robust parameter estimates.) We then find the smallest $N$ such that this is satisfied, as a function of $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$.
The results from this exercise are shown in Figure \[fig:covar\_convergence\]. Here we see that the number of samples required for convergence rises rapidly up to $\ell\sim30$, reaching a maximum of $\sim8\times10^4$ samples, and then flattens to a plateau. To be on the safe side, we therefore always use either $5\times10^5$ or $10^6$ samples in the WMAP analysis.
The reason for this behaviour becomes intuitive when considering the structure of the actual matrix. This is shown in Figure \[fig:covar\], on the form of a correlation matrix $$\tilde{C}_{\ell\ell'} =
\frac{C_{\ell\ell'}}{\sqrt{C_{\ell\ell}C_{\ell'\ell'}}}-\delta_{\ell\ell'}.$$ The main features of this matrix are negative correlations around the diagonal, with the largest amplitudes observed between $\ell$ and $\ell\pm2$. This is expected: First, two modes separated by $\Delta\ell=1$ have different parity, and can therefore not easily mimic each other. On the other hand, modes separated by $\Delta\ell=2$ have both identical parity and similar angular scale, and it is therefore possible to add power to one mode and subtract it from the other, and still maintain an essentially unchanged image. The result is a noticeable anti-correlation between $\ell$ and $\ell\pm2$.
At larger separations in $\ell$, the correlations die off rapidly, since it is difficult for a large-scale mode to mimic a small-scale mode with a reasonably small sky cut. And this explains the convergence behaviour seen in Figure \[fig:covar\_convergence\]: The covariance matrix is strongly band-limited. Therefore, once one has a sufficiently large number of $C_{\ell}$ samples for a sub-block to converge, there is also enough samples for a sub-block further away to converge. These are essentially uncorrelated.
Results
-------
We now present the main results derived from the 5-year WMAP temperature data with the GBR estimator between $\ell=2$ and 200. First, in the top panel of Figure \[fig:powspec\] we plot the power spectrum obtained by maximizing the GBR likelihood together with the official 5-year WMAP power spectrum. The bottom panel shows the difference between these two, and the gray band indicates the standard deviation of $\sigma_{\ell}$, i.e., the uncertainty due to noise and sky cut, but not to cosmic variance. Clearly, the agreement between the two power spectra is very good.
Next, in Figure \[fig:likelihood\_comparison\] we compare a few selected slices through the GBR likelihood with slices through the WMAP likelihood. All other $\ell$’s than the one currently considered are kept fixed at the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM spectrum. Here we see that there are small shifts in peak positions, corresponding to the small differences seen in the power spectra in Figure \[fig:powspec\]. However, a main point in this plot is that the GBR likelihood slices are well behaved even at the highest $\ell$’s, and this is not the case for the standard BR estimator [@chu:2005].
Finally, in Table \[tab:parameters\] and Figure \[fig:parameters\] we summarize the marginal cosmological parameter posteriors obtained with the two likelihood codes from CosmoMC. Interestingly, there are some notable differences at the 0.3–$0.6\sigma$ level, with the most striking example being the spectral index of scalar perturbations, $n_{\textrm{s}}=0.973\pm0.014$. This is only $1.9\sigma$ away from unity, and $0.6\sigma$ higher than the official WMAP values.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have presented a new likelihood approximation to be used within the CMB Gibbs sampling framework. This approximation is defined by Gaussianizing the observed marginal power spectrum posteriors, $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$, through a specific change-of-variables, and then coupling these univariate posteriors into a joint distribution through a multivariate Gaussian in the new variables. This process is exact, i.e., an identity operation, in the uniform and full-sky coverage case, and it is also an excellent approximation in for the moderate sky cuts relevant to satellite missions such as WMAP and Planck.
Our new approach relies on the previously described CMB Gibbs sampling framework [@jewell:2004; @wandelt:2004; @eriksen:2004], and thereby inherits many important advantages from that. First and foremost, this framework allows for seamless propagation of uncertainties from various systematic effects (e.g., foregrounds, beam uncertainties, calibration or noise estimation errors) to the final cosmological parameters. This is not straightforward in the hybrid scheme used by the WMAP code. Second, this new approach corresponds to the exact low-$\ell$ pixel space likelihood part of the WMAP code, not the approximate high-$\ell$ MASTER part. Still, our method can handle arbitrary high $\ell$’s. Third, once the one-time pre-processing step has been completed, the computational expense of our estimator is determined by the cost of $\ell_{\textrm{max}}$ spline evaluations, while a pixel space approach requires a matrix inversion, and therefore scales as $\mathcal{O}(N_{\textrm{pix}}^3)$. For the cases considered in this paper, the CPU time required for the GBR WMAP estimator up to $\ell=200$ was $\sim0.2$ milliseconds, while it was $\sim20$ seconds for the pixel space approach up to $\ell=32$, for a map with $~2500$ pixels.
In order to validate our estimator, we applied it to a low-resolution simulated data set, and compared it to slices through the exact joint likelihood as computed by brute-force evaluation in pixel space. The agreement between the two approaches was excellent. We then applied the same estimator to the 5-year WMAP temperature data, and estimated both a new power spectrum and new cosmological parameters within a standard six-parameter $\Lambda$CDM model.
The results from these calculations are interesting. First, our power spectrum is statistically very similar to the official WMAP spectrum, with no visible biases seen and relative fluctuations within the level predicted by noise and sky cut. Nevertheless, we do find significant differences in terms of cosmological parameters, and most notably in the spectral index of scalar perturbations, $n_{\textrm{s}}$. Specifically, we find $n_{\textrm{s}} = 0.973\pm
0.014$, which is only $1.9\sigma$ away from unity and $0.6\sigma$ higher than the official WMAP result, $n_{\textrm{s}} = 0.965\pm
0.014$.
This result resembles very much the outcome of a re-analysis we did with the 3-year WMAP temperature data [@eriksen:2007a], for which we found a bias of $0.4\sigma$ in $n_{\textrm{s}}$ compared to the official WMAP results. This bias was due to the sub-optimal MASTER-based likelihood approximation [@hivon:2002; @verde:2003] used by the WMAP team between $\ell=12$ and 30, whereas we used an exact estimator in the same range. This study later prompted the WMAP to change their codes to use an exact likelihood evaluator up to $\ell=30$.
In the same study, we also tried to increase the $\ell$-range for our exact estimator to $\ell=50$, but found small differences. We therefore concluded, perhaps somewhat prematurely, that an exact estimator up to $\ell=30$ was sufficient for obtaining accurate results. On the contrary, in this paper we find still find significant changes when increasing the exact estimator up to $\ell=200$.
In retrospect, this should perhaps not come as a complete surprise, when realizing that the impact on a particular cosmological parameter typically depends logarithmically on $\ell$. For instance, @hamimeche:2008 considered a simple power spectrum model with a single free amplitude, $C_{\ell} = q\,C_{\ell}^{\textrm{fid}}$, and found that, for a given likelihood estimator to be “statistically unbiased”, the systematic errors in that same estimator must fall off faster than $\sim 1/\ell$.
[cccc]{} $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}h^2$ & $0.0228\pm0.0006$ & $0.0230\pm0.0006$ & 0.4\
$\Omega_{\textrm{c}}h^2$ & $0.109\pm0.006$ & $0.0108\pm0.006$ & -0.3\
$\textrm{log}(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}})$ & $3.06\pm0.04$ & $3.06\pm0.04$ & 0.0\
$h$ & $0.722\pm0.03$ & $0.732\pm0.03$ & 0.3\
$n_{\textrm{s}}$ & $0.965\pm0.014$ & $0.973\pm0.014$ & 0.6\
$\tau$ & $0.090\pm0.02$ & $0.090\pm0.02$ & 0.0
A similar consideration holds for $n_{\textrm{s}}$. Intuitively, $n_{\textrm{s}}$ is as much affected by $\ell=2$ to 10 as it is between $\ell=20$ and 100. In the previous 3-year WMAP re-analysis paper, we increased the range of the accurate likelihood estimator from $\ell=12$ to 30, corresponding to a factor of 2.5 in $\ell$, and removed a bias of $\sim0.4\sigma$ in $n_{\textrm{s}}$. In this paper, we increase the range from $\ell=30$ to 200, corresponding to a factor of 6.7 in $\ell$, and find an additional bias of $0.6\sigma$. However, increasing $\ell$ from 30 to 50 corresponds only to a factor of 1.7 in $\ell$, and this appears to be too small to produce a statistically significant result.
The main conclusions from this work are two-fold. First, it seems that an accurate likelihood description is required to higher $\ell$’s than previously believed, and at least up to $\ell=200$, in order to obtain unbiased results. By extrapolation, it also does not seem unlikely that even higher multipoles should be included. This issue will be revisited in a future publication.
Our second main conclusion is that we find a spectral index only $1.9\sigma$ away from unity, namely $n_{\textrm{s}} =
0.973\pm0.014$. To us, it therefore seem premature to make strong claims concerning $n_{\textrm{s}}\ne 1$; the statistical significance of this is rather low, and there are likely still unknown systematic errors in this number.
In a future publication we will generalize the GBR estimator to polarization. Once completed, this will enable a fully Gibbs-based CMB likelihood analysis at low $\ell$’s, and remove the need for likelihood techniques based on matrix operations, i.e., inversion and determinant evaluation. The computational cost of a standard cosmological parameter MCMC analysis (e.g., CosmoMC) will then once again be driven by the required Boltzmann codes (e.g., CAMB or CMBFast) and not by the likelihood evaluation. In turn, this will increase the importance of fast interpolation codes such as Pico [@fendt:2007] or COSMONET [@auld:2007]. With such fast algorithms for both spectrum and likelihood evaluations ready at hand, the CPU requirements for cosmological parameter estimation may possibly be reduced by orders of magnitude.
We thank Tony Banday, Ben Wandelt and Graca Rocha for useful and interesting discussions. We acknowledge use of the HEALPix software [@gorski:2005] and analysis package for deriving the results in this paper. We acknowledge use of the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). This work was partially performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [Ø]{}R, NEG and HKE acknowledge financial support from the Research Council of Norway.
Auld, T., Bridges, M., Hobson, M. P., & Gull, S. F. 2007, , 376, L11
Azzalini, A. & Capitanio, A. 2003, J.Roy.Statist.Soc, series B, vol.65, pp.367-389
Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003, , 148, 1
Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A. H., & Knox, L. 2000, , 533, 19
Chu, M., Eriksen, H. K., Knox, L., G[ó]{}rski, K. M., Jewell, J. B., Larson, D. L., O’Dwyer, I. J., & Wandelt, B. D. 2005, , 71, 103002
Eriksen, H. K., et al. 2004, , 155, 227
Eriksen, H. K., et al.2007a, , 656, 641
Eriksen, H. K., Huey, G., Banday, A. J., G[ó]{}rski, K. M., Jewell, J. B., O’Dwyer, I. J., & Wandelt, B. D. 2007b, , 665, L1
Eriksen, H. K., Jewell, J. B., Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., G[ó]{}rski, K. M., & Lawrence, C. R. 2008a, , 676, 10
Eriksen, H. K., Dickinson, C., Jewell, J. B., Banday, A. J., G[ó]{}rski, K. M., & Lawrence, C. R. 2008b, , 672, L87
Eriksen, H. K. & Wehus, I. K. 2008, , in press, \[arxiv:0806.3074\]
Fendt, W. A., & Wandelt, B. D. 2007, , 654, 2
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. 1990, J. Am. Stat. Asso., 85, 398
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457
Gold, B., et al. 2008, ApJS, \[arXiv:0803.0715\]
G[' o]{}rski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., Wandelt, B. D., Hansen, F.K., Reinecke, M., & Bartelmann, M. 2005, , 622, 759
Green, P. J., & Silverman, B. W. 1994, Non-Parametric Regression and Generalized Linear Models, Chapman and Hall, 1994
Groeneboom, N. E., & Eriksen, H. K. 2008, ApJ, in press, \[arXiv:0807.2242\]
Hamimeche, S., & Lewis, A. 2008, , 77, 103013
Hinshaw, G., et al. 2003, , 148, 63
Hinshaw, G., et al. 2007, , 170, 288
Hinshaw, G., et al. 2008, ApJS, in press, \[arXiv:0803.0732\]
Hivon, E., G[' o]{}rski, K. M., Netterfield, C. B., Crill, B. P.,Prunet, S., & Hansen, F. 2002, , 567, 2
Jewell, J., Levin, S., & Anderson, C. H. 2004, , 609, 1
Jewell, J. B., et al. 2008, submitted, , \[astro-ph/0807.0624\]
Komatsu, E., et al. 2008, ApJS, in press, \[arXiv:0803.0547\]
Larson, D. L., Eriksen, H. K., Wandelt, B. D., G[ó]{}rski, K. M., Huey, G., Jewell, J. B., & O’Dwyer, I. J. 2007, , 656, 653
Lewis, A., & Bridle, S. 2002, , 66, 103511
Nolta, M. R., et al. 2008, ApJS, in press, \[arXiv:0803.0593\]
O’Dwyer, I. J., et al.2004, , 617, L99
Verde, L., et al. 2003, , 148, 195
Wandelt, B. D., Larson, D. L., & Lakshminarayanan, A. 2004, , 70, 083511
[^1]: http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov
[^2]: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have mapped the ($\lambda=2.1215\, \micron$) emission line along a 400 pc long strip and in a 50 pc region in the Galactic center. There is emission throughout the surveyed region. The typical de-reddened ($\ak = 2.5$ mag) surface brightness, $\sim 3 \times 10^{-5}$ , is similar to the surface brightness in large-scale photon-dominated regions in the galactic disk. We investigate two possible excitation mechanisms for the emission: UV-excitation by photons from OB stars, and shock waves, and conclude that UV-excitation is more likely. The total luminosity in the inner 400 pc region of the Galaxy is 8000 . The ratio of the to far-IR luminosity in the inner 400 pc of the Galaxy agrees with that in starburst galaxies and ultraluminous infrared bright galaxies.'
author:
- 'Soojong Pak, D. T. Jaffe, and L. D. Keller'
title: ' H$_2$ Emission from the Inner 400 pc of the Galaxy '
---
.
[ **H$_2$ EMISSION FROM\
THE INNER 400 PC OF THE GALAXY** ]{}
To appear in [*the Astrophysical Jounal Letters*]{}
vol. 457 on Jan. 20, 1996
INTRODUCTION {#sec:int}
============
Physical conditions in the interstellar medium of the Galactic center[^1] are significantly different from those in the solar neighborhood. The thin disk of interstellar material in the Galactic center (size: $450 \times 40$ pc) contains $\sim10^{8}\ \msun$ of dense molecular gas, $\sim$10 % of the Galaxy’s molecular mass (Güsten 1989). The molecular clouds in the Galactic center have higher density, metallicity, and internal velocity dispersion than the clouds in the solar neighborhood (Blitz et al. 1993). Strong radio continuum radiation from giant regions and extended, low-density (ELD) (Sofue 1985), as well as far-IR radiation from dust (Odenwald & Fazio 1984), indicate that the UV radiation field is intense. The energetic conditions in the Galactic center can provide a unique view of the interaction between stellar UV radiation and molecular clouds, and a nearby example for the nuclei of other galaxies.
Ro-vibrational lines of trace Photon-dominated Regions (PDRs) where far-UV photons excite the and shocked regions where the is thermally excited. As a result, the central regions ($\sim 1$ kpc) in starburst galaxies are powerful emitters of near-IR emission (Puxley, Hawarden, & Mountain 1989; Joseph 1989; Lester et al. 1990; Moorwood & Oliva 1990). Vigorous star formation in these galaxies produces large numbers UV photons which can excite , while subsequent supernovae can shock excite the .
Gatley et al. (1984, 1986) and Gatley & Merrill (1993) have observed emission from the inner 5 pc diameter (2) in the Galactic Center, a much smaller region than those observed in starburst galaxies. With the University of Texas Near-Infrared Fabry-Perot Spectrometer (Luhman et al. 1995), it is now possible to observe emission over much larger angular scales. We describe here a program to map the Galactic center in emission on a scale of several degrees (several hundred pc), and discuss the likely excitation mechanism. We can then compare the central region of our Galaxy with those in other galaxies.
OBSERVATIONS {#sec:obs}
============
We observed the ($\lambda = 2.1215$ ) line at the McDonald Observatory 0.91 m telescope in 1994 May and June, using the University of Texas Near-Infrared Fabry-Perot Spectrometer (Luhman et al. 1995). To select a single order from the Fabry-Perot interferometer, we used a 1 % interference filter cooled to 77 K. The telescope (f-ratio 13.5), a collimator (effective focal length 343 mm), and a field lens (effective focal length 20 mm) combined to produce a beam diameter of 33 (equivalent disk).
The Fabry-Perot interferometer operated in 92nd order with an effective finesse of 17.7, yielding a spectral resolution (FWHM) of 184 . The scanning spectral range was $\pm 335$ centered at V$_{LSR}$ = 0, with 20 sequentially exposed channels. We nodded the telescope between the object and the sky every $\sim 60$ seconds to subtract background and the telluric OH line emission. The sky positions were offset by $\pm 1\arcdeg$ in declination ($\Delta l = \pm 0\fdg85,\ \Delta b = \pm 0\fdg53$) from the object positions. The telescope pointing error was $\pm 15\arcsec$. We made a strip map along the Galactic plane running across $^*$, at $b = -0\fdg05$, from $l = -1\fdg2$ (178 pc) to $+1\fdg6$ (237 pc), taking spectra at 01 or 02 intervals (Figure \[fig:gc200pc\]). We also mapped the central 50 pc region including and the radio “Arc” (the arched filaments and the vertical filaments, Yusef-Zadeh, Morris, & Chance 1984) on a 005 grid (see Figure \[fig:gc50pc\]). The relative flux calibration is accurate to $\pm$ 15 %.
RESULTS {#sec:res}
=======
to 11cm [ ]{}
to 11cm [ ]{}
There is emission throughout the 400 pc diameter region around the Galactic Center. About 70 % of the observed positions along the strip at $b=-0\fdg05$ have detections of the line with a significance of $3\sigma$ or more. Figure \[fig:gc200pc\] shows the intensity distribution of along the strip. The intensity peaks strongly at and decreases continuously from $l = -0\fdg1$ to $-0\fdg7$. The “dust ridge” seen in 800 $\mu$m continuum emission (Lis & Carlstrom 1994) may cause the dip between $l = +0\fdg1$ to $+0\fdg3$. Away from the nucleus, the intensity distribution is fairly flat. Figure \[fig:gc50pc\] shows the intensity distribution in the inner 50 pc of the Galaxy overlayed on a simplified radio continuum map (based on Yusef-Zadeh, Morris, & Chance 1984). We have detected emission in the arched filaments and in the Sickle at levels comparable to those of the emission elsewhere along the Plane. The inset in Figure \[fig:gc50pc\] shows the distribution in the $0\fdg022 \times 0\fdg038$ region around Sgr A West mapped by Gatley et al. (1986). In Gatley’s work, the appears to be brightest along the inner edge of the circum-nuclear gas ring at radius of $1.0 - 2.5$ pc. Our measured flux at ($l=-0\fdg05$, $b=-0\fdg05$), $1.5 \times 10^{-11}$ , agrees within the errors with the total flux from the map of Gatley et al. (1986, $F = 2.0 \times 10^{-11}$ ). The emission observed adjacent to ($l = -0\fdg05$, $b = -0\fdg05$) most likely arises from portions of the circum-nuclear ring beyond their map.
DISCUSSION {#sec:dis}
============
Extinction Correction {#sec:extinction}
-----------------------
At 2.2 $\mu$m, the emission from the Galactic center is attenuated by interstellar material in the foreground (“foreground extinction”, mostly 4-8 kpc from the Galactic Center) and by material in the Galactic center itself (“Galactic center extinction”). Catchpole et al. (1990) mapped the extinction toward the Galactic center by observing the near-IR reddening of giant stars in the central few hundred parsecs. Along our H$_2$ strip at b= –005 (for –06$<l<$+06), the extinction is fairly uniform with a value A$_K\sim$2.5 mag. Although most of this extinction is in the foreground, some of it could occur within the Galactic center since Catchpole et al. (1990) were able to identify patches in their maps with A$_K>$2.5 with known molecular clouds in the Galactic center (see plate 4 in Glass et al. 1987). Based on this work, we adopt A$_K$=2.5 for the foreground extinction.
The Galactic center extinction greatly exceeds the foreground extinction. Typical $^{12}$CO J=1$\rightarrow$0 linestrengths along the strip we have surveyed in H$_2$ are 1500 Kkms$^{-1}$ (Oort 1977). This line strength implies an A$_K$ of 10–40 mag, depending on the CO/H$_2$ and A$_K$/H$_2$ ratios in the Galactic center (Sodroski et al. 1994). The extinction through individual clouds may also be substantial (A$_K\sim$10–30 for a 10 pc long cloud with n$_{H_2}$=10$^4$ cm$^{-3}$). The relevance of the Galactic center extinction depends on the source of the H$_2$ emission. Any H$_2$ emission originating within the clouds will be highly extincted. If the H$_2$ emission arises on the cloud surfaces, however, we only miss the H$_2$ flux from the back side of each cloud.
Clouds lying in front of other clouds will further reduce the flux reaching us from the front surfaces. If, in the Galactic Center, the velocity integrated area filling factor of clouds, [*f*]{}, is substantially greater than unity, extinction by overlapping clouds will reduce the H$_2$ flux observed from the front surfaces by a factor $\sim1/f$ in addition to the foreground extinction and to the loss of emission on the opposite sides of the clouds. Typical clouds in the Galactic center disk have kinetic temperatures $\sim$70 K and linewidths $\sim$20 km s$^{-1}$ (Güsten 1989). An ensemble of such clouds could produce the observed $^{12}$CO J=1$\rightarrow$0 lines in the Galactic center with f$\sim$1. We therefore conclude that the extinction of any H$_2$ emission from cloud surfaces facing the sun beyond the foreground extinction of A$_K$= 2.5 discussed above is not substantial. Since the extinction of emission from within the clouds or from the sides facing away from us is difficult to estimate and since no correction is usally made for such effects in giant molecular clouds and galactic nuclei, we make no additional extinction corrections here.
UV Excitation of {#sec:UV}
-------------------
If one ignores the region immediately around $^*$, the de-reddened ($\ak = 2.5$ mag, see Section \[sec:extinction\]) surface brightness along the Galactic plane has a roughly constant value of $\simeq 3 \times 10^{-5}$ . Any excitation mechanism for the must be able to explain both the absolute intensity and the uniformity and extent of the emission. The excitation of the $v=1$, $J=3$ state can result either from radiative decay from UV-excited electronic states or from energetic collisions. can absorb 91–123 nm photons in the $B^1\Sigma^+_u - X^1\Sigma^+_g$ Lyman and $C^1\Pi_u - X^1\Sigma^+_g$ Werner bands. About 90% of the time, the excited decays to some ro-vibrational level of the ground electronic state. The relative line intensities arising in UV-excited are insensitive to density or to UV field strength if ${\rm n_{H_2}} < 10^4$ (Black and van Dishoeck 1987). At densities $\geq 10^5$ , UV-excited gas can become hot enough that collisions populate states with $v=1$ (Sternberg and Dalgarno 1989). Collisional excitation can also result from shocks which abruptly heat the gas to $> 10^3$ K (e.g. Hollenbach, Chernoff, & McKee 1989). Several observational results lead us to believe that UV excitation can explain the emission in the Galactic Center.
The denser parts of clouds like Orion and NGC 2024 produce emission with an intensity close to that observed in the Galactic Center. In Orion and NGC 2024, the degree-scale H$_2$ emission has a typical surface brightness $\sim 6 \times 10^{-6}$ (Luhman et al. 1994). Along the molecular ridges in these clouds, the H$_2$ surface brightness is 3-5 times higher. Observations of transitions arising from higher-lying states indicates that, in these sources, the emission is a result of UV fluorescence. If large-scale emission arises in the surface layers of the clouds where UV photons can excite the molecules, the dust, which absorbs the bulk of the incident flux, ought to radiate in the far-IR continuum as well. Luhman & Jaffe (1996) have compared the observations of clouds in the galactic disk with IRAS far-IR continuum results and derived a relation between the line and far-IR continuum intensities. We can use this relationship and the measured far-IR intensities in the Galactic center to see if UV-excitation is plausible for our observed emission. In most of the region along our Galactic center H$_2$ cut, the IRAS 100 $\mu$m band detectors were saturated. In order to compare the Galactic center H$_2$ data to far-IR continuum measurements with comparable angular resolution, we have combined the un-saturated IRAS measurements from the outer ends of our H$_2$ strip with the 40–250 $\mu$m continuum measurements of Odenwald and Fazio (1984). To make the two data sets comparable, we have first converted the IRAS 60 $\mu$m and 100 $\mu$m fluxes into a total far-IR flux (the FIR parameter of Fullmer and Lonsdale 1989). The IRAS total far-IR flux agrees well with the far-IR flux derived by Odenwald and Fazio in the regions where their data and the unsaturated IRAS data overlap. We then converted the combined datasets into integrated far-IR intensity for comparison with our H$_2$ strip. We used the Luhman & Jaffe galactic disk dataset to re-derive their H$_2$/far-IR relation in intensity units. We obtain, $$\log(I_{\rm H_2 v=1-0 S(1)}) = -4.65 + 0.39 \log(I_{FIR}),$$ where both intensities are in . The dispersion of the galactic disk cloud intensities about this relation is log($\sigma$) = 0.23. If we de-redden the Galactic center H$_2$ observations by = 2.5 mag ([*but otherwise do nothing to fit the data to the galactic disk relation*]{}), the Galactic center intensities have a dispersion log($\sigma$) = 0.26 about this relation. The Galactic center results are therefore completely consistent with the empirical far-IR vs. relationship derived for the UV-excited surfaces of clouds in the galactic disk.
We can also compare the H$_2$ line intensities predicted by models of photon-dominated regions to the observed intensities. The models use indirect observations of the far-UV field in the Galactic center (radio and far-IR continuum fluxes) as inputs. For the radio, we predict the far-UV field using emission from extended, low-density (ELD) regions because the molecular cloud column densities, and therefore the extinction at the wavelength of , tend to be high (and uncertain) toward the discrete regions. Away from discrete H II regions, the typical 10.5 GHz flux density is 2.2 Jy in a 33 beam (Sofue 1985). Assuming $T_e = 10^4$ K, this flux density corresponds to $2.3 \times 10^{49}$ sec$^{-1}$ Lyman continuum photons per second (Mezger, Smith, & Churchwell 1974), in the corresponding region (8.2 pc). For an ionizing source with an effective stellar temperature, $T_{eff} = 3.5 \times 10^4$ K as the UV source, the 2.3$\times$10$^{49}$ Lyman continuum photons imply $\sim$2.3$\times$10$^{49}$ photons in the range which can excite the (91-123 nm), or a luminosity of $1.2 \times 10^5$ (Black & van Dishoeck 1987). From our observations, the average flux in a 33 beam is $2.4 \times 10^{-12}$ . The corresponding total luminosity in the 8.2 pc (33) region is $3.3 \times 10^3$ , if we correct for an extinction of $\ak = 2.5$ mag and use the PDR model of Black & van Dishoeck (1987) to extrapolate to the cooling in all lines ($I_{\rm H_2 v=1-0 S(1)}/I_{\rm H_2}$ $=$ $0.016$). The ratio of the near-IR luminosity to the luminosity in the far-UV band that is effective in exciting is 0.028, which is close to the value of 0.034 from an appropriate PDR model for the Galactic center (Model 19 in Black & van Dishoeck 1987, which has n$_H$ = 10$^4$ and a UV field I$_{UV}$ = 10$^3$). The far-IR continuum intensities along our Galactic center strip are typically 0.8 (Odenwald and Fazio 1984). If all of this emission arises from a single molecular cloud surface filling the beam, it corresponds to a far-UV flux $\sim 2 \times 10^3$ times the mean interstellar radiation field in the solar neighborhood (Draine 1978). Given the likely number of clouds along each line of sight and various geometric effects, the likely far-UV field is $500-1000$ times the solar neighborhood value. For this range of UV field strengths and densities between 3$\times$10$^3$ and 3$\times$10$^4$ , Black and van Dishoeck (1987) predict line intensities in the range $1.2-4.2 \times 10^{-5}$ , bracketing our typical observed, de-reddened value.
The emission from the circum-nuclear disk appears to be collisionally excited (I$_{\rm v=2-1 S(1)}$/I$_{\rm v=1-0 S(1)}$) $\simeq 0.1$, Gatley et al. 1984). Gatley et al. suggest that shocks created by mass outflow from the Galactic nucleus might excite the . Such thermal line ratios can also occur, however, in UV-excited gas if the UV fields and densities are sufficiently high (Sternberg and Dalgarno 1989; Luhman et al. 1996). Since the typical hydrogen density in the circum-nuclear disk is large, i.e., $n_H \simeq 10^5\ \cmv$, and the UV field is intense in the central 3 pc, (the number of total Lyman continuum photons absorbed by the gas is $\sim2 \times 10^{50}\ \lsun$, Lacy et al. 1980), the strength and character of the emission from the circumnuclear disk are also consistent with UV-excitation.
Shock-Excitation {#sec:shock}
------------------
Shock excitation of the transition must take place, at some level, in the inner 400 pc of the Galaxy. A large variety of dynamical activity may give rise to shocks with appropriate characteristics. Outflows around newly formed stars and shocks caused by supernova remnants impinging on molecular clouds in the galactic disk both produce emission and should be observable in the Galactic Center. Bally et al (1987; 1988) surveyed the Galactic center region in the $^{12}$CO and $J=1 \rightarrow 0$, and CS $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ lines. The gas distribution is highly asymmetric about the center, and some negative velocity gas is seen at positive longitudes, which is “forbidden” to gas in circular orbits. This gas and other clouds with eccentric orbits may collide with material in more circular orbits. For example, in the complex, Hasegawa et al. (1994) suggested that a dense ($ n_{H_2} \simeq 1.4 \times 10^4\ \cmv $), $ 10^6\ \msun $ “Clump” has collided with the extended less dense “Shell” of the cloud complex producing a $\sim 30\ \kms$ shock. Finally, the internal velocity dispersion of the molecular clouds is in the range of $\Delta V = 20 - 50\ \kms$ (Bally et al. 1988). If the internal collisions efficiently dissipate the relative kinetic energy by radiative cooling following shocks, there should be emission throughout the molecular clouds, much of it, however, heavily extincted.
Depending on the context, shock-excited emission could result either from dissociative J-shocks (colliding clouds, supernova remnants), or from C-shocks (outflows, dissipation of turbulence). The J-shocks give rise to intensities in the range of 3$\times$10$^{-5}$ – 10$^{-4}$ with the intensity being fairly insensitive to density and shock velocity over the range 10$^4$ cm$^{-3} \leq$ n $\leq$ 10$^5$ cm$^{-3}$ and 30 km s$^{-1} \leq$ v$_{shock} \leq$ 150 km s$^{-1}$ (Hollenbach & McKee 1989). For A$_K$ = 2.5 mag, the predicted intensity matches what we observe in the Galactic center fairly well. In order to explain the distribution of observed emission, however, the number of shock fronts times the area covered per beam must roughly equal the beam area along virtually every line of sight through the inner 400 pc of the Galaxy, an unlikely picture at best.
C-shocks can produce intensities in the range of those observe in the Galactic Center. A single C-shock with n = 10$^4$ cm$^{-3}$ and V = 20 km s$^{-1}$ gives I$_{S(1)}$ $\simeq$ 3$\times$10$^{-5}$ (Draine, Roberge, & Dalgarno 1983). The emergent intensity, however, is extremely sensitive to the shock velocity, varying (at n$_H$ = 10$^4$ cm$^{-3}$) by 3 orders of magnitude from V$_{shock}$ = 18 to V$_{shock}$ = 40 . A model making use of C-shocks to produce the observed uniform distribution would have to be somewhat contrived. While there may be some shock-excited emission from the Galactic Center, it is difficult to argue away the expected PDR emission and then construct a reasonably simple shock model capable of explaining the observations. A reliable test of the excitation mechanism would be to observe transitions arising higher above ground than the line.
Total Luminosity
-------------------
To estimate the total luminosity of the Galactic Center, we extrapolate from our 400 pc long strip by assuming that the scale height of the emission equals that of the far-IR radiation ($h\simeq 0\fdg2$, Odenwald & Fazio 1984). For $\ak = 2.5$ mag and $f \leq 1$ (see Section \[sec:extinction\]), the de-reddened luminosity in the inner 400 pc diameter of the Galaxy is $8.0 \times 10^3$ . Joseph (1989) gives ranges of luminosity in $> 1$ kpc regions for various classes of galaxies: (1) merging galaxies: $3 \times 10^6 - 3 \times 10^8\ \lsun$; (2) interacting galaxies: $10^5 - 10^7\ \lsun$; (3) barred spirals: $10^4 - 10^6\ \lsun$. Over its inner $\sim 1$ kpc, our Galaxy most likely falls within the range for barred spirals.
In ultraluminous infrared bright galaxies ($L_{IR} \gtrsim 10^{12}\ \lsun$), Goldader et al. (1995) show that log($L_{S(1)}/L_{FIR}$) $=$ $-4.95 \pm 0.22$. For the nearby starburst M82. we can use measurements of the inner 60 (Pak & Jaffe, unpublished) together with far-IR continuum observations (D. A. Harper, as quoted in Lugten et al. 1986) to derive log(L$_{S(1)}$/L$_{FIR}$) = $-5.2$ for the inner 1 kpc. For the inner 400 pc of the Milky Way, the data presented here yield log(L$_{S(1)}$/L$_{FIR}$) = $-4.8$.
There is evidence in some high-luminosity galaxies that the emission results from UV-excitation. In NGC 3256, a merging galaxy, the / line ratio in the 600 pc region ($3\farcs5 \times 3\farcs5$) is $0.39 \pm 0.06$, suggesting that UV fluorescence is responsible for at least 60 % of the emission (Doyon, Wright, & Joseph 1994) . If in the Galactic center is UV-excited, as we suggest here, this mechanism could be shared by emission from galaxies with an enormous range of nuclear conditions.
This work was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and by NSF grant AST 9117373. We thank John Lacy and the referee, Leo Blitz for helpful comments, Michael Luhman and Al Mitchell for contributions to the Fabry-Perot Spectrometer Project, and Jacqueline Davidson and the staff of the McDonald Observatory for their assistance on the observing run.
Altenhoff, W. J., Downes, D., Pauls, T., & Schraml, J. 1978 , 35, 23 Bally, J., Stark, A. A., Wilson, R. W., & Henkel, C. 1987, , 65, 13 Bally, J., Stark, A. A., Wilson, R. W., & Henkel, C. 1988, , 324, 223 Black, J. H., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 1987, , 322, 412 Blitz, L., Binney, J., Lo, K. Y., Bally, J., Ho, P. T. P. 1993, , 361, 417 Catchpole, R. M., Whitelock, P. A., & Glass, I. S. 1990, , 247, 479 Doyon, R., Wright, G. S., & Joseph, R. D. 1994, , 421, 115 Draine, B.T. 1978, , 36, 595 Draine, B. T., Roberge, W. G., & Dalgarno, A. 1983, , 264, 485 Fullmer, L. & Lonsdale, C. 1989, Catalogued Galaxies and Quasars Observed in the IRAS Survey, version 2, (Pasadena: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, JPL D-1932). Gatley, I., Jones, T. J., Hyland, A. R., Beattie, D. H., Lee, T. J. 1984, , 210, 565 Gatley, I., Jones, T. J., Hyland, A. R., Wade, R., Geballe, T. R., & Krisciunas, K. 1986, , 222, 299 Gatley, I, & Merrill, M. 1993, in SPIE Vol. 1946, Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation, ed. A. M. Fowler, 2 Glass, I. S., Catchpole, R. M., & Whitelock, P. A. 1987, , 227, 373 Goldader, J. D., Joseph, R. D., Doyon, R., & Sanders, D. B., 1995, , 444, 97 Güsten, R. 1989, in IAU Symp. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. Morris (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 89 Hasegawa, T., Sato, F., Whiteoak, J. B., & Miyawaki, R. 1994, , 429, L77 Hollenbach, D. J., Chernoff, D. F., &McKee, C. F. 1989, in Proc. 22nd ESLAB Symposium, Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy, ed. B. Kaldeich (Noordwijk: ESA SP-290), 245 Hollenbach, D.J., & McKee, C.F. 1989, , 342, 306 Joseph, R. D. 1989, in Proc. 22nd ESLAB Symposium, Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy, ed. B. Kaldeich (Noordwijk: ESA SP-290), 439 Lacy, J. H., Townes, C. H., Geballe, T. R., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1980, , 281, 132 Lester, D. F., Carr, J. S., Joy, M., & Gaffney, N. 1990, , 352, 544 Lis, D. C., & Carlstrom, J. E. 1994, , 424, 189 Lugten, J.B., Watson, D.M., Crawford, M.K., & Genzel, R. 1986, , 311, L51 Luhman, M.L., & Jaffe, D.T. 1996, , in press Luhman, M. L., Jaffe, D. T., Keller, L. D., & Pak, S. 1994, , 436, L185 Luhman, M. L., Jaffe, D. T., Keller, L. D., & Pak, S. 1995, , 107, 184 Luhman, M. L., Jaffe, D. T., Sternberg, A., Herrmann, F., & Poglitsch, A. 1996, , in preparation Mezger, P. G., Smith, L. F., & Churchwell, E. 1974, , 32, 269 Moorwood, A. F. M., & Oliva, E. 1990, , 239, 78 Odenwald, S. F., & Fazio, G. G. 1984, , 283, 601 Oort, J. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 295 Puxley, P., Hawarden, T., & Mountain, M. 1988 in Proc. 22nd ESLAB Symposium, Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy, ed. B. Kaldeich (Noordwijk: ESA SP-290), 517 Sodroski, T.J. et al. 1994, ApJ, 428, 638 Sofue, Y. 1985, , 37, 697 Sternberg, A., & Dalgarno, A. 1989, , 338, 197 Yusef-Zadeh, F., Morris, M., & Chance, D. 1984, Nature, 310, 557
[^1]: We use here the term “Galactic center” to denote the inner several 100 pc region of our Galaxy. We adopt a distance of 8.5 kpc, with which 1 corresponds to 148 pc.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'While the existence of a spin-liquid ground state of the spin-1/2 kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet (KHAF) is well established, the discussion of the effect of an interlayer coupling (ILC) by controlled theoretical approaches is still lacking. Here we study this problem by using the coupled-cluster method to high orders of approximation. We consider a stacked KHAF with a perpendicular ILC $J_\perp$, where we study ferro- as well as antiferromagnetic $J_\perp$. We find that the spin-liquid ground state (GS) persists until relatively large strengths of the ILC. Only if the strength of the ILC exceeds about 15% of the intralayer coupling the spin-liquid phase gives way for $q=0$ magnetic long-range order, where the transition between both phases is continuous and the critical strength of the ILC, $|J^c_\perp|$, is almost independent of the sign of $J_\perp$. Thus, by contrast to the quantum GS selection of the strictly two-dimensional KHAF at large spin $s$, the ILC leads first to a selection of the $q=0$ GS. Only at larger $|J_\perp|$ the ILC drives a first-order transition to the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ long-range ordered GS. As a result, the stacked spin-1/2 KHAF exhibits a rich GS phase diagram with two continuous and two discontinuous transitions driven by the ILC.'
author:
- |
O. Götze and J. Richter\
\
title: 'The route to magnetic order in the spin-$1/2$ kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet: The role of interlayer coupling'
---
[*Introduction.–*]{} The search for exotic quantum spin liquid (QSL) states and fractionalized quasiparticles in frustrated magnets attracts currently much attention both from the theoretical and experimental side. One of the most promising, fascinating, and, at same time, challenging problems is the investigation of the ground state (GS) of the quantum antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice. Over the last 25 years a plethora of theoretical approaches has been applied to understand the GS properties of the spin-$1/2$ kagome antiferromagnet (KAFM), see, e.g., Refs. [@singh1992; @Waldtmann1998; @Capponi2004; @Singh2007; @Evenbly2010; @Yan2011; @lauchli2011; @iqbal2011; @nakano2011; @goetze2011; @schollwoeck2012; @becca2013; @ioannis2013; @bruce2014; @Ioannis2014; @Vishwanath2015; @Becca2015; @Oitmaa2016]. Clearly, the GS of the $s=1/2$ Heisenberg KAFM does not exhibit GS magnetic long-range order (LRO). However, there is a long-standing debate on the nature of the quantum GS. Recent large-scale numerical studies [@Yan2011; @lauchli2011; @schollwoeck2012] provide arguments for a gapped $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological QSL for spin $s=1/2$. However, the gap state is not fully proven, and also a gapless spin liquid is suggested, see, e.g., Refs. [@iqbal2011; @becca2013; @Becca2015].
A natural question is that for the stability of the QSL phase against modifications of the paradigmatic pure $s=1/2$ KAFM. Several recent investigations have been focused on $s>1/2$ [@goetze2011; @cepas2011; @Lauchli_s1_2014; @Weichselbaum_s1_2014; @satoshi_s1_2014; @Weichselbaum_s1_2014a; @Kumar2015; @Liu2016], anisotropic models [@cepas2008; @Mila2009; @zhito_XXZ_2014; @XXZ_s12_2014; @wir_XXZ_2015; @XXZ_s12_2015; @Becca2015; @fradkin2015; @Chernyshev2015; @Jaubert2015; @Liu2016] as well as KAFMs with further-neighbor couplings [@XXZ_s12_2015; @Domenge2005; @Janson2008; @Bishop2010; @tay2011; @Li2012; @Balents2012; @Thomale2014; @Trebst2014; @Gong2015; @Gong2015a; @Schollwoeck2015; @Bieri2015; @Laeuchli2015; @Thomale2015]. It has been found that such modifications of the pure KAFM may play a crucial role either to modify the QSL state or even to establish GS magnetic LRO of $\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}$ or of $q=0$ symmetry. At that the input from experiments plays an important role to trigger the theoretical hunt for exotic quantum states [@herbertsmithite2007; @herbertsmithite2007a; @herbertsmithite2009; @herbertsmithite2010; @herbertsmithite2012; @kapellasite2010; @kapellasite2014; @Bernu2013; @Jeschke2013; @Thomale2015; @edwartsite2013; @barlowite2014; @barlowite2014a; @tanaka2009; @Tanaka2014; @Tanaka2015; @Bieri2015a]. Prominent examples for $s=1/2$ kagome compounds are herbertsmithite [@herbertsmithite2007; @herbertsmithite2007a; @herbertsmithite2009; @herbertsmithite2010; @herbertsmithite2012] and kapellasite [@kapellasite2010; @kapellasite2014]. Both compounds do not show magnetic order down to very low temperatures [@herbertsmithite2007; @herbertsmithite2007a; @herbertsmithite2009; @herbertsmithite2010; @herbertsmithite2012; @kapellasite2010; @kapellasite2014]. However, the underlying magnetic model is quite different. Herbertsmithite is likely the best realization of a spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg KAFM with only nearest-neighbor (NN) exchange couplings. On the other hand, the model for kapellasite contains noticeable further-neighbor couplings $J_d$ along the diagonals of the hexagons [@Janson2008; @Bernu2013; @Jeschke2013; @Thomale2015]. Except the kagome compounds without magnetic order there are several kagome magnets which exhibit a phase transition to a long-range ordered state at a critical temperature $T_c$. Examples are edwardsite [@edwartsite2013], barlowite [@barlowite2014; @barlowite2014a] or the family of kagome compounds Cs$_2$Cu$_3$MF$_{12}$ (M=Zr, Hf, Sn) [@tanaka2009; @Tanaka2014; @Tanaka2015]. For an overview on the relation between extended models and kagome compounds we refer the interested reader to Ref. [@Thomale2015].
Bearing in mind the huge number of theoretical studies of purely two-dimensional (2D) kagome models, see, e.g., Refs. [@singh1992; @Waldtmann1998; @Capponi2004; @Singh2007; @Evenbly2010; @Yan2011; @lauchli2011; @iqbal2011; @nakano2011; @goetze2011; @schollwoeck2012; @becca2013; @ioannis2013; @bruce2014; @Ioannis2014; @Vishwanath2015; @Oitmaa2016; @cepas2011; @Lauchli_s1_2014; @Weichselbaum_s1_2014; @satoshi_s1_2014; @Weichselbaum_s1_2014a; @Kumar2015; @cepas2008; @Mila2009; @zhito_XXZ_2014; @XXZ_s12_2014; @wir_XXZ_2015; @XXZ_s12_2015; @Becca2015; @fradkin2015; @Chernyshev2015; @Jaubert2015; @Domenge2005; @Janson2008; @Bishop2010; @tay2011; @Li2012; @Balents2012; @Thomale2014; @Trebst2014; @Gong2015; @Gong2015a; @Schollwoeck2015; @Bieri2015; @Laeuchli2015; @Thomale2015; @Liu2016], the investigation of the role of interlayer coupling (ILC) $J_{il}$ so far has been widely ignored. The reason for that might be related to the fact that most of the controlled approaches with satisfactory accuracy, such as large-scale exact diagonalization, density matrix renormalization group (DMRG), or entanglement renormalization techniques are designed for low-dimensional quantum systems. Thus, for example, for the three-dimensional (3D) counterpart of the KAFM, the quantum pyrochlore Heisenberg antiferromagnet (HAFM), precise GS data are missing so far. To the best of our knowledge the stacked kagome spin-$1/2$ HAFM was studied only in an early paper by using a rotational invariant Green’s function approach [@RGM2004]. Certainly, one can expect that in kagome compounds an ILC is present. The geometry and the strength of $J_{il}$ may differ from compound to compound. Unquestionably, an ILC is crucial to establish magnetic LRO at finite temperatures, at least if the spin anisotropy is negligible.
In the present paper we study the spin-$1/2$ HAFM on the stacked kagome lattice described by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ham}
H=\sum_n\Bigg(\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}{\bf s}_{i,n} \cdot {\bf s}_{j,n}
\Bigg)
+ J_\perp \sum_{i,n} {\bf s}_{i,n} \cdot {\bf s}_{i,n+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ labels the kagome layers and $J_\perp$ is a perpendicular (i.e. non-frustrated) ILC. The expression in brackets represents the kagome HAFM model of the layer $n$ with NN intralayer couplings $J=1$. For $J_\perp$ we consider antiferromagnetic (AFM) as well as ferromagnetic (FM) couplings.
The questions we want to address in the present paper are as follows: Is the perpendicular ILC $J_{\perp}$ able to establish magnetic LRO for kagome $s=1/2$ layers with AFM isotropic NN interactions, at all? As we will demonstrate below the answer is ’yes’. Then, as consequent questions arise: Does the magnetically disordered GS survive a (small) finite (non-frustrated) ILC? Which GS magnetic LRO (i.e. $\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}$ or $q=0$) is selected? Is the sign of $J_{\perp}$ relevant? If for $|J_{\perp}|>0$ GS magnetic LRO is present, we may expect that for the 3D system at hand a finite critical temperature $T_c$ exists. From previous studies of coupled low-dimensional Heisenberg spin systems [@Irkhin1997; @Troyer2005] we know that $T_c$ may grow as a logarithmic function of $J_\perp$ slightly beyond the quantum phase transition to GS magnetic LRO.
In order to address the above asked questions concerning the role of the ILC we use the coupled cluster method (CCM)[@bishop98a; @bishop04] to high orders of approximation. The CCM is a very general [*ab initio*]{} many-body technique that has been successfully applied to strongly frustrated quantum magnets [@Bishop2010; @goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015; @Li2012; @Schm:2006; @darradi08; @Zinke2008; @farnell09; @richter2010; @farnell11; @archi2014; @bishop2014; @gapj1j2_2015; @jiang2015; @Li2015]. The precision of the method has been demonstrated for kagome spin systems in Refs. [@goetze2011] and [@wir_XXZ_2015]. Thus, the CCM GS energy for the $s=1/2$ isotropic Heisenberg KAFM is close to best available DMRG results [@Yan2011; @schollwoeck2012]. By contrast to exact diagonalization, DMRG, or entanglement renormalization techniques the CCM can be applied straightforwardly to 3D systems [@Schm:2006; @bishop00].
[*Coupled cluster method (CCM).–*]{} We illustrate here only some basic relevant features of the CCM. At that we follow Refs. [@goetze2011] and [@wir_XXZ_2015], where the CCM was applied to the 2D KAFM. For more general information on the CCM, see, Refs. [@roger90; @bishop91a; @zeng98; @bishop00; @bishop04]. Note first that the CCM yields results directly for number of sites $N\to\infty$. As a starting point of the CCM calculation we choose a normalized reference state $|\Phi\rangle$. From a quasi-classical point of view that is for the system at hand the stacked coplanar $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ or $q=0$ state (see, e.g., Refs. [@zhito_XXZ_2014; @wir_XXZ_2015; @Harris1992; @sachdev1992; @chub92; @henley1995]). We perform a rotation of the local axes of each of the spins such that all spins in the reference state align along the negative $z$ axis. Within the framework of the local spin coordinates we define a complete set of multispin creation operators $C_I^+ \equiv (C^{-}_{I})^{\dagger}$ related to this reference state: $|{\Phi}{\rangle}= |\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\cdots\rangle ; \mbox{ }
C_I^+
= { s}_{n}^+ \, , \, { s}_{n}^+{ s}_{m}^+ \, , \, { s}_{n}^+{ s}_{m}^+{
s}_{k}^+ \, , \, \ldots \; ,
$. Here the spin operators are defined in the local rotated coordinate frames. The indices $n,m,k,\ldots$ denote arbitrary lattice sites. The ket and bra GS eigenvectors $|\Psi{\rangle}$ and ${\langle}\tilde{\Psi}|$ of the spin system are given by $|\Psi{\rangle}=e^S|\Phi{\rangle}\; , \mbox{ } S=\sum_{I\neq 0}a_IC_I^+ \; ; \;
$ ${\langle}\tilde{ \Psi}|={\langle}\Phi |\tilde{S}e^{-S} \; , \mbox{ } \tilde{S}=1+
\sum_{I\neq 0}\tilde{a}_IC_I^{-} .$ The coefficients $a_I$ and $\tilde{a}_I$ in the CCM correlation operators, $S$ and $\tilde{S}$, can be determined by the ket-state and bra-state equations $\langle\Phi|C_I^-e^{-S}He^S|\Phi\rangle = 0 \; ; \; \langle\Phi|{\tilde S}e^{-S}[H, C_I^+]e^S|\Phi\rangle = 0 \; ; \; \forall
I\neq 0.$ Each equation belongs to a certain configuration index $I$, i.e., it corresponds to a certain configuration of lattice sites $n,m,k,\dots\;$. From the Schrödinger equation, $H|\Psi{\rangle}=E_0|\Psi{\rangle}$, we get for the GS energy $E_0={\langle}\Phi|e^{-S}He^S|\Phi{\rangle}$. The magnetic order parameter (sublattice magnetization) is given by $ M = -\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N {\langle}\tilde\Psi|{ s}_i^z|\Psi{\rangle}$, where ${s}_i^z$ is expressed in the transformed coordinate system. For the solution of the ket-state and bra-state equations we use the well established LSUB$m$ approximation scheme, in order to truncate the expansions of $S$ and $\tilde S$, cf., e.g., Refs. [@roger90; @bishop91a; @Bishop2010; @goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015; @Li2012; @Schm:2006; @darradi08; @Zinke2008; @farnell09; @richter2010; @farnell11; @bishop2014; @gapj1j2_2015; @jiang2015; @Li2015]. In the LSUB$m$ scheme no more than $m$ spin flips spanning a range of no more than $m$ contiguous lattice sites are included. Using an efficient parallelized CCM code [@cccm] we can solve the CCM equations up to LSUB8 for $s=1/2$. Following Refs. [@goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015] we extrapolate the ‘raw’ LSUB$m$ data to the limit $m \to \infty$. Here we use two schemes, namely an extrapolation using $m=4,5,\ldots,8$ (scheme I) and separetely an extrapolation using $m=4,6,8$ (scheme II). The former one corresponds to that used for the 2D KAFM [@goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015], whereas scheme II (i.e., omitting the odd LSUB$m$ approximation levels) is more appropriate for magnets with collinear AFM correlations [@bishop04; @Schm:2006; @darradi08; @Zinke2008; @richter2010; @farnell11; @archi2014; @gapj1j2_2015]. By comparing the results of both schemes we can get an idea on the precision of the extrapolated data.
For the GS energy the ansatz $e_0(m)=E_0(m)/N = e_0(m\to\infty) + a_1/m^2 + a_2/m^4$ provides accurate data for the extrapolated energy $ e_0(m\to\infty)$, whereas for the magnetic order parameter $M$ the ansatz $M(m)=M(m\to\infty) +b_1(1/m)^{x}+b_2(1/m)^{x+1}$ is appropriate. The choice of the leading exponent $x$ is a subtle issue, since $x$ might be different in semi-classical GS phases with well-pronounced magnetic LRO and near a quantum critical point, see [@Bishop2010; @goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015; @Li2012; @darradi08; @Zinke2008; @Schm:2006; @richter2010; @farnell11; @gapj1j2_2015; @Li2015]. For the kagome problem at hand we start from a magnetically disordered phase at $J_\perp=0$ and search for quantum phase transitions to GSs with magnetic LRO. For that the extrapolation of $M$ with $x=1/2$ is the best choice as it has been demonstrated in many previous CCM investigations [@Bishop2010; @goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015; @Li2012; @darradi08; @richter2010; @farnell11; @gapj1j2_2015; @Li2015]. Thus, the CCM treatment of the celebrated spin-half $J_1$-$J_2$ model on the square lattice using $x=1/2$ [@darradi08; @gapj1j2_2015] yields quantum critical points, which are in very good agreement with best available numerical results obtained by DMRG with explicit implementation of SU(2) spin rotation symmetry [@Gong2014].
[*Results and Discussion.–*]{} We start with a brief discussion of the GS energy per spin $e_0=E_0/N$, shown in the insets of Figs. \[fig1\](a) and (b) for the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ and $q=0$ reference states, respectively. We see that $e_0$ converges quickly as the level $m$ of the LSUB$m$ approximation increases. Hence, the extrapolation with leading order $1/m^2$ can be considered as very accurate, as it has been demonstrated in many cases, where data from other precise methods are available to compare with, see, e.g. Refs. [@bishop04; @goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015]. Moreover, the results of both extrapolation schemes are almost indistinguishable. The shape of the curves and the magnitude of the energies is very similar for both states. From Ref. [@goetze2011] we know that at $J_\perp=0$ the $q=0$ state has slightly lower energy. The extrapolated GS energy behaves smoothly as changing the sign of $J_\perp$. The magnetic order parameter $M$ for the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ and $q=0$ states is shown in the main panel of Figs. \[fig1\](a) and (b). Of course, $M$ is zero for $J_\perp=0$ [@goetze2011; @wir_XXZ_2015]. As a main result, we find that the ILC is able to establish magnetic LRO for kagome $s=1/2$ layers with AFM NN Heisenberg interactions. The critical ILCs, where magnetic LRO sets in, are (i) $J_\perp=-0.100$, $J_\perp=+0.102$ ($\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ state) and $J_\perp=-0.154$, $J_\perp=+0.151$ ($q=0$ state) for scheme I, and (ii) $J_\perp=-0.104$, $J_\perp=+0.110$ ($\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ state) and $J_\perp=-0.135$, $J_\perp=+0.130$ ($q=0$ state) for scheme II. Thus, there is a reasonable agreement of the critical ILCs obtained by both extrapolation schemes. We notice that the amount of the critical $|J_\perp|$ is of comparable size as the spin gap estimated, e.g., in Refs. [@Capponi2004] and [@schollwoeck2012]. We may also compare with the square-lattice $J_1$-$J_2$ HAFM in the limit of strong frustration, i.e., at $J_2/J_1 \sim 0.5$. The critical ILC $J_{\perp}$ found by various approaches [@Schm:2006; @Holt2011; @Fan2014] is $J_{\perp} \approx
0.12 - 0.2 J_1$, i.e., its size is comparable to that reported here for the kagome system. The behavior of $M$ near the critical $J_{\perp}$ indicates a typical second-order transition, where the slope of $M$ is quite steep. On the FM side ($J_\perp < 0$) there is a monotonic increase of $M$ with increasing $|J_\perp|$, and, both schemes I and II lead to very similar $M(J_\perp)$ curves. By contrast, on the AFM side ($J_\perp > 0$) there is a noticeable difference between both schemes. That can be attributed to emerging collinear AFM correlations along the AFM $J_\perp$ bonds that may lead to a different scaling of odd and even LSUB$m$ data [@ccm_odd_even]. We mention, that the maximum value of $M$ remains small even at $J_\perp \sim
1$. Note that for AFM $J_\perp$ we have calculated data up to $J_\perp = 100$. For the extrapolation scheme II relevant in the limit of large $J_\perp$ we do not find indications for a breakdown of LRO at a finite $J_\perp$, rather there is a monotonic decrease of $M$ with increasing $J_\perp$ reaching adiabatically $M=0$ at infinite $J_\perp$, cf. also Ref. [@Zinke2008].
Next we discuss the question which magnetic LRO is selected by quantum fluctuations. As it has been very recently demonstrated [@zhito_XXZ_2014; @wir_XXZ_2015] the mechanism of quantum selection of the GS LRO in the KAFM is very subtle and it is related to topologically nontrivial, looplike high-order spin-flip processes [@zhito_XXZ_2014]. As a result, the energy difference between competing states is very small, e.g., about $10^{-4}J$ for the $XXZ$-KAFM [@zhito_XXZ_2014; @wir_XXZ_2015]. Hence, it is crucial to have a theory at hand that provides very accurate results for the GS energy and is able to take into account such high-order spin-flip processes. These criteria are fulfilled by the CCM, if high orders of approximation are considered. Thus, the quantum selection of the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ GS vs. the $q=0$ GS obtained by non-linear spin-wave theory is also obtained by CCM for $s>1/2$ [@goetze2011]. Very recently, a direct comparison of CCM and non-linear spin-wave data for energy differences (which are also of the order of few $10^{-3}$) for the $XXZ$ KAFM for large $s$ has been given, see Fig. 3 in Ref. [@wir_XXZ_2015], which provides evidence that both independent approaches agree very well. Thus, we may conclude that our results for the quantum selection are trustworthy. We show our results for the energy difference $\delta e = e_0^{\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}}- e_0^{q=0} $ as a function of $J_\perp$ in Fig. \[fig2\]. We mention first that both extrapolation schemes I and II yield consistent results for $\delta e $. At low values of $|J_\perp|$ the $q=0$ reference state yields lower energy, i.e. $\delta e > 0$. That is in accordance with Refs. [@goetze2011] and [@wir_XXZ_2015], where the case $J_\perp=0$ was considered. On both sides $\delta e$ is still positive at those values of $J_\perp$, where the sublattice magnetizations $M_{\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}}$ or $M_{q=0}$ become larger than zero. Hence, our results provide evidence that there is a magnetic disorder-to-order transition to ${q=0}$ LRO at $J_\perp \sim -(0.14 \ldots 0.15)$ and $J_\perp \sim +(0.13 \ldots 0.15)$, respectively, where this transition is likely continuous. Note that the quantum selection of the $q=0$ GS LRO is contrary to the semi-classical large-$s$ order-by-disorder selection of the $\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}$ LRO found for the 2D spin-$s$ KAFM. Further increasing the strength of $J_\perp$ leads to a second transition from ${q=0}$ to $\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}$ LRO on the FM side at $J_\perp=-0.435$ (scheme I) and $J_\perp=-0.467$ (scheme II). At the AFM side we find $J_\perp=0.310$ (scheme I) and $J_\perp=0.252$ (scheme II). By contrast to the first transition this second transition is a discontinuous one between two ordered GS phases with different symmetries. On the FM side we may understand the realization of $\sqrt{3}
\times \sqrt{3}$ LRO in terms of the large-$s$ order-by-disorder GS selection of the $\sqrt{3}
\times \sqrt{3}$ state. Increasing the strength of the FM ILC leads to an effective composite spin with higher spin quantum number. However, this kind of mechanism does not work for AFM $J_\perp$, and to clarify the mechanism responsible for changing the GS selection remains an open question.
Collecting our results we obtain a sketch of the GS phase diagram of the stacked spin-1/2 Heisenberg KAFM as shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. The system exhibits four transitions, two continuous ones between a QSL state and a magnetically ordered state with $q=0$ symmetry at $J_\perp \sim -(0.14 \ldots 0.15)$ and $J_\perp \sim +(0.13 \ldots 0.15)$, and two discontinuous ones between states with magnetic LRO of $q=0$ and $\sqrt{3}
\times \sqrt{3}$ symmetry at $J_\perp \sim -(0.44 \ldots 0.47)$ and $J_\perp \sim +(0.25 \ldots 0.31)$. We further argue, that this kind of phase diagram is specific for the extreme quantum case $s=1/2$. From Ref. [@goetze2011] we know that already for $s=1$ (and also for $s>1$) the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ reference state has the lower energy. It seems to be very unlikely that this preference of the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ state is changed by $J_\perp$.
[*Concluding remarks.*]{} Let us discuss the relation of our findings to the previous results based on a rotational invariant Green’s function method (RGM) [@RGM2004], where the existence of a non-magnetic GS for arbitrary values of $J_\perp$ was reported. To evaluate this discrepancy we have to assess the accuracy of the current CCM approach and of the RGM approach. First we mention that the CCM is a systematic approach taking into account all spin-flip processes up to a well-defined order. On the other hand, the decoupling of the equation of motion used in the RGM contains uncontrolled elements of approximation. Meanwhile, there is ample of experience in applying the RGM on frustrated quantum magnets, see, e.g., Ref. [@haertel2013] and references therein. In its minimal version (used in Ref. [@RGM2004]), where as many vertex parameters are used as independent conditions for them can be formulated, the accuracy of the description of GS properties seems to be limited [@Barabanov1994; @Ihle2001; @Schm:2006]. In particular, the rotational invariant decoupling strongly overestimates the region of QSL phases. Thus, for the square-lattice $s=1/2$ $J_1$-$J_2$ HAFM the minimal version of the RGM predicts a QSL phase in an extremely wide region $0.1 \lesssim J_2/J_1 \lesssim 1.7$, cf., e.g., Refs. [@Barabanov1994; @Ihle2001], instead of $0.44 \lesssim J_2/J_1 \lesssim 0.6$, obtained by recent DMRG calculations [@Gong2014] and also by the CCM [@darradi08; @gapj1j2_2015]. Another indication is the fairly poor GS energy of $e_0=-0.4296$ [@RGM2004; @bern], that is more than 2% above the best available DMRG energy $e_0=-0.4386$. (Note that the CCM energy obtained in Ref. [@goetze2011] is $e_0=-0.4372$.) Thus we have evidence that the CCM description of the GS properties is much more reliable than the RGM in its minimal version.
Let us finally discuss the relevance of our results for experiments on kagome compounds. In real kagome compounds typically the interlayer coupling is more sophisticated than that we consider in our paper. Thus, there is only an indirect relation of our results to those compounds, which concerns the general question for the crossover from a purely 2D to a quasi-2D and finally to a three-dimensional system. However, there is at least one example with stacked (unshifted) kagome layers, namely barlowite. As it has been pointed out very recently, through isoelectronic substitution in barlowite this kagome system fits to our model system [@barlow2016].
A main finding of our paper is that the QSL phase can be observed even if there is a sizeable ILC. Therefore, in accordance with the experimental observation the ILC of about 5% of the intralayer coupling as reported for herbertsmithite [@janson_diss] and the ILC of about 6-7% predicted for the modified barlowite system [@barlow2016] is not sufficient to destroy the QSL phase. On the other hand, if the ILC is large enough (about 15% of the intralayer coupling in our model system) magnetic LRO can be established, where the $q=0$ symmetry is favorable if $J_\perp$ is of moderate strength. Thus, the observed $q=0$ magnetic order found in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ and ascribed in Refs. [@Tanaka2014] and [@Tanaka2015] to anisotropy terms could also be attributed to the ILC without further anisotropy terms. The facilitation of the $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ magnetic long-range order found in the present paper for larger values of $|J_\perp|$ is related to a very small energy gain. In real compounds even very small additional terms in the relevant spin Hamiltonian such as further distance exchange couplings may therefore be more relevant.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank H. Rosner, H. Tanaka, O. Janson and O. Derzhko for fruitful discussions.
[99]{}
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1766 (1992).
C. Waldtmann H.-U. Everts, B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, P. Sindzingre, P. Lecheminant, and L. Pierre, Eur. Phys. J. B [**2**]{}, 501 (1998).
S. Capponi, A. Läuchli, and M. Mambrini, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 104424 (2004).
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 180407(R) (2007).
G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 187203 (2010).
S. Yan, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, Science [**332**]{}, 1173 (2011). H. Nakano and T. Sakai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**80**]{}, 053704 (2011).
A. M. Läuchli, J. Sudan, and E. S. S[ø]{}rensen, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 212401 (2011).
Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 020407(R) (2011). O. Götze, D.J.J. Farnell, R.F. Bishop, P.H.Y. Li, and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 224428 (2011).
S. Depenbrock, I. P. McCulloch, and U. Schollwöck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 067201 (2012).
Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 060405(R) (2013). I. Rousochatzakis, R. Moessner, J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 195109 (2013).
Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, J. F. Yu, X. Kong, B. Normand, T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. X [**4**]{}, 011025 (2014). I. Rousochatzakis, Y. Wan, O. Tchernyshyov, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 100406(R) (2014).
W.-J. Hu, S.S. Gong, F. Becca, and D.N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 2015(R) (2015).
M. P. Zaletel and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 077201 (2015).
J. Oitmaa and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 014424 (2016) O. Cépas and A. Ralko, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 020413 (2011).
T. Liu, W. Li, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 91, [**060403**]{} (2015).
H. J. Changlani and A. M. Läuchli, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 100407 (2015).
S. Nishimoto and M. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 140412(R) (2015).
W. Li, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, and H.-H. Tu, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 224414 (2015). P. Ghosh, A.K. Verma, and B. Kumar, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 014427 (2016).
Tao Liu, Wei Li, Gang Su, arXiv:1603.01935v1.
O. Cepas, C. M. Fong, P. W. Leung, C. Lhuillier, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 140405(R) (2008). I. Rousochatzakis, S. R. Manmana, A. M. Läuchli, B. Normand, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 214415 (2009).
A. L. Chernyshev and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 237202 (2014).
Y.C. He and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 037201 (2015)
O. Götze and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 104402 (2015).
W. Zhu, S. S. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 014424 (2015).
K. Kumar, K. Sun, and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 094433 (2015). A. L. Chernyshev and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 144415 (2015).
K. Essafi, O. Benton, and L.D.C. Jaubert, Nat. Commun. [**7**]{}, 10297 (2016) J.-C. Domenge, P. Sindzingre, C. Lhuillier, and L. Pierre, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 024433 (2005). O. Janson, J. Richter, and H. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 106403 (2008).
R.F. Bishop, P.H.Y. Li, D.J.J. Farnell, and C.E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 104406 (2010).
T. Tay and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 020404(R) (2011). P.H.Y. Li, R.F. Bishop, C.E. Campbell, D.J.J. Farnell, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 214403 (2012).
H.-C. Jiang, Z. Wang, and L. Balents, Nature Physics [**8**]{}, 902 (2012). B. Bauer, L. Cincio, B.P. Keller, M. Dolfi, G. Vidal, S. Trebst, and A.W.W. Ludwig, Nature Communications [**5**]{}, 5137 (2014).
R. Suttner, C. Platt, J. Reuther, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 020408(R) (2014).
W.J. Hu, W. Zhu, Y. Zhang, S.S. Gong, F. Becca, and D.N. Sheng Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 041124(R) (2015) S.S. Gong, W. Zhu, L. Balents, and D. N. Sheng Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 075112 (2015).
F. Kolley, S. Depenbrock, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwöck, and V. Alba, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 104418 (2015).
S. Bieri, L. Messio, B. Bernu, and C. Lhuillier, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 060407(R) (2015). A. Wietek, A.Sterdyniak, and A. M. Laeuchli, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 125122 (2015).
Y. Iqbal, H. O. Jeschke, J. Reuther, R. Valenti, I.I. Mazin, M. Greiter, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 220404 (2015). P. Mendels, F. Bert, M. A. de Vries, A. Olariu, A. Harrison, F. Duc, J. C. Trombe, J. S. Lord, A. Amato, and C. Baines, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 077204 (2007).
J. S. Helton, K. Matan, M. P. Shores, E. A. Nytko, B. M. Bartlett, Y. Yoshida, Y. Takano, A. Suslov, Y. Qiu, J.-H. Chung, D. G. Nocera, and Y. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 107204 (2007). M. A. de Vries, J. R. Stewart, P. P. Deen, J. Piatek, G. N. Nilsen, H. M. Ronnow, and A. Harrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 237201 (2009). D. Wulferding, P. Lemmens, P. Scheib, J. Röder, P. Mendels, S. Chu, T. Han, and Y. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 144412 (2010). T. H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Nature (London) [**492**]{}, 406 (2012).
B. Fak, E. Kermarrec, L. Messio, B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, F. Bert, P. Mendels, B. Koteswararao, F. Bouquet, J. Ollivier, A. D. Hillier, A. Amato, R. H. Colman, and A. S. Wills, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 037208 (2012). E. Kermarrec, A. Zorko, F. Bert, R. H. Colman, B. Koteswararao, F. Bouquet, P. Bonville, A. Hillier, A. Amato, J. van Tol, A. Ozarowski, A. S. Wills, and P. Mendels, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 205103 (2014). B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, E. Kermarrec, F. Bert, P. Mendels, R. H. Colman, and A. S. Wills, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 155107 (2013). H. O. Jeschke, F. Salvat-Pujol, and R. Valenti, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 075106 (2013).
H. Ishikawa, Y. Okamoto, and Z. Hiroi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**82**]{}, 063710 (2013).
T.-H. Han, J. Singleton, J. A. Schlueter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 227203 (2014). H. O. Jeschke, F. Salvat-Pujol, E. Gati, N. H. Hoang, B. Wolf, M. Lang, J. A. Schlueter, and R. Valenti, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 094417 (2015). T. Ono, K. Morita, M. Yano, H. Tanaka, K. Fujii, H. Uekusa, Y. Narumi, and K. Kindo, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 174407 (2009). T. Ono, K. Matan, Y. Nambu, T. J. Sato, K. Katayama, S. Hirata, and H. Tanaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**83**]{}, 043701 (2014).
K. Katayama, N. Kurita, and H. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 214429 (2015). D. Boldrin, B. Fak, M. Enderle, S. Bieri, J. Ollivier, S. Rols, P. Manuel, and A. S. Wills, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 220408(R) (2015).
D. Schmalfu[ß]{}, J. Richter and D. Ihle, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{} 184412 (2004)
V. Yu. Irkhin and A. A. Katanin, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 12318 (1997).
C. Yasuda, S. Todo, K. Hukushima, F. Alet, M. Keller, M. Troyer, and H. Takayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 217201 (2005).
R.F. Bishop, in [*Microscopic Quantum Many-Body Theories and Their Applications*]{}, edited by J. Navarro and A. Polls, Lecture Notes in Physics [**510**]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1998), p.1.
D.J.J. Farnell and R.F. Bishop, in [*Quantum Magnetism*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**645**]{}, 307 (2004)
D. Schmalfu[ß]{}, R. Darradi, J. Richter, J. Schulenburg, and D. Ihle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 157201 (2006).
R. Darradi, O. Derzhko, R. Zinke, J. Schulenburg, S.E. Krüger and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 214415 (2008).
R. Zinke, J. Schulenburg, and J. Richter, Eur. Phys. J. B [**61**]{}, 147 (2008).
D.J.J. Farnell, R. Zinke, J. Schulenburg, and J. Richter, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter [**21**]{}, 406002 (2009).
J. Richter, R. Darradi, J. Schulenburg, D.J.J. Farnell, and H. Rosner, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 174429 (2010).
D.J.J. Farnell, R.F. Bishop, P.H.Y. Li, J. Richter, and C.E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 012403 (2011).
D.J.J. Farnell, O. Götze, J. Richter, R.F. Bishop, and Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 184407 (2014).
R. F. Bishop, P. H. Y. Li, and C. E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 214413 (2014).
J.-J. Jiang, Y.-J Liu, F. Tang, C.-H. Yang, and Y.-B. Sheng, Physica B: Cond. Mat. [**463**]{}, 30 (2015). J. Richter, R. Zinke, D.J.J. Farnell, Eur. Phys. J. B [**88**]{}, 2 (2015).
P. H. Y. Li, R. F. Bishop, and C. E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 014426 (2015). R.F. Bishop, D.J.J. Farnell, S.E. Krüger, J.B. Parkinson, J. Richter, and C. Zeng, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [ **12**]{}, 6887 (2000).
M. Roger and J.H. Hetherington, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 200 (1990).
R.F. Bishop, J.B. Parkinson, and Y. Xian, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**43**]{}, R13782 (1991); [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**44**]{}, 9425 (1991).
C. Zeng, D.J.J. Farnell, and R.F. Bishop, J. Stat. Phys. [**90**]{}, 327 (1998).
A. B. Harris, C. Kallin and A. J. Berlinsky, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 2899 (1992). S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 12377 (1992).
A. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 832 (1992).
C. L. Henley and E. P. Chan, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**140-144**]{}, 1693 (1995).
For the numerical calculation we use the program package ‘The crystallographic CCM’ (D.J.J. Farnell and J. Schulenburg).
S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, D.N. Sheng, O.I. Motrunich, M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 027201 (2014).
M. Holt, O. P. Sushkov, D. Stanek, and G. S. Uhrig, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 144528 (2011).
Z. Fan and Q.-L. Jie, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 054418 (2014). D. J. J. Farnell and R. F. Bishop, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**22**]{}, 3369 (2008).
A.F. Barabanov and V.M. Berezovskii, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 3974 (1994); Phys. Lett. A [**186**]{}, 175 (1994); Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**106**]{}, 1156 (1994) (JETP [**79**]{}, 627 (1994).
L. Siurakshina, D. Ihle, and R. Hayn, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 104406 (2001).
M. Härtel et al., Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 054412 (2013).
B.H. Bernhard, B. Canals, and C. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. B [**[66]{}**]{}, 104424 (2002).
O. Janson, [*DFT based microscopic magnetic modeling for low-dimensional spin systems*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit[ä]{}t Dresden (2012)
D. Guterding, R. Valenti, and H. O. Jeschke, arXiv:1605.08162.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A theory of far-from-equilibrium transport in arrays of tunnel junctions is developed. We show that at low temperatures the energy relaxation ensuring tunneling current can become a cascade two-stage process. First, charge carriers lose their energy to a bosonic environment via non-phonon energy exchange. The role of such an environment can be taken by electromagnetic fluctuations or dipole excitations (electron-hole pairs). The environment, in its turn, relaxes the energy to the thermostat by means of phonon irradiation. We derive the current-voltage characteristics for the arrays and demonstrate that opening the energy gap in the spectrum of the environmental excitations completely suppresses the tunneling current. The consequences of the cascade relaxation in various physical systems are discussed.'
author:
- 'N.M.Chtchelkatchev'
- 'V.M.Vinokur'
- 'T.I.Baturina'
title: 'Low temperature transport in tunnel junction arrays: Cascade energy relaxation'
---
Introduction {#Sec:Intro}
============
Electronic transport in mesoscopic tunnel junctions is ensured by the energy exchange between the tunneling charge carriers and energy reservoirs: since the electronic energy levels at the banks of the mesoscopic junctions are, in general, unequal, the tunneling is impossible unless there is a subsystem of excitations capable of accommodating this energy difference [@Nazarov1989; @Nazarov2007; @Devoret_basic; @Averin1990; @Girvin1990; @Ingold1991; @Ingold-Nazarov; @Ingold1994]. Intense studies of nano-structured and disordered systems including Josephson junctions [@Aprili2009a; @Aprili2009b], mesoscopic tunnel junctions [@STM1D] and superconductors [@Timofeev2009], patterned superconducting films [@BaturinaSNSa; @BaturinaSNSb], highly disordered superconducting and semiconducting films [@Shahar2005; @Baturina2007; @Baturina2008a; @Baturina2008b; @Shahar2009; @other] reveal a prime importance of the *out-of-equilibrium* properties of an environment to which the tunneling charge carriers relax the energy. In particular, experiments on disordered superconducting films revealed that at extremely low temperatures the $I$-$V$ characteristics exhibit highly nonlinear behavior indicating that the transport charge carriers are decoupled from the phonon thermostat.
Notably, the relaxation processes can occur via relaxation of energy from tunneling carriers to some other bosonic environment mediated the energy exchange between the tunneling current and phonon thermostat. The role of such bosonic mediator can be taken by ether the electromagnetic environment [@Nazarov1989; @Nazarov2007; @Girvin1990; @Averin1990; @Ingold1991; @Ingold-Nazarov; @Ingold1994; @Kopnin_book; @Giazotto] by the neutral dipole excitations \[the electron-hole (e-h) pairs\] generated by the tunneling carriers [@Lopatin1; @Lopatin2]. By consideration in the spirit of Feynman-Vernon influence functional it was shown [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNature] that in the large Josephson junction arrays the low temperature transport is governed by the unbinding neutral dipole excitations and the successive tunneling of the resulting electric charges. In the course of tunneling the propagating charges generate the dipole environment controlling relaxation process. The formation of a gap in the dipole excitation spectrum impedes relaxation and causes the suppression of the tunneling current, i.e. the localization of charge carriers.
The energy relaxation in mesoscopic tunnel junctions in the case where the energy exchange between the tunneling carriers and the electromagnetic and/or electron-hole reservoir, $1/\tau_{\rm{e-env}}$, is comparable to the rate of the energy loss to the phonon thermostat, $1/\tau_{\rm env\to bath}$, was analyzed in [@Kopnin2009]. In this article expanding on our kinetic approach developed in [@CVB_PRL; @CVB_PhysicaC] we present a general approach to the description of strongly nonequilibrium processes where $1/\tau_{\rm{e-env}}\gg 1/\tau_{\rm env\to bath}$ and show that the low-temperature energy relaxation enabling the tunneling current occurs in two stages: (i) The energy relaxation from the tunneling charges to the intermediate bosonic modes, electromagnetic or dipole (electron-hole) excitations, which we hereafter call the *environment*; and (ii)The energy transfer from the environment to the phonon thermostat, to which we will be further referring as to a *bath*. We demonstrate that at $1/\tau_{\rm{e-env}}\gg 1/\tau_{\rm env\to bath}$, electronic transport is controlled by the first stage and is thus critically sensitive to the spectrum of the environmental modes. At the same time, the passing current drives the environment out of the equilibrium, and the environment spectrum and effective temperature may become bias-dependent themselves. We construct coupled kinetics equations for charge carriers and out-of-equilibrium bosonic environment and derive $I$-$V$ characteristics for arrays of normal and superconducting junctions.
The article is organized as follows. In Section 1.2 we construct a general theory of environment-mediated transport in a single tunnel junction and calculate the corresponding $I$-$V$ characteristics. In Section 1.3, we extend our theory onto arrays of tunnel junctions; the content of these sections follows our recent publications [@CVB_PRL; @CVB_PhysicaC]. In Section 1.4 we explore application of the cascade two-stage energy relaxation mediated transport to different physical systems and phenomena. In particular, we discuss nonequilibrium Coulomb anomaly, negative differential resistance and overheating in single junctions, properties of electron-hole environment in disordered metals, and the mechanism of tunneling transport in a superinsulating state re-deriving the results of [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNature] from a different perspective.
A single junction
==================
We start with a tunnel junction between two bulk metallic electrodes biased by the external voltage $V$, see Fig.\[fig:e-ph\_int\]a. A general formula for the tunneling current reads: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:current}
I=e\left(\overrightarrow{\Gamma} - \overleftarrow{\Gamma}\right)\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $\overrightarrow{\Gamma}$ ($\overleftarrow{\Gamma}$) is the tunneling rate from the left (right) to the right (left), and, for a single junction, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:S_begin_total}
\overrightarrow{\Gamma}=\frac1{R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm T}}}
\int_{\epsilon\epsilon'}f_\epsilon^{(1)}
(1-f_{\epsilon'}^{(2)})P^<(\epsilon-\epsilon')\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $f^{(1,2)}$ are the electronic distribution functions within the electrodes, $P^<(\epsilon)$ is the probability for the charge carrier to lose the energy $\epsilon$ to the environment, and $R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}$ is the bare tunnel resistance, representing the interaction of electrons with the bath. The backward scattering rate, $\overleftarrow{\Gamma}\propto\int_{\epsilon\epsilon'}f_\epsilon^{(2)}
(1-f_{\epsilon'}^{(1)})P^<(\epsilon-\epsilon')$. If an intermediate environment is absent and the relaxation is provided by the phonon bath, then $P^<(\epsilon)=\delta(\epsilon)$ and Eq. reproduces the conventional Ohm law.
![ (a) The effective circuit for a tunnel junction subject to bias $V$ and with the environment having the impedance $Z$. (b)-(c) Diagrammatic expansion of $P^<$ to the first and the second orders in $\rho$, respectively. The solid lines represent propagation of electrons, the dashed lines denote the environment excitations. The vertex with the two electron lines and one dashed line carries a factor $G_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}\rho(\omega)/\omega$, the two dashed-lines vertex corresponds to $G_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}\rho(\omega)\rho(\omega')/(\omega\omega')$.[]{data-label="fig:e-ph_int"}](Fig1.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
The quasiequilibrium situation where the distribution functions of the environmental modes $N_{\omega}$ are Bose distributions parameterized by the equilibrium temperature was discussed in [@Devoret_basic; @Ingold1991; @Grabert_Devoret]. In a general, far from the equilibrium case, we find: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:S_begin_total1}
P^{<}(\epsilon)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty dt \exp[J(t)+i\epsilon t]\,,
\\ \label{eq:J} J(t)=2\int_{0}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\omega}\rho(\omega) F(\omega)\,,
\\\notag
F(\omega)=\left[N_\omega e^{i\omega t}+(1+N_\omega)e^{-i\omega t}-B_\omega\right]\,.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\exp[J(t)]$ is the nonequilibrium generalization of the Feynman-Vernon influence functional [@Feynman_Vernon] reflecting that tunneling electrons acquire random phases due to interactions with the environment, represented by a set of oscillators with the nonequilibrium distribution of modes, $N_{\omega}$. The latter is defined by the kinetic equation with the scattering integral describing the energy exchange between environmental modes and tunneling electrons. Terms proportional to the $N_\omega$ and $1+N_\omega$ correspond to the absorbed and emitted environmental excitations, respectively. The combination $B_\omega=1+2N_\omega$ is the kernel of the time-independent contribution to $J$ describing the elastic interaction of the tunneling electron with the environmental modes and having the structure of the Debye-Waller factor. In an equilibrium, $N_\omega$ reduces to the Bose-function and the functional $P^<$ recovers the result by Ref. [@Grabert_Devoret]. The spectral probability of the electron–(electromagnetic) environment interaction is $\rho(\omega)=
\operatorname{Re}[Z_{\mathrm t}(\omega)]/R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm Q}}$, where $Z_{\mathrm t}=1/[iC\omega + Z(\omega)^{-1}]$ is the total circuit impedance, $Z$ is the environment impedance, $C$ is the junction capacitance, and $R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm Q}}$ is the quantum resistance [@Ingold1991]. Proceeding analogously to Ref. [@Grabert_PRL], one finds the spectral probability corresponding to the electron–environment interaction within each electrode as $\rho_{\mathrm n}(\omega)
=2\operatorname{Im}\int_{\mathbf q}\tilde U_{\mathrm n}/(D_{\mathrm n} q^2-i\omega)^{2}$, $n=1,2$, and that for the interaction across the junction, $\rho_{12}(\omega)=-2\operatorname{Im}\int_{\mathbf q}\tilde U_{12}/
[(D_1q^2-i\omega)(D_2q^2-i\omega)]$, where $D_{1(2)}$ are diffusion coefficients within respective electrodes, and $\tilde U_{1(2)}$ are the dynamically screened Coulomb interactions within (across) the electrodes.
The spectral probability $\rho(\omega)$ of the electron–environment interaction controlling the behavior of the $I$-$V$ characteristics is central to our approach. The form of $\rho(\omega)$, in its turn, is determined by the structure of the environmental excitation spectrum and, in general, depends on the external bias. The latter dependence becomes essential in the array of highly transparent junctions where $\rho(\omega)$ is different for elastic and inelastic processes [@Nazarov1989; @Nazarov2007; @SVB]. In particular, for the e-h environment with constant $\tilde U$, one should cut off the (diverging) integral at $q_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}=\sqrt{1/\tau_{\varphi}(T_{\rm eff})D}$ [@footnote111], when calculating $\rho(0)$. Here $\tau_{\varphi}$ is the electron inelastic time and $T_{\rm eff}$ is the (bias dependent) effective temperature of the environment defined below. This allows us to formulate a recipe: if in an equilibrium $\rho=\rho(\omega,T)$ then in an out-of-equilibrium state $\rho=\rho(\omega,T_{\rm eff})$. Of special importance are the effects of spectrum reconstruction accompanying the phase transformation in the system: it is the sensitivity of the shape of the $I$-$V$ curves to the form of $\rho=\rho(\omega,T)$ that makes tunneling currents an irreplaceable spectroscopy tool. In particular, opening the gap $T^*$ in the environmental excitation spectrum suppresses $\rho=\rho(\omega)$ within the energy interval $0<\omega<T^*$ giving rise to complete vanishing of the tunneling transport current at low temperatures $T<T^*$. As we will discuss below, this is the microscopic mechanism behind the low-temperature suppression of electronic transport in disordered arrays of tunnel junctions, the phenomenon of *superinsulation*.
To close the set of formulas (\[eq:current\])-(\[eq:S\_begin\_total1\]) one has to add the kinetic equations (KE) for the boson distribution functions $N_{\omega}$. To derive these KE we use a semi-phenomenological kinetic approach of [@Landauvshiz_10] and express the current of Eq.(\[eq:current\]) through the electronic distribution function as $I=\int_{\epsilon_1}[d f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}/dt]\nu_1$. Here $\nu_{1(2)}$ is the density of states in the lead $1(2)$ and $df^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}/{dt}=I_{\rm col}$, where $I_{\rm col}$ is the collision integral describing the evolution of the electronic distribution function due to energy and/or momentum transfer processes. Expanding further $P^<$ with respect to $\rho$ we obtain, in the zero order in $N_{\omega}$, the collision integral in a form $I_{\rm col}^{(0)}=
-\int W_{12}[f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}(1-f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2})-
f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2}(1-f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1})]
\delta(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2)\nu_2 d\epsilon_2$, where $W_{12}=1/\nu_1\nu_2R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm T}}$ is proportional to the bare probability for an electron to be transmitted from one lead to the other. In the first order $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sc}
\begin{split}
\frac{df^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}}{dt}=-&\int d\omega\nu_\omega \nu_2d\epsilon_2\left(\frac{\rho}{\omega\nu_\omega}\right)W_{12}\times\\
\biggl\{
&\delta(\epsilon_{12}-\omega)[f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}(N_\omega+1)
(1-f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2})-(1-f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1})N_\omega f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2}]+
\\
&\delta(\epsilon_{12}+\omega)[f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}N_\omega
(1-f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2})-(1-f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1})
(N_\omega+1) f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2}]\biggr\},
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ where $\epsilon_{12}=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$ and $\nu_\omega$ is the density of environmental states [@env_DoS]. The structure of $I_{\rm col}^{(1)}$ is identical to that of the electron-phonon scattering integral in metals [@Landauvshiz_10], where $N_{\omega}$ would stand for the phonon distribution functions. The quantity $\rho/(\omega\nu_\omega)$ is proportional to the probability of the electron-environment scattering.
The collision integral dual to $I_{\rm col}^{(1)}$ and describing the evolution of $N_{\omega}$ is derived analogously, and the resulting kinetic equation is: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:N_e-env}
\left(\frac{dN_\omega}{dt}\right)_{\rm e-env}=
-\frac{A\rho(\omega)}{\nu_\omega R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}}
\left[N_\omega (1+n_\omega)-(1+N_\omega)n_\omega\right],\end{gathered}$$ where $A$ is the numerical factor of order of unity, $n_\omega$ is the electron-hole pairs distribution function. The scattering integral in Eq. is also identical by its structure to the phonon-electron scattering integral in metals [@Landauvshiz_10]. For the electron-hole environment ($i=1,2$ labels the electrode in which the pair is located), one has $n_\omega^{(i)}=
(1/\omega)\int_\epsilon f^{(i)}_{\epsilon_+}(1-f^{(i)}_{\epsilon_-})$, where $\epsilon_\pm=\epsilon\pm\omega/2$; this agrees with the results of Ref. [@Kamenev-Andreev] where the nonequilibrium bosonic distribution function is equivalent to our $1+2n_\omega$. If electrons and holes belong to different electrodes, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:n}
n_\omega^{(ij)}=
(2\omega)^{-1}\int_\epsilon f^{(i)}_{\epsilon_+}\sigma^x_{ij}(1-f^{(j)}_{\epsilon_-}),\end{gathered}$$ where $\hat\sigma^x$ is the Pauli-matrix. From Eq. one estimates the rate of the energy exchange between the environment and the tunneling electrons as: $1/\tau_{\rm{e-env}}=\rho(\omega)/
(\nu_\omega R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}})$. Now one has to compare $1/\tau_{\rm{e-env}}$ with the rate of the interaction of the environment modes with the (phonon) bath, $1/\tau_{\rm env\to bath}(\omega)$. For the electron-hole environment, $1/\tau_{\rm env\to bath}(\omega)$ is determined from Eq. to which the electron-phonon scattering integral is added. If $\tau_{\rm env\to bath}\gg \tau_{\rm e-env}$, the two-stage energy relaxation takes place and the characteristic energy transfer from tunneling current is $\omega\sim \max\{T_{\mathrm e},V\}$, where $T_{\mathrm e}$ is the electronic temperature in the leads. The electromagnetic environment mediates the two-stage relaxation in the case where Ohmic losses occur in a LC superconducting line and are small [@env_DoS]. To take a typical example, in aluminum mesoscopic samples $\tau_{\rm e-env}=10^{-8}$sec and $\tau_{\rm env\to bath}=10^{-6}$sec [@Giazotto], so the conditions for the two-stage energy relaxation are realized. Then the distribution functions, $N_\omega$, deviate significantly from the Bose-distribution with the temperature of the phonon bath. They should be determined from the condition that the collision integral of the environmental modes with the e-h pairs accompanying the current flow becomes zero, and Eq. yields $N_\omega\cong n_\omega^{(12)}$. If $T_{\mathrm e}\ll V$, then $N_\omega$ can be approximated by the Bose-function with some effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ at $\omega<V=T_{\rm eff}$ and $N_\omega=0$ at $\omega>T_{\rm eff}$ (the emission of the excitations with the energy larger than $V$ is forbidden), and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:T_eff}
T_{\rm eff}\equiv\lim_{\omega\to 0} \omega N_\omega=0.5 V\coth(V/2T)\,.\end{gathered}$$ This result shows that the system with the environment well isolated from the bath cannot be cooled below $T_{\rm eff}$. Note that the $\coth$-expression for $T_{\rm eff}$ obtained in the first approximation in $\rho$. In a general case, $T_{\rm eff}$ depends on $\rho$.
Equations - give the full description of the kinetics of the tunnel junction in a nonequilibrium environment. To derive the $I$-$V$ characteristics we find $N_\omega\cong n_\omega^{(12)}$ and plug it into Eqs.-. Introducing the parameters $g^{-1}=\rho(0)$ and $\Lambda$, the characteristic frequency of the $\rho(\omega)$ decay \[for the Ohmic model [@Grabert_Devoret], $\rho=g^{-1}/\{1+(\omega/\Lambda)^2\}$ and $\Lambda/g$ is of the order of the charging energy of the tunnel junction\], we find: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:I_g}
I\sim \frac V {R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}}\ln \frac \Lambda V\,;\end{gathered}$$ in the interval $T\ll V\ll \Lambda$, where $T_{\rm eff}\simeq V$. Note that $I(V)$ given by Eq. differs from the power law dependence obtained in [@Grabert_Devoret] for $T_{\mathrm e}=T_{\rm eff}=0$. This shows that tuning the environment one can control the $I(V)$-characteristics of the tunnel junction (the gating effect). At high voltages, $V\gg\Lambda$, one finds $$\begin{gathered}
I(V)\simeq(V-\Delta_\infty)/{R_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm T}}}\,,
\\
\Delta_\infty=iJ'(0)=2\int_0^\infty d\omega\rho_{\omega}[1+N_\omega^{\rm (out)}-N_{\omega}^{\rm (in)}]\simeq\Delta_\infty^{(0)}\ln(\Lambda/\min\{T_e,T_{\rm env}\}),
\end{gathered}$$ where $\Delta_\infty^{(0)}=\Delta_\infty[N^{\rm (out)}= N^{\rm (in)}]\sim \Lambda/g$, since at $V\gg\Lambda$, $N^{\rm (out)}_{\omega}\simeq \Lambda/\omega\gg N^{\rm (in)}_{\omega}$.
Arrays of tunnel junctions
==========================
![(a) The single electron two-islands’ circuit. (b)-(e) Diagrams describing the forward inelastic cotunneling rate. The “up" arrows stand for the e-h pairs excited during the cotunneling and the “down" arrows correspond to the recombination of the e-h pairs. The vertices shown by boxes are proportional to the probability of an elemental e-h pair excitation, $\rho(\omega)/\omega$. []{data-label="fig:cotunneling"}](Fig2.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Extending Eq.(\[eq:S\_begin\_total\]) onto an array comprised of $N$ junctions one finds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:cotunneling_rate}
\overrightarrow{\Gamma}=\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\frac{R_Q}{4\pi^2 R_{i}}\right)\,S^2\,\int d\epsilon d\epsilon' f_1(\epsilon)[1-f_2(\epsilon')] P(\epsilon-\epsilon'),\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
P(E)= \int_{-\infty}^\infty dt \exp(iEt)
\bigg\{\int_{0}^\infty d\omega\frac{\rho(\omega)}\omega \times \\ \prod_{j\leq N-1}
\left[N_{\omega,j}^{\rm (in)} e^{i\omega t}+(1+N_{\omega,j}^{\rm (out)})e^{-i\omega t}\right]\bigg\}\, .\label{eq:P(E)-gen}\end{gathered}$$ Here $S=E_{\mathrm c}^{-(N-1)}{N^N}/{(N-1)!}$, and $E_{\mathrm c}=e^2/2C$ is the Coulomb charging energy of a single junction ($C$ is a single junction capacitance) and for the Cooper pair transport $e\to 2e$. Equations and were derived in a first order in tunneling Hamiltonian. Shown in Fig. \[fig:cotunneling\] is a diagrammatic representation of Eq. for $N=3$.
A generalization of the results obtained for a single junction including the structure of the collision integral and the concept of the effective temperature Eq., onto large arrays is straightforward. As long as temperatures are not extremely low [@Lopatin1], the charge transfer in large arrays is dominated by the inelastic cotunneling and the cascade energy relaxation. The tunneling carriers generate e-h pairs [@Lopatin1; @Lopatin2] serving as an environment exchanging the energy with the tunneling current and then slowly losing it to the bath.
Cascade two-stage relaxation: general applications
==================================================
In the preceding sections we have formulated a general approach to description of electronic transport in mesoscopic tunnel junctions mediated by the energy exchange between the charge carriers and the environment, which, in its turn, relaxes the energy to thermostat. In what follows we will show that there is a rich variety of the seemingly disparate kinetic phenomena in tunnel junction arrays that allow for a natural and transparent description within the unique framework of this hierarchical or cascade relaxation concept. We illustrate the power of our approach applying it to phenomena of overheating [@heatingReviewA; @heatingReviewB], the Coulomb anomaly [@STM1D; @Grabert_Devoret], the transport in the granular systems governed by the cotunneling processes [@Efros; @Grabert_Devoret] and mediated by the electron-hole environment. The concept of the cascade two-stage energy relaxation appears to be of the fundamental importance to revealing the microscopic mechanism of the insulator-to-superinsulator transition and the nature of low temperature transport in the superinsulating state [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNature]. We show, finally, that the concept of the cascade energy relaxation resolves the long standing puzzle of temperature-independent pre-exponential factor in variable range hopping conductivity [@Khondaker1999; @Shlimak1999; @Ghosh; @Yakimov; @Baturina2007; @Baturina2008a; @Baturina2008b; @EpsilonExp4]. We demonstrate that the underlying physical mechanism behind all the above is the imbalance between the intense energy exchange of the charge carriers with the (nonequilibrium) environment and the comparatively weak coupling of the environment to the phonon bath.
Nonequilibrium Coulomb anomaly
------------------------------
![ (a) The quasi-2D disordered metallic film attached at the edges to two electrodes. The tunneling density of states (TDOS) can be determined using the transport measurement done with the help of the Scanning Tunnel Microscope (STM) tip. (b) Equivalent circuit that describes transport between the STM-tip and metal (in nonequilibrium state). []{data-label="fig:wire"}](Fig3.eps){width="9.0cm"}
Consider the quasi-2D disordered metallic film attached at the edges to two electrodes, see Fig.\[fig:wire\](a). The Coulomb anomaly arises due to electromagnetic fluctuations associated with the electron-electron interaction in the wire (electron-hole environment excitation) and manifest itself as the suppression of the local tunnel density of states (TDOS) at small energies [@Aronov-Altshuler]. Experimentally the density of states can be determined by means of tunneling transport measurements with the scanning tunnel microscope (STM) tip serving as one of the electrodes, see Fig.\[fig:wire\](a) and Refs.[@STM1D; @Giazotto]. The corresponding equivalent circuit is shown in Fig.\[fig:wire\](b). The resistor characterizes the contact between the tip and the quasi-2D metallic film. This is the same resistor that appears in Fig.\[fig:e-ph\_int\].
In the absence of the current, i.e. in an equilibrium, the distribution function of electrons at any point of the film is the Fermi function. Then the current voltage characteristics of the junction, $I(V_{\rm tip})$, where $V_{\rm tip}$ is the potential of the tip, can be found following the recipes of Refs.[@Devoret_basic; @Aronov-Altshuler]: we have to use Eqs.- with the *equilibrium* environment distribution function and take $\rho(\omega)
=2\operatorname{Im}\int_{\mathbf q}\tilde U/(D q^2-i\omega)^{2}$, where $\tilde U$ is the dynamically-screened Coulomb interaction in the metal and $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. Then from the differential conductance, $dI/dV_{\rm tip}$, we get the local density of states (the same as in Ref.[@Kamenev-Andreev]) and find all the standard Coulomb anomaly features, see Refs.[@Aronov-Altshuler; @Kamenev-Andreev].
As the current starts to flow through the metallic film, then the distribution function of electrons, $f(\epsilon,\mathbf{r})$, at low temperatures (where the phonon bath is frozen out) becomes nonequilibrium and should be found from the kinetic equation [@STM1D; @Giazotto], $\triangle f=0$ with the edge conditions relating electron distribution function in the metal with the electron distribution functions at the reservoirs. The solution of the kinetic equation at the center of the metallic film can be approximated as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:f}
f(\epsilon)=\frac12[f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm F}}(\epsilon)+f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm F}}(\epsilon-V)]\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $V$ is the electrical potential of the left electrode that pushes the current through the metal, see Fig.\[fig:wire\](a). Here it was assumed that the electron inelastic scattering length, $l_{\rm in}$, is larger than the separation between the electrodes attached to the metallic film. The electron-hole environmental modes in the metallic film, which are responsible for the Coulomb anomaly, become now nonequilibrium. Since the phonon bath is frozen, then $\tau_{\rm env-bath}\gg\tau_{\rm e-env}$, so the stationary distribution function $N_\omega$ is to be found from Eq.. Then we obtain, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:NN}
N_{\omega}=n_{\omega},\qquad
n_\omega=(2\omega)^{-1}\int d\epsilon f_{\epsilon_+}(1-f_{\epsilon_-})\,.\end{gathered}$$ We calculate the tunneling rate between for electrons passing from the tip to the metallic film using Eq.: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:S_begin_total_new}
\overrightarrow{\Gamma}=\frac1{R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm T}}}
\int_{\epsilon\epsilon'}f_\epsilon^{(\mathrm{tip})}
(1-f_{\epsilon'})P^<(\epsilon-\epsilon')\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $f_\epsilon^{(\mathrm{tip})}=f_F(\epsilon-V_{\mathrm{tip}})$ and $f_\epsilon$ is given in Eq.. Note that when evaluating $P^{<}$, we used the nonequilibrium environmental bosonic distribution function $N_\omega$ as given by Eq.. Equations and yield the current, flowing through the tip, $I(V_{\rm tip})$, from which one determines the TDOS as: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:tdos}
\nu_{T}(\epsilon)\propto \frac{dI(V_{\rm tip})}{dV_{\mathrm{tip}}}\biggl|_{V_{\mathrm{tip}}\to\epsilon}\,.\end{gathered}$$ One finds after some algebra that the TDOS acquires the ‘superstructure’ on the energy scale of the order of $T_{\rm eff}(V)$: two dips develop at the energies corresponding to the positions of the Fermi level in the tip and in the film, where the electronic distribution function experiences discontinuous jumps (i.e. at $\epsilon=0$ and $\epsilon=V$) [@STM1D; @Mirlin].
Negative differential resistance and overheating
------------------------------------------------
If the rate of the energy supply from the external bias to the charge carriers exceeds the rate of energy losses to the environment, the phenomenon of *overheating* takes place and the energy distribution function of the current carriers noticeably deviates from the equilibrium distribution function [@heatingReviewA; @heatingReviewB]. One of the characteristic manifestations of the overheating effect is the onset of the “falling” region of the $I$-$V$ curve where the differential conductivity $G={\partial I}/{\partial V}<0$. The corresponding $I(V)$ characteristics is referred to as that of the $S$-type if the current is the multi-valued function of the voltage, and the $I$-$V$ curve of the $N$-type corresponding to the case where the current is nonmonotonic but still remains a single valued function of the voltage. The phenomenon of overheating has been a subject of the incremental interest and extensive studies during the decades, see the detailed Volkov and Kogan review [@heatingReviewA], and the impressive progress in understanding of the underlying mechanisms was achieved. Recently, for instance, the ideas of [@heatingReviewA] were applied to description of nonlinear low temperature current-voltage characteristics in disordered granular metal [@Shuler]. The concept of the two-stage relaxation of the present work enables us to construct a general approach to overheating taking into the consideration also non-phonon mechanisms of relaxation. A general scheme is as follows. Let us consider the far-from-equilibrium tunneling transport mediated by an environment. Let the environmental excitations *emitted* by tunneling carriers be “hot” (“up" lines in Figs.\[fig:e-ph\_int\]-\[fig:cotunneling\]) whereas the environmental excitations absorbed by tunneling carriers are “cold” (“down" lines in Figs.\[fig:e-ph\_int\]-\[fig:cotunneling\]). This implies that there exist two distinct energy scales characterizing the frequency distributions, $N_\omega^{\rm(in)}$ and $N_\omega^{\rm(out)}$, corresponding to emitted and absorbed environment excitations, respectively: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{1221}
T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (out)} =\lim _{\omega\to 0} \omega N_\omega^{\rm(out)},
\\
T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (in)} = \lim _{\omega\to 0} \omega N_\omega^{\rm(in)}.\end{gathered}$$ These two temperature scales are, in general, different provided the effective inelastic length, $L_{\rm \phi}$, describing thermalization of the excitations with the phonon bath (thermostat) is of the same order or smaller than the hot region where tunneling electrons strongly interact with the environment. Then the absorbed environmental excitations come from the outside of the hot region and have the temperature of the bath, $T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (in)}\approx T_{\rm bath}$. The emitted excitations are hot, and their effective temperature is the function of the applied voltage (current). The temperature of the hot excitations is to be found from the heat balance equation following the recipes of Refs. [@heatingReviewA; @heatingReviewB]. Namely, it is obtained by integrating the product of the kinetic equation for electron distribution function \[see, e.g., Eq.\] and the electron energy $\epsilon$, over the volume and energy: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{9}
P\backsimeq\frac{\mathcal{E}(T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (in)})}{\tau_{\rm e-env}(T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (in)})}-\frac{\mathcal{E}(T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (out)})}{\tau_{\rm e-env}(T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (out)})},\end{gathered}$$ where $\tau_{\rm e-env}(T)$ is the temperature dependent electron-environment inelastic scattering rate, $\mathcal{E}(T)$ is of the order of total the energy of electrons having the temperature $T$ in the volume involved and $P\backsimeq V^2/R(T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (out)})$ is the (Joule) heat produced by the passing current. The $I$-$V$ characteristics comes out as solutions to Eq. with the specific relations between $\mathcal{E}$ and the applied voltage and current. The resulting $I$-$V$ curves may come up as the so called $S$- or $N$-type of the $I$-$V$ characteristics depending on the specific temperature dependencies $R(T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (out)})$, see Ref. [@heatingReviewA]. Making use of Eq. we can estimate $\tau_{\rm e-env}(T)$. It is proportional to the coefficient standing in the scattering integral by $f^{(1)}_{\epsilon_1}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}
\frac1{\tau_{\rm e-env}}\sim &\int d\omega\nu_\omega \nu_2d\epsilon_2\left(\frac{\rho}
{\omega\nu_\omega}\right)W_{12}\times
\\
\biggl\{
&\delta(\epsilon_{12}-\omega)[(N_\omega+1)
(1-f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2})+N_\omega f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2}]+
\\
&\delta(\epsilon_{12}+\omega)[N_\omega
(1-f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2})+(N_\omega+1) f^{(2)}_{\epsilon_2}]\biggr\}\,.\label{eq:heating}
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$
The equation is derived for a single tunnel junctions. To describe the overheating effects in arrays of many junctions one needs an appropriate generalization of a single junction approach. An important example of such a multi-junction system is an array of metallic granules in the insulating state. In granular metals the role of environment is taken by the electron-hole pairs. In this case $ \tau_{\rm e-env}$ is electron inelastic relaxation time, $T_{\rm eff}^{\rm (in)}=T$ is the bath temperature. The energy scale $\mathcal{E}$ can be roughly approximated by the energy of the quasiparticles in the bulk of the sample of the volume $\Omega$ as $\mathcal{E}(T)\sim \pi^2\nu \Omega T^2/6$. Employing the standard theory of the tunneling conductivity in the granular materials [@Lopatin2] one then can arrive at the $S$-type $I$-$V$-characteristics for granular metals.
Electron-hole environment in a disordered metal
-----------------------------------------------
To gain an insight into the behavior of the electron-hole environment in mesoscopic tunnel junctions and reveal the role of Coulomb interactions, which are instrumental to formation of the environment properties, let us employ the Finkel’stein’s theory of Fermi-liquid fluctuations in a disordered granular metal [@Fin]. The theory treats the Coulomb potential as the contact interaction. This offers a pretty good description of disordered metals, where Coulomb potential is well screened to $\delta$-function. Of course, in the close vicinity of the disorder-driven metal-insulator (or superconductor-insulator) transition where the real Coulomb fields come into play, the orthodox Finkel’stein’s theory is not valid, and one needs the approach capable to accommodate the long-range Coulomb effects.
We adopt the Keldysh representation which is most adequate for discussing dynamic effects. The action describing Fermi-liquid fluctuations acquires the form: $$\begin{gathered}
iS_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm F}}=
-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm N}}
\operatorname{tr}\left[(\check{\partial}_{\mathrm r}Q)^2-\frac{4}{D}\check{\partial}_{\mathrm t}Q\right]
-\frac{i\Gamma_{\rho}}{4\nu}
\int_{tx}\{(\hat{\rho}_1)_{tx}(\hat{\rho}_2)_{tx}
+2i\nu\operatorname{tr}[\overrightarrow{\phi}^{\tau}\sigma_{\mathrm x}\overrightarrow{\phi}]\}.
\label{Finaction}\end{gathered}$$ Here $\hat{\rho}_{1(2)}$ is the operator of the Fermion fluctuations density in the classical (quantum) sector, $$\hat{\rho}_{1}=-\frac{2\pi\nu}{1+F_{\rho}}\left[\operatorname{tr}(\sigma_{\mathrm x}Q_{{\mathrm t},{\mathrm t'}})+\frac{\phi_1}{2\pi}\right]\,,\,\,\,\,\hat{\rho}_{2}=-\frac{2\pi\nu}{1+F_{\rho}}\left[\operatorname{tr}(\sigma_{\mathrm x}Q_{{\mathrm t},{\mathrm t'}})+\frac{\phi_2}{2\pi}\right],$$ $\overrightarrow{\phi}$ are the conjugated fields, $\Gamma_{\rho}=F_{\rho}/(1+F_{\rho})$, $F_{\rho}$ is the contact amplitude modeling the screened Coulomb interaction in the singlet channel. The Fourier transform of the typical retarded fluctuation propagator describing fluctuations has the form: $$\begin{gathered}
{\cal D}^{{\cal{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm R}}}}=\frac{1}{Dq^2-i\omega(1+\Gamma_{\rho})}\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\omega$ are the Matsubara frequencies. The diffusion poles of the propagators thus possess the structure, $Dq^2-i\omega$, $Dq^2-i\omega(1+\Gamma_{\rho})$. One sees that this description applies and the spectrum of the excitations is stable only as long as the single granule mean level spacing remains the smallest energy parameter, i.e. $\delta<Dq^2, \omega, \omega\Gamma_{\rho}$. This implies the development of the excitations spectrum instability and opening the energy gap at temperatures $$T<T^*=\frac{\delta}{\Gamma_{\rho}}\,.\label{manybody}$$ Formation of the energy gap in the spectrum of the environmental excitations is a phenomenon that tremendously influences the tunneling electronic transport. One sees straightforwardly that as the energy gap, $T^*$, in the spectrum of electron-hole excitations appears at $T<T^*$, the spectral probability $\rho(\omega)$ for the electron-environment interaction vanishes in the interval $0<\omega<T^*$. Then Eq.(\[eq:cotunneling\_rate\]) yields the suppression of the tunneling current to the practically zero magnitude. The physical significance and meaning of this result is merely that as the gap in the excitation spectrum opens, the environment ceases to efficiently mediate the energy relaxation from the tunneling carriers, impeding thus the tunneling current.
Interestingly, the similar temperature that marked vanishing of the conductivity by the e-e interactions in the absence of coupling of electronic system to phonons in the model of disordered quantum wire was found in Refs. [@Gornyi2005; @BAA2006] by reducing the electron conductivity to the Anderson model on the Bethe lattice. This suppression of conductivity was interpreted as the Anderson localization in Fock space. We reiterate here that models based on the contact e-e interactions hold only as long as the long-range Coulomb effects are effectively screened. As a result its applicability, for example, to the description of physical phenomena in the vicinity of metal-insulator or superconductor-insulator transition needs special justification. In the next section we propose an approach capable to explicitly account for the long-range Coulomb interactions in the critical region of disorder-driven superconductor-insulator transition.
Superinsulating behavior
------------------------
Let us consider charge transfer in a two-dimensional array of superconducting tunnel junctions (or, equivalently, Josephson junction network) in the insulating state, i.e. under the conditions that $E_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm J}}<E_{\mathrm c}$, where $E_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm J}}$ is the Josephson coupling energy, and $E_{\mathrm c}$ is the charging energy related to the capacitance $C$ between the two adjacent granules (or the capacitance of a single Josephson junction). We focus on the limit $C\gg C_0$, where $C_0$ is the capacitance of a single junction to the ground. The electric properties of the array are quantified by the screening length $\lambda=a\sqrt{C/C_0}$, where $a$ is the size of the elemental unit of the Josephson junction network. At distances $R<\lambda$, the electric charges interact according the logarithmic law, the energy of the interaction being $\propto\ln(R/\lambda)$, at larger distances Coulomb interaction is exponentially screened. If the linear dimension of an array, $L$ does not exceed $\lambda$, the charge plasma, comprising the environment in the superconducting array, experiences the charge binding-unbinding Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition [@BKTa; @BKTb; @BKTc; @BKTd; @Mooij1990; @Fazio1991] at $T=T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}\simeq E_{\mathrm c}$ [@Mooij1990; @Fazio1991]. In the low temperature BKT phase positive and negative charges are bound into the dipole pairs, whereas above the transition the charges form a free plasma. Binding positive and negative charges into pairs implies that at $T\simeq E_{\mathrm c}$ the energy gap $\simeq E_{\mathrm c}$ opens in the spectrum of unbound charges. As we have discussed in the preceding section, opening the energy gap in the environmental excitation spectrum results in vanishing $\rho(\omega)$ in the interval $0<\omega<E_{\mathrm c}$.
The low temperature transport in the large JJA arrays was discussed in [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNaturer] within the framework of the Feynman-Vernon influence functional technique. The charge transfer is realized by the dipole excitations that unbind and further tunnel under the applied bias. In the course of tunneling the propagating charges generate and leave behind the strings of the dipole (or electron-hole) excitations that accommodate the charges energy difference at different superconducting islands. As shown in [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNature] the system of dipoles excited at Josephson junctions can be mapped onto the ensemble of quantum rotators. The subsequent averaging of the current with respect to all the states of the rotator ensemble is equivalent to averaging over the thermodynamic bath, the role of which is thus taken by the dipole environment. Thus the relaxation process ensuring the tunneling current is governed by the dipole environment and the subsequent phonon emission by these dipole excitations.
Now we discuss the same process from the viewpoint of the nonequilibrium approach developed in the present work. Following further the line of reasoning used in preceeding sections and employing again Eq.(\[eq:cotunneling\_rate\]), we arrive at the conclusion that at $T<T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}$, the charge transfer in the array of the superconducting tunnel junctions is suppressed. Remembering now, that at low temperatures tunneling current in an array of superconducting junctions is governed by the cotunneling processes [@Lopatin1; @Lopatin2] described in Section 1.3. Analyzing the contribution from higher orders into the cotunneling process, one finds that the current suppression holds in all orders.
On a qualitative level the effect of the gap opening in the charge plasma excitation spectrum on the charge transfer in the superconducting tunneling array can be described as follows. Starting with Eq. and using Eqs. -, one can find $$I\propto\exp(-E/W)\,,
\label{eq:SI-current}$$ where $E$ is the characteristic energy for the charge transfer between the granules. In the system with the linear size $L<\lambda$, $E=E_{\mathrm c}\ln(L/a)$, where $E_{\mathrm c}=2e^2/C$ for the Cooper pair, and $E_{\mathrm c}=e^2/2C$ for the quasiparticle. The quantity $W$ is the energy scale associated with the rate of the energy exchange between the tunneling charges and the environment. While the rigorous derivation for $W$ is not available at this point, the estimates suggest the interpolation formula $$\begin{gathered}
W\simeq\frac{E_{\mathrm c}}{\exp(E_{\mathrm c}/T)-1}\,.
\label{eq:W}
\end{gathered}$$ The meaning of this formula is that the relevant energy scale characterizing the tunneling rate is the energy gap that enters with the weight equal to the Bose-kind filling factor describing the probability of exciting the unbound charges. Well above the charge BKT transition Eq. gives $W=T$ (this reflects the fact that the number of the unbound charges is determined by the equipartition theorem and is proportional to $T/E_{\mathrm c}$). This yields $$\begin{gathered}
I\propto\exp[-E_{\mathrm c}\ln(L/a)/T]\,, \,\,\,T\gtrsim T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}\,.
\label{eq:highTcurrent}
\end{gathered}$$ One has to bear in mind that this formula holds only at temperatures not too high above the charge BKT transition, where Coulomb interactions are not completely screened. At $T\gg T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}$, $E=E_{\mathrm c}\ln(\lambda/a)$ and as the screening length becomes of the order of $a$, $E\simeq E_{\mathrm c}$. In this temperature region the system exhibits the ‘bad metal’ behavior. Notably, Eq. looks like a formula for the thermally activated current, however one has to remember that the physical mechanism behind the considered charge transfer is quantum mechanical tunneling process which can take place only if the mechanisms for the energy relaxation are switched on.
At low temperatures, $T\ll T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}\simeq E_{\mathrm c}$, the characteristic energy from Eq. is $W=E_{\mathrm c}\exp(-E_{\mathrm c}/T)$. The unbound charges that have to mediate the energy relaxation from the tunneling carriers are in an exponentially short supply, and one finds $$\begin{gathered}
I\propto\exp[-\ln(L/a)\exp(E_{\mathrm c}/T)]\,, \,\,\,T\ll T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}\,,
\label{eq:lowTcurrent}
\end{gathered}$$ reproducing the results of [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNature] for the Cooper pair conductivity. The additional suppression of the electronic transport in Josephson junction arrays as compared to the activation regime was indeed experimentally observed in Refs. [@Kanda; @Yamaguchi].
The outlined picture of the tunneling current in the superconducting junction array applies to thin superconducting films close to superconductor-insulator transition (SIT) [@Baturina2007; @Baturina2008a; @Baturina2008b]. Indeed, in the close vicinity of the SIT, the disorder-induced spatial modulations of the superconducting gap give rise to the electronic phase separation in a form of the texture of weakly coupled superconducting islands [@STM_TiN] with the characteristic spatial scale of the order of several superconducting coherence lengths $\xi$. The consequences of this phase separation are two-fold. First, the fine balance between disorder and Coulomb forces near the SIT results, on one hand, in the effective reduction of the disorder strength, and, on the other hand, in the emergence of the strong non-screened Coulomb field in the spaces between the islands. This field can be argued to reconstruct the island texture into a nearly regular array of weakly coupled superconducting islands, i.e. into an array of mesoscopic superconducting junctions. Note that the regular lattice of the superconducting islands can be also induced by nonlocal elastic fields due to coupling between the film and the substrate [@islands]. Second, in the critical region near the SIT this island array is on the verge of the percolation-like transition between the superconductor and insulator (the cluster of the islands touching each other and traversing the sample means the emergence of global superconductivity). Since in such two-phase systems the dielectric constant diverges on approach the percolation transition [@Dubrov; @Efros1976; @EpsilonExp1; @EpsilonExp2; @EpsilonExp3; @EpsilonExp4], the thin films in the critical region of the SIT develop a huge *global* dielectric permeability. This means that on the distances $L<\varepsilon d$, where $d$ is the film thickness, all the electric fields, emerging due to fluctuations in the local charge of the 2D environment, remain trapped within the film, and, therefore, the charge environment is nothing but the 2D neutral plasma, where charges interact with each other according to the logarithmic law. Therefore the 2D charge environment experiences the binding-unbinding charge BKT transition at $T=T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}$, and the energy gap opens in the environmental excitations spectrum at $T\leq T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}$, giving rise to suppression of *both Cooper pair- and normal quasiparticle currents*, since both tunneling processes – irrespectively to whether it is transfer of Cooper pairs or quasiparticles across the junction – can occur only if the energy exchange with an environment is possible. Thus opening the gap in an environmental spectrum due to long-range Coulomb effects and the resulting suppression of the tunneling current offers a microscopic mechanism behind the insulator-to-superinsulator transition and the conductivity in the superinsulating state [@FVB; @FVBlp; @VinNature].
Note in this connection, that in the recent work [@Syzr] the dc conductivity of an array of Josephson junctions in the insulating state is discussed in terms of transport of Cooper pairs through the narrow band formed by the Josephson coupling and distorted by *weak* disorder. This model for the Cooper pair transfer is in a sense complimentary to that of the present work where we discuss the opposite limit of sequential tunneling between the granules with the essentially different tunneling levels.
Variable Range Hopping conductivity
-----------------------------------
The notion of the cascade two-stage relaxation is a key to resolving the controversy of the variable range hopping (VRH) conductivity. Many experimental studies of the hopping conductivity in doped semiconductors [@Khondaker1999; @Shlimak1999; @Ghosh], in arrays of quantum dots [@Yakimov], and in disordered superconducting films [@Baturina2007; @Baturina2008a; @Baturina2008b; @EpsilonExp4], revealed the temperature independent pre-exponential factor, indicating the non-phonon mechanism of relaxation. What more, it had the universal values of the integer multiples of $e^2/h$. According to the early ideas by Fleishman, Licciardello, and Anderson [@Fleishman], the universal pre-exponential factor may evidence that the energy relaxation is due to electron-electron (e-e) rather than the electron-phonon interactions. On the other hand, according to Refs. [@Gornyi2005; @BAA2006] the e-e relaxation alone (i.e. in the absence of the coupling to phonons, which are in any case present in a real physical system) cannot ensure a finite conductivity below the certain localization temperature. Namely, in the absence of phonons the system of interacting electrons subject to disorder undergoes a localization transition (‘many-body localization’) in Fock space. The concept of the cascade energy relaxation developed in the present work resolves this controversy. The first stage is the fast energy exchange between the hopping electrons and the electron-hole environment (electrons do not see sparse phonons). Since this process involves only electron-electron interactions, the resulting pre-exponential factor does not depend on temperature. The second-stage process is the transfer of the energy from the electron-hole environment to the phonon thermostat. This process which is of course necessary to ensure the current, does not influence the pre-exponential factor.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have developed a theory of the far from the equilibrium tunneling transport in arrays of tunnel junctions in the limit $1/\tau_{\rm{e-env}}\gg 1/\tau_{\rm env-bath}$. We have demonstrated that the energy relaxation ensuring the low-temperature tunneling current occurs as a cascade two-stage process: the tunneling charges lose their energy to an intermediate agent, environment, and the latter relaxes the energy further to the thermostat. We have derived the tunneling $I$-$V$ characteristics and shown that they are highly sensitive to the structure of the spectrum of the excitations of the environmental modes. In particular, opening the energy gap in the excitation spectrum suppresses the tunneling current. As an important example we have considered a two-dimensional array of the superconducting junctions where the two-stage relaxation occurs via the two dimensional Coulomb plasma of positive and negative charges with logarithmic interaction, which experiences the charge binding-unbinding BKT transition at $T=T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}$. We argued that the gap in the plasma excitation spectrum that emerges at $T<T_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{BKT}}}$ gives rise to suppression of both, tunneling Cooper pair- and quasiparticle currents, thus offering the possible microscopic mechanism for the insulator-to-superinsulator transition and the low temperature transport in the superinsulating state. We considered applications of our general approach to several physical systems and low temperature transport phenomena, including Coulomb anomaly in 2D disordered metals, overheating effects, electron-hole environment in disordered metals, and the origin of temperature independent pre-exponential factor in hopping conductivity.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are grateful to R. Fazio, A. Shytov, A. Gurevich, A. Chubukov, I. Burmistrov, and Ya. Rodionov for useful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science under the Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357, by the Programs of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant Nos. 09-02-01205 and 09-02-12206).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Reconstruction of projective curves from the derived category
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove that for a discrete determinantal process the BK inequality occurs for increasing events generated by simple points. We give also some elementary but nonetheless appealing relationship between a discrete determinantal process and the well-known CS decomposition.'
author:
- André Goldman
title: 'A note related to the CS decomposition and the BK inequality for discrete determinantal processes.'
---
Discrete determinantal process and the CS decomposition.
========================================================
For basic properties of discrete determinantal point processes we refer to [@lyo] and [@lyon]. The CS decomposition is described in [@pw], see also [@afr].
Let $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{1},...,z^{p}\} $, $ 1<p<N $, be a set of orthonormal vectors in $ \mathbb{R}^{N} $. Denote
$$z^{i}=(z^{i}_{1},\dots,z^{i}_{N})^{t}, i=1,\dots,p$$ and $$z_{i}=(z^{1}_{i},\dots,z^{p}_{i}), i=1,\dots,N.$$
Consider $ \phi = \phi(\mathfrak{Z}) $ the associated determinantal procces defined by formulas $$P(\{i_{1},\dots,i_{k}\} \subset \phi)=
\parallel \bigwedge_{j=1}^{k}z_{i_{j}}\parallel ^{2}$$ or, in other terms, $$P(\{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}\} = \phi)=
\mid(\bigwedge_{i=1}^{p}z^{i})_{\{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\}\mid^{2}
= [\det(z_{i_{j}}^{k})_{k,j=1,\dots,p}]^{2}.$$
Let $ E=E(\mathfrak{Z})\subset
\mathbb{R}^{N}$ be the vector space spanned by $ \mathfrak{Z} $. If $ \tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}=\{\tilde{z}^{1},...,\tilde{z}^{p}\} $ is another orthonormal basis of $ E=E(\mathfrak{Z}) $ then is well known that $$\mid(\bigwedge_{i=1}^{p}z^{i})_{\{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\}\mid
=
\mid(\bigwedge_{i=1}^{p}\tilde{z}^{i})_{\{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\}\mid$$ for every $\{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}\}\subset \{1,\dots,N\} $ and consequently $ \phi(\mathfrak{Z})=\phi(\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}) $.\
Remark also that if $ \mathfrak{Z}^{\perp}=\{z^{p+1},...,z^{N}\} $ is an othonormal basis of the orthogonal complement $ E(\mathfrak{Z})^{\perp} $ of $E(\mathfrak{Z})$ in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ then obviously $$\phi(\mathfrak{Z}^{\perp})=\{1,\dots,N\}\setminus \phi(\mathfrak{Z}).$$ Consider now the CS decomposition. Let $ E\subset \mathbb{R}^{N}$ be a vector space of dimension $ 1 < p< N $. Fix distinct points $J=\{x_{1},\dots,x_{n}\}\subset \{1,\dots,N\} $, $ 1\leq n\leq p $. The CS decomposition provides an orthonormal basis $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{1},...,z^{p}\} $ of the vector space $ E $ and an orthonormal basis $ \mathfrak{Z}^{\perp}=\{z^{p+1},...,z^{N}\} $ of the orhogonal complement $ E(\mathfrak{Z})^{\perp} $ associated to Jordan (principal) angles between the space E and the basic subspace $$\mathbb{R}_{J}^{N}=\{x=(x_{k})\in\mathbb{R}^{N};x_{k}=0 \quad
if \quad k\notin J\}.$$ Several cases can be distinguished. The description given below is somewhat lengthy but, in our opinion, useful fot both theoretical and computational purpose. In order to simplify, we can take without loss of generality $x_{i}=i $, $ i=1,\dots,n $ . We note by $ e(k) $, $k=1,\dots,N $ the nul vector of the space $\mathbb{R}^{k}$.
1. The case $ n<p $ et $p+n < N$.\
There exist:
1. a sequence $ u^{1},\dots,u^{n} $ of orthogonal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
2. three sequences of mutually orthonormal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{N-n}$: $ \mathfrak{V}=\{V^{1},\dots,V^{n}\} $, $\mathfrak{W}= \{W^{1},\dots,W^{p-n}\} $ and $ \mathfrak{\tilde{W}}=\{\tilde{W}^{1},\dots,\tilde{W}^{N-p-n}\} $,
3. Jordan angles $0\leq \theta_{1}\leq \dots \leq \theta_{n}\leq \pi/2 $
such that noting
1. $
z^{i}=(u^{i}cos\theta_{i},V^{i}sin\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,n
$,
2. $
z^{i}=(e(n),W^{i})^{t}, i=n+1,\dots,p,
$
3. $
z^{p+i}=(u^{i}sin\theta_{i},-V^{i}cos\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,n
$,
4. $
z^{p+n+i}=(e(n),W^{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,N-p-n
$
the sequence $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{1},...,z^{p}\} $ is an orthonormal basis of $ E $ and the sequence $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{p+1},...,z^{N}\} $ is an orthonormal basis of the orthogonal complement $ E^{\perp} $.
2. The case $ n < p $ et $ p+n > N $.\
There exist:
1. a sequence $ u^{1},\dots,u^{n} $ of orthogonal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
2. two sequences of mutually orthogonal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{N-n}$ : $ \mathfrak{V}=\{V^{1},\dots,V^{N-p}\} $ and $ \mathfrak{W}=\{W^{1},\dots,W^{p-n}\} $,
3. Jordan angles $0 =\theta_{1}=\dots=\theta_{n+p-N}
\leq \dots \leq \theta_{n}\leq \pi/2 $
such that noting
1. $
z^{i}=(u^{i},e(N-n))^{t}, i=1,\dots,n+p-N
$ ;
2. $
z^{n+p-N+i}=(\tilde{u}_{i}cos\tilde{\theta}_{i},
V^{i}sin\tilde{\theta}_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,N-p
$ with $ \tilde{\theta}_{i}=\theta_{n+p-N+i} $ and $ \tilde{u}_{i}=u_{n+p-N+i} $
3. $
z^{i}=(e(n),W^{i})^{t}, i=n+1,\dots,p
$
4. $
z^{p+i}=(\tilde{u}_{i}sin\tilde{\theta}_{i},
-V^{i}cos\tilde{\theta}_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,N-p,
$
the set $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{1},...,z^{p}\} $, is an orthonormal basis of $ E $ and the set $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{p+1},...,z^{N}\} $ is an orthonormal basis of $ E^{\perp} $
3. The case $ n < p $, $ p+n = N. $\
There exist:
1. a sequence $ u^{1},\dots,u^{n} $ of orthogonal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
2. two sequences of mutually orthogonal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{N-n}$: $ \mathfrak{V}=\{V^{1},\dots,V^{n}\} $ and $ \mathfrak{W}=\{W^{1},\dots,W^{p-n}\} $,
3. Jordan angles $0 \leq \theta_{1}\leq \dots \leq \theta_{n}\leq \pi/2 $
such that noting
1. $
z^{i}=(u_{i}cos\theta_{i},
V^{i}sin\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,n
$
2. $
z^{i}=(e(n),W^{i})^{t}, i=n+1,\dots,p
$
3. $
z^{p+i}=(u_{i}sin\theta_{i},
-V^{i}cos\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,n
$
the set $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{1},...,z^{p}\} $, is an orthonormal basis of de $ E $ and the set $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{p+1},...,z^{N}\} $ is an orthonormal basis of $ E^{\perp}. $
4. Case $ n = p $.\
With the notations of points I-III:
1. $ 2p< N $
1. $
z^{i}=(u^{i}cos\theta_{i},V^{i}sin\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,p
$
2. $
z^{p+i}=(u^{i}sin\theta_{i},-V^{i}cos\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,p
$
3. $
z^{2p+i}=(e(n),W^{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,N-2p
$
2. $ 2p > N $
1. $
z^{i}=(u^{i},e(N-n))^{t}, i=1,\dots,2p-N
$
2. $
z^{2p-N+i}=(\tilde{u}_{i}cos\tilde{\theta}_{i},
V^{i}sin\tilde{\theta}_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,N-p
$ with $ \tilde{\theta}_{i}=\theta_{2p-N+i} $ and $ \tilde{u}_{i}=u_{2p-N+i} $
3. $
z^{p+i}=(\tilde{u}_{i}sin\tilde{\theta}_{i},
-V^{i}cos\tilde{\theta}_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,N-p
$
3. $ 2p = N $
1. $
z^{i}=(u_{i}cos\theta_{i},
V^{i}sin\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,p
$
2. $
z^{p+i}=(u_{i}sin\theta_{i},
-V^{i}cos\theta_{i})^{t}, i=1,\dots,p.
$
For Jordan angles appearing in the CS decomposition we note traditionally [@afr] $$cos\{E,\mathbb{R}_{J}^{N}\}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}cos\theta_{i}$$ and $$sin\{E,\mathbb{R}_{J}^{N}\}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}sin\theta_{i}.$$ This formulation of the CS decomposition gives at once
\[prop1\] For a set $ J=\{x_{1},\dots,x_{n}\} $, $ n \leq p $ we have:
1. $$\label{it1}
P\{J\subset\phi\}=cos^{2}\{E,\mathbb{R}_{J}^{N}\}$$
2. $$\label{it2}
P\{J\subset\phi^{c}\}=sin^{2}\{E,\mathbb{R}_{J}^{N}\}$$
3. If n<p and $ P\{ J \subset\phi\} >0$ then the conditional process $(\phi\vert \ J\subset\phi)\setminus J$ is determinantal such that $(\phi\vert \ J\subset\phi)\setminus J=
\phi(\mathfrak{W}).$
4. If $N-p > n$ and si $ P\{ J \subset\phi^{c}\} >0$ then the conditional process $(\phi\vert \ J\subset\phi^{c})$ is determinantal such that $(\phi\vert \ J\subset\phi^{c})=
\phi(\mathfrak{V}\cup \mathfrak{W}).$
5. If $ P\{ J \subset\phi\} >0$ then for all $ K \subset \{1,\dots,N\}\setminus J $ we have $$\label{it3}
P\{K\subset \phi(\mathfrak{W})\}
\leq P\{K\subset \phi\}$$ if $ P\{ J \subset\phi^{c}\} >0$ then $$\label{it4}
P\{K\subset \phi\}
\leq P\{K\subset \phi(\mathfrak{V}\cup \mathfrak{W})\}.$$
The fact that the conditional processes $(\phi\vert \ J\subset\phi)\setminus J$ and $(\phi\vert \ J\subset\phi^{c})$ are determinantal, as well as inequalities (\[it3\]) and (\[it4\]), has been shown by R.Lyons [@lyo].
A more elaborate informations can be obtained from this point of view. For example
\[prop2\] Consider the discrete detrminantal process $ \phi = \phi(\mathfrak{Z}) $ associated to a set $ \mathfrak{Z}=\{z^{1},...,z^{p}\} $, $ 1<p<N $, of orthonormal vectors in $ \mathbb{R}^{N} $. Fix points $J=\{x_{1},\dots,x_{n}\}\subset \{1,\dots,N\} $, $ 1\leq n\leq p $, such that $P\{{x_{2},\dots,x_{n}}\subset \phi^{c}\} > 0 $. With the choice (to simplify) $x_{i}=i $, $ i=1,\dots,n $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pp}
\lefteqn{ \left(\langle z_{1},z_{n} \ \rangle +
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}(-1)^{k}\sum_{2\leq i_{1}<\dots < i_{k}\leq n-1}
\langle z_{1}\wedge(\bigwedge_{j=1}^{k} z_{i_{j})},
z_{n}\wedge(\bigwedge_{j=1}^{k} z_{i_{j}}) \ \rangle
\right)^{2}} \nonumber \\
& & {}=
P\{x_{2},\dots, x_{n}\subset \phi^{c}\} \times
P\{x_{2},\dots, x_{n-1}\subset \phi^{c}\}\\
& & {}\quad \times
\left( P\{x_{1}\in \phi \vert \{x_{2},\dots,x_{n}\}\subset \phi^{c}\}
-P\{x_{1}\in \phi \vert \{x_{2},\dots,x_{n-1}\}\subset \phi^{c}\}\right).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Sketch of proof.– The left and rigt sides of (\[pp\]) do not depend of the choice of the basis of $E$ and if we take the basis given by the CS decomposition then the formula is nearly obvious. Notice in particular that by proposition \[prop1\] the right side has a very simple expression.
The BK inequality: preliminary.
===============================
For a pair $\mathfrak{A}$, $\mathfrak{B}$ $\subset \mathfrak{P}(E)$, $E=\{1,\dots,N\}$ of increasing events the disjoint intersection $\mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}$ is defined by $$\mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}
=\{ K \subset E:\exists \quad L\in \mathfrak{A}, \quad M \in \mathfrak{B}, \quad L,M \neq \emptyset, \quad L \cap M = \emptyset,
K \supset L\cup M
\}.$$ The process $\phi$ has the van den Berg - Kesten property (in short the BK property) if $$\label{p1}
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\}
\times
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{B}\}$$ for every pair of increasing events. In [@lyo] R.Lyons asked if the BK property occurs in determinantal process setting. One can suppose obviously that $\emptyset \notin \mathfrak{A}\cup \mathfrak{B}$. A simple calculation gives:
\[pr1\] The inequality (\[p1\]) is satisfied if and only if $$\label{p2}
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\cup\mathfrak{B}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}
\times
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{B}\} +
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\cap\mathfrak{B}\}
- P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\}.$$
Let $ \mathfrak{A}$ , $ \mathfrak{B}$ be a pair of increasing events. There exist two minimal sets $ S_{1}= S(\mathfrak{A})=\{A_{i},i=1,\dots n_{1}\}\subset \mathfrak{A}$ and $ S_{2}=S(\mathfrak{B})=\{B_{i},i=1,\dots n_{2}\}\subset \mathfrak{B} $
such that
1. $ A\in \mathfrak{A} \quad \Leftrightarrow \exists A_{i} \quad such \quad that \quad A\supseteq A_{i} $,
2. $ B\in \mathfrak{B} \quad \Leftrightarrow \exists B_{i} \quad such \quad that \quad B\supseteq B_{i}. $
The sets $A_{i}$, $B_{i}$ are minimal in the sense that none of $A\in \mathfrak{A} $ (resp. $B\in \mathfrak{B} $) is stricly included in $A_{i}$ (resp. in $B_{i}$).
If $ S_{1}\cap S_{2}
=\emptyset $ we obtain $ \mathfrak{A}\cap\mathfrak{B}
\setminus \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}=\emptyset $ and thus (\[p2\]) becomes $$\label{p3}
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\cup\mathfrak{B}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}
\times
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{B}\}$$ so, if $ S_{1}\cap S_{2}=\emptyset $ then the BK inequality is nothing else that a negative association inequality. R.Lyons proved in [@lyo] that the process $\phi$ has negative association. Consequently the inequality (\[p3\]) is satisfied. Therefore we have to study the case $ S_{1}\cap S_{2}
\neq \emptyset $.
Suppose now that $\mathfrak{A}=\mathfrak{B}$. Formula (\[p2\]) becomes $$\label{p4}
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}^{2}
+
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\}
- P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{A}\}.$$
If the sets of $S(\mathfrak{A})=\{A_{1},\dots,A_{n}\}$ are disjoint, that is if
$A_{i}\cap A_{j}=\emptyset $ for all $ i\neq j $,
then
$$\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}
\backslash(\mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{A})\}=
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\lbrace A_{i}\subseteq \phi,
A_{j}\nsubseteq\phi, \forall j \neq i\rbrace.$$ Therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p5}
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}
\backslash(\mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{A})\}
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace A_{i}\subseteq \phi,
A_{j}\nsubseteq\phi, \forall j \neq i\rbrace \\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace
A_{j}\nsubseteq\phi, \forall j \neq i\rbrace
- nP\lbrace A_{i}\nsubseteq\phi, \forall i=1,\dots,n\rbrace\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace
A_{j}\nsubseteq\phi, \forall j \neq i\rbrace
- nP\lbrace \phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\rbrace\end{aligned}$$
and formula (\[p4\]) takes the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6}
(n+1)P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}^{2}
+
\sum_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace
A_{j}\nsubseteq\phi, \forall j \neq i\rbrace. \end{aligned}$$
The BK inequality for increasing events $ \mathfrak{A}, \mathfrak{B} $ generated by simple points.
===================================================================================================
We will start by proving the inequality (\[p6\]) when $ \mathfrak{A} $ is generated by simple points $S(\mathfrak{A})=\{x_{1},\dots,x_{n}\}$, $n>1$. We can suppose that $n \leq N-p $ (othervise $P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}=0$ and there is nothing to prove). Without loss of generality we may choose $x_{i}=i $, $ i=1,\dots,n $.\
Consider the determinantal process $ \phi^{c}=\{1,\dots N\}\setminus \phi$ and let $ v^{i}=z^{i} $, $ i=1,\dots,n $ be the vectors given by the CS decomposition related to the pair of spaces $ E(\mathfrak{Z})^{\perp}$ and $\mathbb{R}_{J}^{N}$, $J=\{1,\dots,n\}$. Explicitly, $ v_{i}=(\lambda_{1}u_{i}^{1},\dots,\lambda_{n}u_{i}^{n}) $, $ i=1,\dots,n $ with $\lambda_{i}=cos\theta_{i}.$
Denote $$\label{B1}
\tilde{v}_{i}=\bigwedge\limits_{j\neq i}v_{j}, i=1,\dots,n.$$
\[l1\] We have $$\label{B2}
\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{v}_{i}\parallel=
\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel^{(n-1)}.$$
Proof.– It is obvious that $\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel^{2}
= \prod_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2} $. Moreover the vectors $$\label{B3}
\tilde{u}_{i}=(\tilde{u}_{i}^{1},\dots,\tilde{u}_{i}^{n})=\bigwedge\limits_{j\neq i}u_{j}, i=1,\dots,n$$ are orthonormal in $ \mathbb{R}^{N} $ with $$\label{B4}
\tilde{u}_{i}^{j}=
\det(u_{k}^{k'})_{k\neq i, k'\neq j}$$ and for $ \tilde{v}_{i}=
(\tilde{v}_{i}^{1},\dots,\tilde{v}_{i}^{n}) $ we have
$$\label{B5}
\tilde{v}_{i}^{j}= \prod_{k\neq i}\lambda_{k}\times \tilde{u}_{i}^{j}.$$
It follows that
$$\label{B6}
\begin{split}
\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{2}
&= [\det(\tilde{v}_{i}^{j})_{i,j=1,\dots,n}]^{2}\\
&=
\prod _{i=1}^{n}\prod_{k\neq i}\lambda_{k}^{2}
\times [\det(\tilde{u}_{i}^{j})_{i,j=1,\dots,n}]^{2}
\\
&=(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \lambda_{k}^{2})^{n-1} \\
&=\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}{v}_{i}\parallel^{2(n-1)}
\end{split}$$
as desired.\
We will need the following elementary lemma
\[l2\] For all $ 0<a\leq 1 $ and $n>0$ we have $$(n+1) -a - na^{-\frac{1}{n}}\leq 0.$$
\[t1\] Let $\mathfrak{A}$ be an increasing event generated by simple points $ x_{1},\dots,x_{n} $, $ 1<n\leq N-p $. We have\
$$\label{B7}
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{A}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\}^{2}.$$
Proof.– By (\[p5\]) we have to prove that
$$\label{B8}
(n+1)P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \notin \mathfrak{A}\}^{2}
+
\sum_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace
x_{j}\notin \phi, \forall j \neq i\rbrace$$
or in terms of process $ \phi^{c} $ $$\label{B9}
\begin{split}\
(n+1)P\{x_{i}\in \phi^{c}, i=1,\dots,n\}
& \leq
P\{ x_{i}\in \phi^{c}, i=1,\dots,n\}^{2}\\
&+
\sum_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace
x_{j}\in \phi^{c}, \forall j \neq i\rbrace.
\end{split}$$ We note that $$\label{B10}
P\{x_{i}\in \phi^{c}, i=1,\dots,n\}=
\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel ^{2}
= \prod_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i} ^{2}$$ and that $$\label{B11}
P\lbrace
x_{j}\in \phi^{c}, \forall j \neq i\rbrace
= \parallel\tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{2}$$ which inserting in (\[B9\]) yields $$\label{B12}
(n+1)\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel ^{2}
\leq \parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel ^{4}
+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\parallel\tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{2}.$$ The last inequality follows easily from lemmas \[l1\]-\[l2\].\
Indeed, by lemma (\[l2\]) we have $$\label{B13}
(n+1)\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel ^{2}
\leq \parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel ^{4}
+ n\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel^{2(1-\frac{1}{n})}.$$ From lemma (\[l1\]) and Hadamard inequality we get $$\label{B14}
\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\parallel^{\frac{2(n-1)}{n}}
=\parallel \bigwedge_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{\frac{2}{n}}
\leq \prod_{i=1}^{n}\parallel \tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{\frac{2}{n}},$$ so it remains to apply the geometric-arithmetic mean inequality $$\label{B15}
n\prod_{i=1}^{n}\parallel \tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{\frac{2}{n}}
\leq \sum_{i=1}^{n}\parallel\tilde{v}_{i}\parallel^{2}$$ to obtain (\[B12\]) as desired.
The crucial point in the proof of theorem 1 is the inequality (\[B14\]) which according (\[B10\]) and (\[B11\]) can be write as follows $$\label{B16}
P\lbrace
x_{i}\in \phi^{c}, \forall i=1,\dots,n \rbrace ^{n-1}
\leq \prod_{i=1}^{n}P\lbrace
x_{j}\in \phi^{c}, \forall j \neq i\rbrace.$$ The inequality (\[B16\]) can be obtained also from
\[l3\] For all $ k\neq 1,2 $ we have $$\label{B17}
P\lbrace
x_{1}\in \phi^{c}\mid x_{j}\in \phi^{c},
\forall j=2,\dots,n \rbrace
\leq P\lbrace
x_{1}\in \phi^{c}\mid x_{j}\in \phi^{c},
\forall j\neq 1,k\rbrace.$$
Proof.– It follows from proposition \[prop1\] that the process $ \psi=\lbrace\phi^{c}\mid x_{j}\in \phi^{c},
\forall j\neq 1,k\rbrace $ is determinantal and that the formula (\[B17\]) which reads $ P\lbrace
x_{1}\in \psi \mid x_{k}\in \psi\rbrace \leq P\lbrace
x_{1}\in \psi\rbrace $ is satisfied.
From lemma \[l3\] we get $$\label{B18}
\begin{split}
P\lbrace
x_{i}\in \phi^{c}, \forall i=1,\dots,n \rbrace ^{n-1}
&\leq P\lbrace
x_{j}\in \phi^{c}, \forall j \neq 1\rbrace^{n-1}\\
& \times
\dfrac{\prod_{k=2}^{n}P\lbrace
x_{j}\in \phi^{c}, \forall j \neq k\rbrace}{\prod_{k=2}^{n}P\lbrace
x_{j}\in \phi^{c}, \forall j \neq 1,k\rbrace}
\end{split}$$ and by induction we obtain (\[B16\]).\
We establish now
\[t2\] Let $\mathfrak{A}$, $\mathfrak{B}$ be increasing events generated by simples points. Then\
$$\label{B19}
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\}
\leq
P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{A}\}\times P\{\phi \in \mathfrak{B}\}.$$
Proof.– The proof proceeds by induction using theorem \[t1\] and the following lemma.
\[l4\] Let $ \mathfrak{A}$ et $\mathfrak{B}$ be increasing events generated by simple points and such that the BK inegality $$\label{B20}
P\{\psi \in \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\}
\leq
P\{\psi \in \mathfrak{A}\}
\times
P\{\psi \in \mathfrak{B}\}$$ is satisfied for all determinantal discrete processes $ \psi $ associated to sets of orthonormal vectors of $ \mathbb{R}^{N} $. Fix $ x_{0}\in \{1,\dots,N\} $ such that $ x_{0} \notin \mathfrak{A}\cup \mathfrak{B}$. Denote by $ \mathfrak{\tilde A}=\sigma \{x_{0},\mathfrak{A}\}$ the increasing event generated by the point $x_{0}$ and $ \mathfrak{A}$. The BK inegality $$\label{B21}
P\{\psi \in \mathfrak{\tilde A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\}
\leq
P\{\psi \in \mathfrak{\tilde A}\}
\times
P\{\psi \in \mathfrak{B}\}$$ is then satisfied for $ \mathfrak{\tilde A}$, $\mathfrak{B}$ and every discrete determinantal process $ \psi $.
Proof.– Fix the determinantal process $\psi$ and let $ S_{1}$, $ S_{2} $, by the minimal sets generating $\mathfrak{A}$ and $\mathfrak{B}$. Suppose that $ S=S_{1}\cap S_{2} \neq\emptyset $ and that $P\{ x_{0}\notin \psi\} >0 $ (otherwise there is nothing to prove). We have $$\label{B22}
\lbrace \psi \in \mathfrak{A}\cap\mathfrak{B}
\setminus \mathfrak{A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\rbrace=
\cup_{x\in S}\lbrace x \in \psi,
y \notin \psi, \forall y \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}, y\neq x\rbrace$$ and $$\label{B23}
\lbrace \psi \in\mathfrak{\tilde A}\cap\mathfrak{B}
\setminus \mathfrak{\tilde A}\circ\mathfrak{B}\rbrace=
\cup_{x\in S}\lbrace x \in \psi, x_{0}\notin \psi,
y \notin \psi, \forall y \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}, y\neq x\rbrace.$$ Formulas (\[p2\]) and (\[B23\]) implies that the BK-inequality (\[B21\]) can be written as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
P\{ x_{0}\notin \psi, x \notin \psi, \forall x \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}\}
&\leq &
P\{x_{0}\notin \psi, x \notin \psi, \forall x \in S_{1}\} \nonumber\\
& &
\qquad \times P\{ x \notin \psi, \forall x \in S_{2}\} \\
&+&
\sum_{x\in S}P\lbrace x \in \psi, x_{0}\notin \psi,
y \notin \psi, \forall y \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}, y\neq x\rbrace \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
or, introducing $ \psi_{0} = (\psi \mid x_{0}\notin \psi)$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{B24}
P\{ x \notin \psi_{0}, \forall x \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}\} \nonumber
&\leq &
P\{x \notin \psi_{0}, \forall x \in S_{1}\}\\
& &
\qquad \times P\{ x \notin \psi, \forall x \in S_{2}\} \\
&+&
\sum_{x\in S}P\lbrace x \in \psi_{0}, \nonumber
y \notin \psi_{0}, \forall y \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}, y\neq x\rbrace .\end{aligned}$$
Observe now that the induction hypothesis of lemma \[l4\] and formulas (\[p2\]), (\[B22\]) imply that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{B25}
P\{ x \notin \psi_{0}, \forall x \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}\} \nonumber
&\leq &
P\{x \notin \psi_{0}, \forall x \in S_{1}\}\\
& &
\qquad \times P\{ x \notin \psi_{0}, \forall x \in S_{2}\} \\
&+&
\sum_{x\in S}P\lbrace x \in \psi_{0}, \nonumber
y \notin \psi_{0}, \forall y \in S_{1}\cup S_{2}, y\neq x\rbrace. \end{aligned}$$
According (\[it4\]) we have $$\label{B26}
P\{ x \notin \psi_{0}, \forall x \in S_{2}\}
\leq P\{ x \notin \psi, \forall x \in S_{2}\}$$ and thus by (\[B25\]) and (\[B26\]) we obtain (\[B24\]) which finish the proof of lemma \[l4\].\
To prove theorem \[t2\] note that the minimal sets generating $\mathfrak{A}$ and $\mathfrak{B}$ are of the form $S_{1}=\{x_{1},\dots x_{n_{1}},z_{1},\dots z_{q}\}$ and $ S_{2}=\{y_{1},\dots y_{n_{2}},z_{1},\dots z_{q}\} $ with $ S_{1} \cap S_{2} = \lbrace z_{1},\dots z_{q} \rbrace $ hence applying step by step the lemma \[l4\] the result follows.
Concluding remarks.
===================
Theorems 1-2 can be easily extended in the setting of general discrete determinantal processes. A more difficult task is to prove that these results are still valid when the minimal sets are disjoint but not reduced to being singles points. All this will be detailed in a forthcoming paper.
[20]{}
S. Afriat (1957). Orthogonal and oblique projectors and the characteristics of pairs of vector spaces. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 53: 800-816. .
R. Lyons (2003). Determinantal probability measures. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. 98, 167-212.
R. Lyons (2014). Determinantal probability: Basic properties and conjectures. Proceeding of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Volume IV.
C. C. Paige and M. Wei ((1994)). History and generality of the CS decomposition. Linear Algebra Appl. 209, 303 - 326.
Universit' e Claude Bernard Lyon1\
Département de Mathématiques\
Institut Camille Jordan UMR 5208 CNRS\
bât. J.Braconnier\
43, boulevard du 11 novembre 1918\
69622 Villeurbanne Cedex\
France\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Quasi-periodic brightness oscillations (QPOs) with frequencies ranging from $\sim\,$300 Hz to $\sim\,$1200 Hz have been discovered in the X-ray emission from fourteen neutron stars in low-mass binary systems and from another neutron star in the direction of the Galactic center. These kilohertz QPOs are very strong, with rms relative amplitudes ranging up to $\sim\,$15% of the total X-ray countrate, and are remarkably coherent, with frequency to FWHM ratios as large as $\sim\,$200. Two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs differing in frequency by $\sim\,$250–350 Hz have been detected in twelve of the fifteen sources.
Here we propose a model for these QPOs. In this model the X-ray source is a neutron star with a surface magnetic field $\sim\!10^7 \dash
10^{10}$ G and a spin frequency of a few hundred Hertz, accreting gas via a Keplerian disk. Some of the accreting gas is channeled by the stellar magnetic field but some remains in a Keplerian disk flow that penetrates to within a few kilometers of the stellar surface. The frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair is the Keplerian frequency at a radius near the sonic point at the inner edge of the Keplerian flow whereas the frequency of the lower-frequency QPO is approximately the difference between the Keplerian frequency at a radius near the sonic point and the stellar spin frequency. The difference between the frequencies of the pair of QPOs is therefore close to (but not necessarily exactly equal to) the stellar spin frequency. The amplitudes of the QPOs at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency and at the beat frequency depend on the strength of the neutron star’s magnetic field and the accretion rate and hence one or both of these QPOs may sometimes be undetectable. Oscillations at the stellar spin frequency and its overtones are expected to be weak but may sometimes be detectable.
This model is consistent with the magnetic field strengths, accretion rates, and scattering optical depths inferred from previous modeling of the X-ray spectra and rapid X-ray variability of the atoll and Z sources. It explains naturally the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs and the similarity of these frequencies in sources with different accretion rates and magnetic fields. The model also explains the high coherence and large amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs, and the steep increase of QPO amplitude with photon energy. The increase in QPO frequency with inferred accretion rate seen in many sources is also understandable in this model.
We show that if the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a pair is an orbital frequency, as in the sonic-point model, the frequencies of these QPOs place interesting upper bounds on the masses and radii of the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources and provide new constraints on the equation of state of matter at high densities. Further observations of these QPOs may provide compelling evidence for the existence of a marginally stable orbit, confirming a key prediction of general relativity in the strong-field regime.
author:
- 'M. Coleman Miller'
- 'Frederick K. Lamb and Dimitrios Psaltis'
title: |
Sonic-Point Model of Kilohertz Quasi-Periodic Brightness\
Oscillations in Low-Mass X-ray Binaries
---
\#1[ 10\^[\#1]{} ${} \times 10^{#1}$]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{} $_{#1}$]{} \#1[\^[\#1]{} $^{#1}$]{}
‘\*="002A \#1[[\#1]{}]{}
PS.
\#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1
\#1 \#1
INTRODUCTION
============
Observations of accreting neutron stars in low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) with the [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer*]{} have revealed that the persistent X-ray emission of at least fifteen show remarkably coherent quasi-periodic brightness oscillations (QPOs), with frequencies $\nu_{\rm QPO}$ ranging from $\sim\,$300 Hz to $\sim\,$1200 Hz. These kilohertz QPOs are the highest-frequency oscillations ever seen in any astrophysical object.
Eight of the fourteen identified sources in which kilohertz QPOs have been detected are “atoll” sources (, , , , , , , and ). Kilohertz QPOs have also been detected in all six of the originally identified “Z” sources (1, , , , , and ). (For the definitions of atoll and Z sources, see Hasinger & van der Klis 1989.) Highly coherent brightness oscillations with frequencies ranging from $\sim\,$360 Hz to $\sim\,$580 Hz have been detected during type I (thermonuclear) X-ray bursts from four kilohertz QPO sources. Another neutron star in the direction of the Galactic center shows burst oscillations with a frequency of 589 Hz, but this source has not yet been positively identified. The frequency ranges and rms amplitudes of the currently known kilohertz QPOs and burst oscillations are listed in Table 1, with references.
Two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs have so far been seen in six of the eight atoll sources in which kilohertz QPOs have been detected (all except and ) and in all six of the Z sources. The differences $\Delta\nu$ between the frequencies of the two QPOs seen in these sources all fall in the range $\sim
250$–350 Hz. In the atoll sources (Ford et al. 1996, 1997a), (Wijnands et al. 1997b), and (Strohmayer et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1996c) and in the Z sources (van der Klis et al. 1996e), (Wijnands et al. 1997c), and (Wijnands et al. 1998) $\Delta\nu$ is constant in time, within the errors. In the Z source 1, $\Delta\nu$ changed from $\sim\,$250 Hz when the accretion rate was probably near and sometimes even slightly greater than the Eddington critical rate to $\sim\,$300 Hz when the accretion rate was significantly lower (van der Klis et al.1997b).
In , a brightness oscillation with a frequency consistent with the difference $\Delta\nu = 328$ Hz between the frequencies of the two kilohertz QPOs seen simultaneously in this source was detected with marginal significance during one 30-min interval (Ford et al. 1996, 1997a). In , a strong, relatively coherent brightness oscillation was detected in six of the twelve X-ray bursts so far observed from this source, with a frequency that has remained constant, within the errors, for more than a year and is consistent with the difference $\Delta\nu = 363$ Hz between the frequencies of the two kilohertz QPOs seen simultaneously in this source (Strohmayer et al. 1996b, 1996c; Strohmayer, Zhang, & Swank 1997; Strohmayer 1997, personal communication). Burst oscillations have also been seen in , with a frequency $\sim$580 Hz (Zhang et al. 1996, 1997), and in , with a frequency $\sim$520 Hz (Morgan & Smith 1996; Smith, Morgan, & Bradt 1997). In both cases the frequency of the burst oscillation is approximately [*twice*]{} the difference between the frequencies of the two kilohertz QPOs observed simultaneously in these sources.
The peaks in power density spectra associated with these kilohertz QPOs are relatively narrow, with FWHM $\delta\nu_{\rm QPO}$ as small as $0.005\,\nu_{\rm QPO}$. When integrated over all photon energies, the rms relative amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs seen in the atoll sources range up to $\sim 15$% of the total 2–60 keV X-ray countrate and are typically much greater than the $\lta1$% amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs observed in the Z sources. The amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs increase steeply with photon energy, up to at least 15 keV, in all the atoll and Z sources where the photon-energy dependence of the kilohertz QPOs has been studied (: Berger et al.1996; : Zhang et al. 1996; : Strohmayer et al. 1996c; : Wijnands & van der Klis 1997; : van der Klis et al. 1996e; : Wijnands et al. 1997c; : Wijnands et al. 1998).
The frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs have been seen to vary by as much as a factor $\sim 2$. The frequencies of the two kilohertz QPOs observed in the persistent X-ray emission between type I X-ray bursts of the atoll sources (Ford et al. 1996, 1997a), (Strohmayer et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1996c), (Wijnands & van der Klis 1997), and (Smale et al.1996, 1997) increase steeply with increasing countrate ($d\log\nu/d\log C\!R\;\gta\;1$). The frequencies of the pair of kilohertz QPOs seen during two different observations of (Ford et al. 1997a) correlated tightly and positively with the energy of the [*peak*]{} in the keV X-ray spectrum (Ford et al. 1997b), even though the tracks in the frequency-[*countrate*]{} plane made by the source during the two observations differed significantly. The frequencies of the pair of high-frequency QPOs observed in the Z sources 1, , , and increase steeply with the inferred accretion rate in these sources (van der Klis et al.1996a, 1996b, 1996d, 1996e, 1997a; Wijnands et al. 1997c, 1998; as discussed by van der Klis \[1989\] and Lamb \[1989, 1991\], there is no simple relation between countrate and accretion rate in the Z sources).
Two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs are so common that attention has focused on models that might be able to explain the occurrence of such kilohertz QPO pairs. Strohmayer et al. (1996c) and Ford et al. (1997a) have suggested adapting the magnetospheric beat-frequency model to explain these QPOs. This model was originally proposed by Alpar & Shaham (1985) and Lamb et al. (1985) and developed further by Shibazaki & Lamb (1987) to explain the [*single*]{} 15–60 Hz horizontal-branch oscillation (HBO) discovered earlier in the Z sources (see van der Klis 1989). As we discuss in § 2, it is very difficult to understand several key features of the kilohertz QPOs, including the simultaneous occurrence of two kilohertz QPOs, in terms of the magnetospheric beat-frequency model.
Here we propose a model for the kilohertz QPOs that is fundamentally different from the magnetospheric beat-frequency model. In the model presented here, the X-ray source is a neutron star with a surface magnetic field $\sim 10^7
\dash 10^{10}$ G and a spin frequency of a few hundred Hertz, accreting gas via a Keplerian disk. In this model the key characteristics of the kilohertz QPOs are explained as follows (details are presented in § 3):
[*Accretion flow*]{}.—Magnetoturbulence, differentialcooling, and radiation forces create density inhomogeneities (“clumps”) in the gas in the nearly Keplerian disk flow. These clumps are dissipated by the shear in the azimuthal velocity combined with gas pressure forces and turbulence. If the neutron star has a magnetic field $\gta 10^7$ G, some of the accreting gas is channeled out of the disk flow by the stellar magnetic field. Channeling occurs at several stellar radii, if the stellar magnetic field is $\sim 10^{9}$–$10^{10}$ G, but only very close to the stellar surface, if the field is $\sim10^7$–$10^8$ G. Even if the field is as strong as $\sim 10^{9}$–$10^{10}$ G, some of the accreting gas continues to drift inward in a nearly Keplerian disk flow until either radiation drag forces become important, the gas reaches the innermost stable circular orbit, or the gas begins to interact viscously with the stellar surface. The fraction of the accreting gas that remains in the Keplerian flow close to the star depends primarily on the strength of the stellar magnetic field and the accretion rate.
[*Role of radiation drag and general relativity*]{}.—For the accretion rates typical of the Z and atoll sources, the nearly Keplerian flow ends and the inward radial velocity of the gas in the disk increases sharply as the gas nears the star, either because of the azimuthal drag force exerted on the gas in the disk by the radiation coming from near the stellar surface or—if the drag force is weak and the radius of the neutron star is less than the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit—because of the general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity that produce an innermost stable orbit. In either case, the inward radial velocity of the gas becomes supersonic within a very short radial distance from the radius at which it begins to increase.
[*Effect of inhomogeneities in the flow*]{}.—Roughly speaking, clumps that form outside the radius where the radial inflow becomes supersonic are dissipated before gas from them reaches the stellar surface, whereas gas from clumps that form near the radius where the flow becomes supersonic falls inward and collides with the stellar surface before the clumps are destroyed. Where the streams of denser gas from the clumps orbiting near the sonic point collide with the stellar surface, the streams create arc-shaped areas of brighter X-ray emission that move around the star’s equator with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency of the clumps, which is approximately the Keplerian frequency at the sonic point.
[*Higher-frequency kilohertz QPO*]{}.—The frequency $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ of the higher-frequency of the two kilohertz QPOs is approximately equal to the Keplerian frequency at the sonic point. A detectable quasi-periodic oscillation of the X-ray flux and energy spectrum may be produced at this frequency by the periodically changing aspect (and, for most viewing directions, by the neutron star’s periodic eclipse) of the arc-shaped areas of brighter X-ray emission, as they move around the star with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency of clumps in the Keplerian disk flow near the sonic point. The oscillation appears quasi-periodic because the clumps have finite lifetimes and slightly different orbital frequencies. We find that $\nu/\delta\nu$ can be as large as 100 for these oscillations, consistent with the observed coherence of the kilohertz QPOs. The frequency of the sonic-point Keplerian QPO is almost independent of the spin rate of the neutron star (frame-dragging causes the Keplerian frequency at the sonic point, and hence the QPO frequency, to depend weakly on the star’s spin rate).
[*Lower-frequency kilohertz QPO*]{}.—The frequency $\nu_{\rm QPO1}$ of the lower-frequency of the two kilohertz QPOs is equal to one (or possibly two) times the difference between the Keplerian frequency at a radius near the sonic point and the stellar spin frequency. A QPO may be produced at this beat frequency if the magnetic field of the neutron star is weak enough that a Keplerian disk flow penetrates close to the star but strong enough to channel some of the accreting gas before it collides with the stellar surface. For the accretion rates of the Z and atoll sources, this requires surface magnetic fields $B_s$ in the range $\sim 10^{7} \dash 10^{10}$ G.
Channeling of gas out of the disk generates a QPO at the beat frequency because it creates slightly brighter regions that [*rotate with the star*]{} (these slightly brighter regions are distinct from the brighter spots that move around the star at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency). The slightly brighter regions that rotate with the star produce a weakly-beamed radiation pattern that rotates at the stellar spin frequency. The radiation in this pattern produces a slight increase of the azimuthal drag force on the gas in the clumps orbiting near the sonic point, once or twice each beat period (depending on the symmetry of the slightly brighter region).
This oscillation of the drag force in turn creates an oscillation of the inward flux of gas from a given clump at the sonic point once or twice each beat period. This modulation of the mass flux in the gas streams flowing inward from all clumps orbiting near the sonic point generates a quasi-periodic oscillation of the luminosity and spectrum of the X-ray emission from the stellar surface, with a frequency equal to one (or possibly two) times the difference between the Keplerian frequency at a radius near the sonic point and the stellar spin frequency. The difference between the frequencies of the two QPOs in a pair is therefore close to (but not necessarily [*exactly*]{} equal to) the stellar spin frequency.
[*Oscillation amplitudes*]{}.—The amplitudes of theQPOs at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency and at the beat frequency depend on the strength of the neutron star’s magnetic field and the mass accretion rate, and hence one or both of these QPOs may sometimes be undetectable. Oscillations at the stellar spin frequency and its overtones are expected to be weak but may sometimes be detectable.
[*Similarity of kilohertz QPO frequency behavior in different sources.*]{}—The similar frequency ranges and the similarity of the frequency-accretion rate correlations of the kilohertz QPOs observed in the Z and atoll sources—which have accretion rates and magnetic fields that differ by factors of ten or more—is explained by the crucial role of radiation drag, which is only effective within one or two stellar radii, the approximate proportionality of the angular momentum carried by the accreting matter and the radiation drag force, the fact that the stellar magnetic fields as well as the accretion rates are larger in the Z sources, and the tendency for the vertical thickness of the disk to increase with increasing mass flux.
The radius where the radiation drag or general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity cause the radial velocity to increase abruptly plays a key role in the model of the kilohertz QPOs proposed here. Once the radial velocity begins to increase, the flow becomes supersonic within a very short radial distance (the inward radial velocity increases so abruptly that the location of the sonic point is insensitive to the precise definition used), so the sonic point is a useful indicator of the point in the disk flow where the radial velocity begins to increase steeply. Hence, for convenience we shall call the point where the radial velocity increases sharply the “sonic point” and refer to this model for the kilohertz QPOs as the “sonic-point model”.
We show that if the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a pair of kilohertz QPOs is the orbital frequency of gas in a stable Keplerian orbit around the neutron star, as in the sonic-point model proposed here, the frequencies of these QPOs provide interesting new upper bounds on the masses and radii of the neutron stars in the Z and atoll sources and new constraints on the equation of state of matter at high densities.
Any model of how the kilohertz QPOs are produced must be consistent with the known properties of the atoll and Z sources. Hence, before analyzing the sonic-point QPO model of the kilohertz QPOs in more detail, we first summarize in § 2 the previously known X-ray spectral and lower-frequency X-ray variability properties of the atoll and Z sources and the physical picture of these sources that has been developed based on these properties. In § 3 we analyze the physics of the sonic-point model and show that it is consistent with the basic properties of the kilohertz QPOs. In § 4 we demonstrate that the sonic-point model is also consistent with the existing physical picture of the Z and atoll sources and with many of the more detailed properties of the kilohertz QPOs. In § 5 we show how to derive upper bounds on the masses and radii of the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources from the frequencies of stable Keplerian orbits in the kilohertz range and discuss the constraints on the properties of neutron-star matter that follow from these bounds; the bounds we derive include the effects of frame-dragging. Finally, in § 6 we discuss several specific predictions of the sonic-point model.
PROPERTIES OF THE NEUTRON STARS IN LMXBS
========================================
Observed Properties of the Atoll and Z Sources
----------------------------------------------
The atoll sources are LMXBs that, over time, trace atoll-shaped patterns in X-ray color-color diagrams (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). They have luminosities $L \sim
10^{36}\dash10^{37}$ , i.e., 1–10% of the Eddington critical luminosity $L_E$ of a neutron star. Power-density spectra of their brightness variations show broad, band-limited noise components at frequencies below $\sim
100$ Hz. No QPOs with frequencies $\lta 100$ Hz have so far been detected in any of the atoll sources with the exception of 1, which has a QPO that increases in frequency from 1 to 30 Hz as the countrate increases, when the source is very bright (Oosterbroek et al. 1995; Shirey et al. 1996; Bradt, Shirey, & Levine 1998).
Recent comparisons of models of the X-ray emission of neutron stars in LMXBs with the X-ray spectra of atoll sources observed with (Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c) suggest that these sources can be subdivided into two groups, the “4U” atoll sources (such as , , , , and ) and the “GX” atoll sources (such as , , , and ), based on the strengths of their inferred magnetic fields; one atoll source, , has intermediate spectral properties and therefore probably has a magnetic field of intermediate strength.
The Z sources are LMXBs that produce a characteristic Z-shaped track in X-ray color-color diagrams (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). They have luminosities $L \sim 10^{38}$ , i.e., comparable to $L_E$. The three branches of the Z are called the horizontal, normal, and flaring branches. When a Z source is on the horizontal branch, a QPO with a frequency in the range 15–60 Hz is observed (van der Klis et al 1985; van der Klis 1989). This “horizontal branch oscillation” (HBO) is also detectable in some Z sources when they are on the upper part of the normal branch. The relative width $\delta\nu/\nu$ of the HBO peak in power density spectra is typically 0.1–0.3 and its centroid frequency typically increases with increasing countrate. As a Z source moves down the normal branch, the HBO becomes weaker and eventually disappears into the noise continuum.
Near the middle of the normal branch, a different QPO appears. The peaks in power density spectra produced by this QPO have relative widths $\delta\nu/\nu \sim 0.3$ and centroid frequencies in the range 4–8 Hz (Middleditch & Priedhorsky 1986; van der Klis 1989). The properties of this QPO do not vary appreciably on the lower normal branch. As a Z source moves from the lower normal branch to the flaring branch, the frequency of this second QPO increases abruptly to $\sim 15 \dash 20$ Hz and the QPO becomes weaker and less coherent, eventually disappearing into the noise (van der Klis 1995; Dieters & van der Klis 1997). This QPO is the “normal/flaring branch oscillation” (N/FBO).
In addition to these two types of quasi-periodic oscillations, power spectra of the brightness variations of the Z sources also show three distinct band-limited noise components at frequencies below 200 Hz (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). The properties of the QPO and noise components vary systematically with the position of a source on its Z track (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989; see Kuulkers 1995, Dieters & van der Klis 1997, and Wijnands et al. 1997a for detailed studies of this behavior and possible exceptions).
Recent analyses of archival data (Kuulkers 1995; Kuulkers et al. 1995, 1996) suggest that the Z sources can be subdivided into two groups, based on the morphology of their Z tracks and power spectra: the “Cyg-like” Z sources (2, , and ) and the “Sco-like” Z sources (1, , and ). At a more detailed level, shares some of the characteristics of the “Cyg-like” sources and therefore probably has intermediate properties (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989; Wijnands et al. 1997a).
Current Physical Picture of the Atoll and Z Sources
---------------------------------------------------
The atoll and Z sources are neutron stars accreting gas from a Keplerian disk fed by a low-mass companion star (see van der Klis 1989). The magnetic fields and the accretion rates of these neutron stars are thought to be the most important parameters that determine their X-ray spectral and temporal characteristics. According to the most complete and self-consistent current model of these sources, the so-called [*unified model*]{} (Lamb 1989, 1991), the atoll sources have dipole magnetic fields $\lta
5\ee{9}$ G and luminosities 1–10% of the Eddington critical luminosity, whereas the Z sources have dipole fields $\sim 10^{9} \dash
10^{10}$ G and luminosities very close to (and sometimes slightly above) the Eddington critical luminosity.
[*X-ray spectra.*]{}—The X-ray spectra of the Z and atoll sources and the low upper limits on the amplitudes of any periodic variations of their persistent X-ray brightness (less than 1% in some cases; see, e.g., Vaughan et al. 1994) constrain the properties of these neutron stars. The low upper limits on brightness variations at their spin frequencies can be understood if the magnetic fields of these neutron stars are $\lta
10^{10}$G and the magnetospheres and inner disks are surrounded by a central coronae with electron scattering optical depths $\sim 3 \dash
5$, even at low accretion rates (Lamb et al.1985; Lamb 1989, 1991), because such coronae strongly suppress the X-ray flux oscillation produced by any radiation pattern that rotates with the star (Brainerd & Lamb 1987). This effect is discussed further in § 3.6.
When, as in the Z sources, the total luminosity of the neutron star, inner disk, and central corona becomes comparable to $L_E$, the vertical radiation force drives gas upward, out of the disk and radiation drag removes its angular momentum in less than one orbit, creating a region of approximately radial inflow that extends out to $\sim 300$ km (Lamb 1989, 1991). Oscillations in this radial flow are thought to be responsible for the N/FBO (Lamb 1989; Fortner et al. 1989; Fortner 1992; Miller & Lamb 1992).
Detailed physical modeling of the X-ray spectra of the atoll and Z sources indicates that soft ($\sim 0.5 \dash 1$ keV) photons are produced by optically-thick bremsstrahlung and other processes at the surface of the star and by self-absorbed, high-harmonic cyclotron emission in the inner magnetosphere (Psaltis, Lamb, & Miller 1995; Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). As we discuss below, the accretion rate and the strength of the stellar magnetic field determine whether emission from the stellar surface or cyclotron emission in the magnetosphere is the dominant source of soft photons. These soft photons are upscattered by electrons in the magnetosphere and the central corona that surrounds the neutron star to produce the X-ray spectrum that emerges from the corona. In the Z sources, scattering by cooler electrons in the region of approximately radial inflow that surrounds the inner disk and corona further deforms the X-ray spectrum.
Cyclotron emission is the dominant source of soft photons if upscattered cyclotron photons are able to supply the full accretion luminosity (see Psaltis et al. 1995). The range of stellar magnetic fields for which cyclotron emission is dominant can be estimated as follows. Within the magnetosphere, the spectrum of self-absorbed cyclotron photons can be approximated by a blackbody spectrum truncated at the energy at which cyclotron emission becomes optically thin. Comptonization within the magnetosphere and central corona increases the energy of a typical photon by a factor $\sim e^y$, where $y \equiv
(4k_B T_e/m_e c^2) \max\{\tau,\tau^2\}$ is the Compton $y$ parameter, $T_e$ and $m_e$ are the electron temperature and rest mass, $\tau$ is the electron scattering optical depth, and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant (see Rybicki & Lightman 1979, pp 195–223). Hence cyclotron emission is the dominant source of soft photons if $e^yL_{\rm cyc}
\approx GM\mdot/R$ or, equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
\hskip+0.05 truein \mu_{\rm cyc,27} &
\hskip-0.05 truein \gtrsim &
\hskip-0.05 truein 16\,e^{-y/3}
\left(\frac{\dot{M}_{\rm ns}}{\dot{M}_E}\right)^{\!\!1/3}
\!\!\left(\frac{T_e}{5~\mbox{keV}}\right)^{\!\!-1/3}\!\!\times\nonumber\\
&&\hskip-0.7 truein
\times\left(\frac{R_{\rm cyc}}{10^6~\mbox{cm}}\right)^{\!\!-2/3}
\!\!\left(\frac{n}{15}\right)^{\!\!-1}
\!\!\left(\frac{M}{1.4~\msun}\right)^{\!\!1/3}
\!\!\left(\frac{R}{10^6~\mbox{cm}}\right)^{\!\!-1/3}\!\!,\nonumber\\
\label{eq:muSpectrum}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{M}_{\rm ns}$ is the mass accretion rate onto the neutron star surface, $R_{\rm cyc}$ is the effective radius of the cyclotron photosphere, $n$ is the harmonic number at which the transition from optically thick to optically thin emission occurs, and $R$ is the radius of the neutron star. Figure \[fig:ParameterSpace\] shows how $\mu_{\rm cyc,27}$ depends on for the range of electron temperatures expected in the magnetospheres and central coronae of the atoll and Z sources.
As Figure \[fig:ParameterSpace\] shows, if the star’s magnetic field is and the accretion rate is , the dominant source of photons is the thermal emission from the surface of the neutron star. These photons are then upscattered by the electrons in the magnetosphere and the central corona. Numerical calculations of the X-ray spectra produced by stars with these field strengths and accretion rates agree well with observations of the spectra of the “4U” atoll sources when they are in the so-called “banana” spectral state (Psaltis & Lamb 1998c).
If instead the star’s magnetic field is $\sim
5\ee{8} \dash 5\ee{9}$ G and the accretion rate is $\lta 0.1 \mdote$, cyclotron emission is the dominant source of photons. These photons are then upscattered by the electrons in the magnetosphere and the central corona. Numerical calculations of the X-ray spectra produced by stars with these field strengths and accretion rates agree well with observations of the spectra of the “GX” atoll sources (Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c).
If the stellar magnetic field is and the mass accretion rate is , electron cyclotron emission in the magnetosphere is very efficient in producing soft photons. At these accretion rates soft photons are Comptonized not only by the hot electrons in the magnetosphere and central corona but also by the cool electrons in the approximately radial inflow. Numerical computations of the X-ray spectra and color tracks predicted by this physical model agree well with $\exosat$ and $\ginga$ measurements of the X-ray spectra and color tracks of the Z sources (Psaltis et al. 1995; Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c).
[*Accretion flows*]{}.—If the magnetic field of the neutron star is $\lta 10^{6}$ G and the accretion rate is $\gta
0.01\,L_E$, the Keplerian disk flow may extend inward all the way to the surface of the neutron star without being channeled by the stellar magnetic field. (Here and below we refer to accretion flows confined near the orbital plane as [*disk flows*]{}, whether or not the azimuthal velocity field is nearly Keplerian, and as [*Keplerian disk flows*]{} if the azimuthal velocity field is nearly Keplerian, that is, if the flow is nearly circular.) If instead the stellar magnetic field is $\gta 10^{11}$ G, most of the gas in the disk will couple to the stellar field and be funneled out of the disk plane toward the magnetic poles of the star at a characteristic cylindrical radius $\varpi_0$ (Ghosh & Lamb 1979a, 1979b, 1992) that is much larger than the radius of the star. Hence, the disk flow around such a star ends far above the stellar surface.
For stellar magnetic fields of intermediate strength, some of the accreting gas is likely to couple to the stellar magnetic field beginning at $\varpi_0$, which will then channel it toward the star’s magnetic poles, but some is also likely to continue as a disk flow inside $\varpi_0$, as a result of Rayleigh-Taylor instability and incomplete coupling of the flow in the inner disk to the stellar magnetic field (see, e.g., Scharlemann 1978; Ghosh & Lamb 1979a, 1991; Lamb 1984; Spruit & Taam 1990). In this case we expect some of the gas in the disk flow to be channeled out of the disk by the magnetic field over a range of radii inside $\varpi_0$, with the rest of the gas remaining in a geometrically thin Keplerian flow that penetrates close to the stellar surface, as shown in Figure \[fig:SideViews\]. This last case is the one that we expect to be relevant to the Z sources and most of the atoll sources.
Ghosh & Lamb (1992) derived expressions for the characteristic cylindrical radius $\varpi_0$ at which gas in the disk couples strongly to the stellar magnetic field and begins to be channeled out of the disk flow, as a function of the stellar dipole magnetic moment $\mu$, the mass accretion rate through the inner disk, and the neutron star gravitational mass $M$, both for gas-pressure-dominated (GPD) and for radiation-pressure-dominated (RPD) inner disks, assuming $\varpi_0$ is much larger than the radius $R$ of the star. The GPD model is expected to be valid for the atoll sources. The disks around the Z sources are expected to be RPD. The scaling of $\varpi_0$ with $\mu$, , and $M$ given by the analytical RPD model is expected to be valid for the Z sources, but the vertical thickness of the boundary layer given by the model is not expected to be reliable. We have therefore reduced the vertical thickness of the boundary layer in the model so that the Keplerian frequency at the radius where the gas couples strongly to the magnetic field agrees quantitatively with the Keplerian frequency inferred from spin frequency of 2, based on the frequencies of its kilohertz QPOs (Wijnands et al. 1998; Psaltis et al. 1998) and the magnetospheric beat-frequency interpretation of its HBO (Psaltis et al. 1998), for a magnetic moment equal to the moment inferred from its X-ray spectrum (Psaltis & Lamb 1998c). Specifically, the Keplerian frequency at the coupling radius was assumed to be 380 Hz, as indicated by the sum of the spin and HBO frequencies when 2 is on the normal branch, for a magnetic moment of $3.5\ee{27}\,\Gcmc$ and a mass flux through the inner disk equal to the mass accretion rate onto the neutron star that produces the Eddington critical luminosity.
The resulting two expressions for $\varpi_0(\mu,\mdoti,M)$ can be solved for the dipole moment $\mu_0$ that gives a Keplerian frequency $\nu_{\rm K0}$ at the coupling radius; this characteristic dipole moment is $$\mu_{0,27}
= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\! 1.5\,
\left(\nu_{\rm K0}/1100~\mbox{Hz}\right)^{-1.1}
\left(\mdoti/\dot{M}_E\right)^{0.43}\times\\
\quad\times\left(M/1.4~\msun\right)^{0.94},
\quad\mbox{for GPD disks}\;; \\ \\
\!\! 0.88\,
\left(\nu_{\rm K0}/1100~\mbox{Hz}\right)^{-1.3}
\left(\mdoti/\dot{M}_E\right)^{0.29}\times\\
\quad\times\left(M/1.4~\msun\right)^{0.91}
\quad\mbox{for RPD disks}\;.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:muKepler}$$ Here $\mu_{0,27}\equiv \mu_0/10^{27}\,\Gcmc$. If the star’s dipole moment exceeds $\mu_0$, most of the gas in the disk flow will couple to the magnetic field and be channeled out of the disk at a radius where the Keplerian frequency is less than $\nu_{\rm K0}$. Figure \[fig:ParameterSpace\] shows the dipole moment that gives Keplerian frequencies of 500 and 1100 Hz at the main coupling radius, as a function of the mass accretion rate. These two curves show that for the neutron star magnetic fields inferred from X-ray spectral modeling, the Keplerian frequency at the gas coupling radius cannot be made simultaneously consistent with the $\sim$500–1100 Hz ranges of the kilohertz QPOs in the 4U and Z sources.
Accreting gas that is not channeled out of the disk plane at $\varpi_0$ is expected to continue to drift slowly inward in a Keplerian disk flow until (a) it is channeled out of the disk at smaller radii, (b) it begins to flow rapidly inward, either because it loses angular momentum to the radiation drag force or because it crosses the radius of the marginally stable orbit, or (c) it collides with the stellar surface. Gas that is flowing rapidly inward remains in a (non-Keplerian) disk flow unless it is channeled out of the disk by the stellar magnetic field. We emphasize that [*the accretion disk ends above the stellar surface only if all the gas in the disk is channeled out of the disk flow before it reaches the star*]{}.
In the magnetospheric beat-frequency model of the 15–60 Hz HBO observed in the Z sources (Alpar & Shaham 1985; Lamb et al. 1985; Shibazaki & Lamb 1987), a substantial fraction of the gas in the Keplerian disk flow is channeled out of the disk at $\sim 2 \dash 3$ stellar radii and flows toward the star’s magnetic poles. This model therefore requires that the Z sources have magnetic fields $\sim 10^{9} \dash 10^{10}$ G. The atoll sources have not previously shown any direct indications that they have dynamically important magnetic fields (e.g., no HBO-like QPOs have so far been observed in an atoll source), and hence their magnetic fields are thought to be 5 G. However, the existence of kilohertz QPOs at the difference between an orbital frequency and the spin frequency of the neutron star indicates that most if not all of the atoll sources have magnetic fields $\gta10^{7}$ G. This is consistent with the detailed modeling of their X-ray spectra described above, which indicates that some atoll sources have magnetic fields as strong as 5 G. These sources may produce weak HBOs, which may be detected in the future.
Magnetospheric Beat-Frequency Model and the Kilohertz QPOs
----------------------------------------------------------
As noted in § 1, Strohmayer et al. (1996c) and Ford et al. (1997a) have suggested adapting the magnetospheric beat-frequency QPO model to explain the two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs. As described in § 2.2, the magnetospheric beat-frequency model was originally proposed by Alpar & Shaham (1985) and Lamb et al. (1985) and developed further by Shibazaki & Lamb (1987) to explain the [*single*]{}, variable frequency, 15–60 Hz HBO seen in the Z sources. Strohmayer et al. and Ford et al. have suggested that the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair might be the Keplerian orbital frequency at the radius where gas in the accretion disk begins to couple to the stellar magnetic field and that the frequency of the lower-frequency QPO is the beat between this frequency and the stellar spin frequency. There are several difficulties with this application of the magnetospheric beat-frequency model.
[*Widespread occurrence of two simultaneous, highly coherent kilohertz QPOs*]{}. The occurrence of two simultaneous, strong (amplitudes up to $\sim 15$% rms), and highly coherent ($\nu/\delta\nu \sim 50$–100) kilohertz QPOs appears inconsistent with the magnetospheric beat frequency model, because a strong, highly coherent oscillation with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency where gas first couples to the stellar magnetic field is not expected, nor is it observed in other types of sources where the magnetospheric beat frequency mechanism is thought to be operating.
The magnetospheric beat-frequency mechanism is expected to produce a single, strong, moderately coherent oscillation with a frequency equal to the beat frequency (power is of course also expected at overtones of this frequency), but it is not expected to produce a strong, highly coherent oscillation with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency at the initial gas coupling radius, for two reasons. First, no effect is known that would select a sufficiently narrow range of radii near this radius. Second, even if a narrow range of radii were selected, no mechanism is known that would make the orbital frequencies at these radii visible.
Gas is expected to leave the disk along field lines that thread a very narrow annulus where the gas couples strongly to the magnetic field of the star (Ghosh & Lamb 1979a). The range of orbital frequencies in this annulus is likely to be very small, consistent with the $\sim\,$5–10 Hz observed width of the HBO (Lamb et al. 1985). The magnetic field is expected to couple more weakly to the gas in the disk over a wider annulus (Ghosh & Lamb 1979a). However, in both annuli the gas-magnetic field interaction repeats each beat period, not each orbital period (Lamb et al. 1985), so there is no obvious way that this interaction would make the orbital period visible in X-rays. No other mechanism is known that would single out a narrow range of radii in the inner disk.
Even if a narrow range of radii were singled out, little luminosity is expected to be generated in such a narrow annulus, as was explained in the context of the HBO by Lamb (1988). Generation of a QPO by beaming of radiation via periodic occultation of the emission from the neutron star by clumps orbiting at the initial coupling radius would require us to be viewing [*all*]{} the kilohertz QPO sources from within a small range of special inclinations and would also require the height of the disk at its inner edge to vary with accretion rate in just the right way (again see Lamb 1988). Moreover, such beaming would be strongly suppressed by scattering in the ionized gas that surrounds the neutron star (see Lamb et al. 1985; Brainerd & Lamb 1987; Kylafis & Phinney 1989; Lamb 1988, 1989; Psaltis et al. 1995).
A QPO that appears to be the magnetospheric beat frequency QPO has been observed in several accretion-powered pulsars (see, e.g., Angelini, Stella, & Parmar 1989; Lamb 1989; Shibazaki 1989; Shinoda et al. 1990; Lamb 1991; Finger, Wilson, & Harmon 1996; Ghosh 1996). In these pulsars only a single, fairly coherent oscillation has been seen, with properties which indicate that it is the magnetospheric beat-frequency QPO; no QPO is observed at what would be the Keplerian frequency at the coupling radius.
To summarize this point, the theory of the magnetospheric beat-frequency QPO mechanism predicts, and observations of accretion-powered pulsars confirm, that this mechanism produces only a [*single*]{} strong, moderately coherent oscillation, with a frequency equal to the beat frequency. In order to explain the two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs, the magnetospheric beat-frequency mechanism would have to generate two strong, [*highly coherent*]{} oscillations, at the beat frequency [*and*]{} at the Keplerian frequency at the radius where gas in the disk first strongly couples to the magnetic field. This is the most important reason why the magnetospheric beat-frequency mechanism appears unpromising as an explanation of the two kilohertz QPOs.
[*Simultaneous occurrence of two kilohertz QPOs and the HBO in the Z sources*]{}. Identification of the 15–60 Hz HBO in the Z sources as the magnetospheric beat-frequency oscillation is supported by the fact that (1) the magnetic field strengths required are in agreement with those inferred from the spin-down rates of the millisecond recycled rotation-powered pulsars and detailed modeling of the X-ray spectra of the Z sources (see Alpar & Shaham 1985; Lamb et al. 1985; Ghosh & Lamb 1992; and § 2.2), (2) the $\sim\,$200–350 Hz neutron star spin frequencies predicted by the magnetospheric beat-frequency model (Lamb et al. 1985; Ghosh & Lamb 1992) are consistent with the spin rates of the recycled rotation-powered pulsars (Ghosh & Lamb 1992) and the $\sim\,$250–350 Hz spin frequencies inferred from the difference between the frequencies of the two kilohertz QPOs seen in the Z sources (see § 1), and (3) only the fundamental and (sometimes) the first overtone of the HBO have ever been detected in the Z sources when they are on the horizontal branch, as one would expect if the HBO is the magnetospheric beat-frequency QPO (see van der Klis 1989). If the HBO [*is*]{} the magnetospheric beat-frequency oscillation in the Z sources, then [*neither*]{} of the two kilohertz QPOs can be the magnetospheric beat-frequency oscillation, because the HBO was always present when the kilohertz QPOs were detected (van der Klis et al. 1996e).
[*Steep increase of kilohertz QPO frequencies with increasing mass accretion rate*]{}. In at least some sources, the frequencies of both kilohertz QPOs increase more steeply with inferred mass flux through the inner disk than is expected in the magnetospheric beat-frequency model, which predicts $\nu_{\rm K0} \propto
\mdoti^{0.4}$ for a GPD disk and $\nu_{\rm K0}
\propto \mdoti^{0.2}$ for an RPD disk (Ghosh & Lamb 1992; see Figure 2). It is therefore difficult to explain why the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs increase so steeply with using this model.
The magnetospheric beat-frequency model [*can*]{} explain the steep increase of the HBO frequency with observed in the Z sources, because these neutron stars are likely to have been spun up to frequencies comparable to the Keplerian frequency at the gas-magnetic field coupling radius, so the HBO frequency in a Z source is expected to be small compared to either the star’s spin frequency or the Keplerian frequency at the gas coupling radius (see Lamb et al. 1985; Shibazaki & Lamb 1987). This expectation is consistent with the $\sim\,$250–350 Hz spin frequencies inferred from the differences between the frequencies of the QPOs in the kilohertz QPO pairs.
In contrast to the comparatively low frequency of the HBO, the frequency of the lower-frequency QPO in the kilohertz QPO pairs (which is the beat frequency in the magnetospheric beat-frequency interpretation) is up to $\sim\,$0.7 times the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO (which in this interpretation is the Keplerian frequency where the gas in the disk couples to the magnetic field). It follows that in this interpretation the neutron star spin frequency is in some cases only $\sim0.3$ times the Keplerian frequency at the coupling radius. Hence the frequencies of both of the two kilohertz QPOs should increase as $\mdoti$ increases in the same way that $\nu_{K0}$ increases, which is much more slowly than observed, as Figure 2 shows.
To summarize, whereas the inferred dependence of the HBO on the mass flux through the inner disk is explained naturally by the magnetospheric beat-frequency model of the HBOs, the inferred dependence of the kilohertz QPOs on this mass flux is difficult to explain using this model.
[*Observed range of kilohertz QPO frequencies*]{}. The frequencies of the QPOs at what would be the Keplerian orbital frequency in the magnetospheric beat-frequency interpretation all range up to $\sim\,$1000–1200 . This is understandable if these QPOs are generated within a few kilometers of the surface of the neutron star, as in the sonic-point model, whereas in the magnetospheric beat-frequency model the frequencies of these QPOs would be expected [*a priori*]{} to range from $\sim\,$50 Hz up $\sim\,$1500 Hz for the wide range of neutron star magnetic field strengths and accretion rates inferred in the atoll and Z sources.
The expected range of orbital frequencies could be reduced if the mass accretion rate and the strength of the star’s dipole magnetic field are tightly correlated in just the right way. However, the correlation that is indicated by spectral modeling (Psaltis et al. 1995; Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c) gives magnetospheric beat frequencies in the range $\sim\,$20–200 Hz and orbital frequencies in the range $\sim\,$300–500 Hz, much smaller than the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs.
[*Anticorrelation between kilohertz QPO amplitudes and inferred magnetic field strengths*]{}. In the magnetospheric beat-frequency interpretation, the kilohertz QPOs should have higher amplitudes in systems with stronger neutron star magnetic fields. However, as discussed further in § 4.4, the rms amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs in the atoll sources, which are thought to have the weakest neutron star magnetic fields, are considerably stronger than the rms amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs in the Z sources, which are thought to have the strongest neutron star magnetic fields.
In the next section we describe a model that is consistent with both the physical picture of the atoll and Z sources developed over the past decade and with the properties of the kilohertz QPOs.
THE SONIC-POINT MODEL
=====================
We now analyze the physics of the sonic-point model of the kilohertz QPOs. In § 3.1 we describe the key elements of the sonic-point model and summarize the results of the general relativistic gas dynamical and radiation transport calculations that are described in more detail later in this section. In § 3.2 we investigate the motion of the gas in the inner disks of the Z and atoll sources and show that at a characteristic angular momentum loss radius $R_{\rm aml}$ that is typically several kilometers larger than the radius of the neutron star, radiation drag extracts angular momentum from the gas so quickly that the gas accelerates sharply inward. As a result, density fluctuations in the gas near the sonic point create brighter footprints that rotate around the stellar equator at the sonic point Keplerian frequency $\nu_{Ks}$, producing a QPO at this frequency. We show further that a decrease in $R_{\rm aml}$ with accretion rate is to be expected.
In § 3.3 we show that the sonic-point Keplerian frequency is expected to be between $\sim\,$300 Hz and $\sim\,$1200 Hz in all sources and should increase with increasing mass flux through the inner disk. The model therefore explains one of the most important features of the kilohertz QPOs. We also show that the sonic-point mechanism naturally produces a second QPO at the beat frequency between $\nu_{Ks}$ and the stellar spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$. In § 3.4 we show that this mechanism can produce QPOs with $\nu/\delta\nu
\sim 100$, comparable to the largest Q values observed. In § 3.5 we consider radiation transport in the footprints and surrounding hot central corona and show that the amplitude of the QPO at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency is expected to increase steeply with increasing photon energy. Also, the Keplerian-frequency oscillations at higher photon energies are expected to be delayed by $\sim10\,\mu$sec relative to the oscillations at lower energies, to the extent that the effects of Comptonization dominate. In § 3.6 we consider the effect of gas surrounding the neutron star and magnetosphere on the amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs and demonstrate that QPO amplitudes as large as $\sim 20$% are understandable in the sonic-point model.
The light travel time across a neutron star is a fraction $\lta 10^{-15}$ of the time required for accretion to change the star’s mass and spin rate, so the exterior spacetime is stationary to extremely high accuracy. The spacetime outside a steadily and uniformly rotating axisymmetric star with gravitational mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$ is unique to first order in the dimensionless angular momentum parameter $j
\equiv J/M^2$ (Hartle & Thorne 1968) and is the same as the Kerr spacetime to this order (the spacetime outside a rotating star differs from the Kerr spacetime in second and higher orders; see, e.g., Cook, Shapiro, & Teukolsky 1994). All, or almost all, of the atoll and Z sources appear to have spin frequencies 350 Hz (see § 2 and § 4), in which case $j$ is for these stars (see § 5.2). Hence the Kerr spacetime is a reasonably accurate approximation to the exterior spacetime. Therefore, in this work we use the familiar Boyer-Lindquist coordinates.
[*All analytical expressions given in this paper are accurate only to first order in $j$*]{}. These expressions would therefore be the same if written in terms of the circumferential radius. Calculation of physical quantities to higher order is straightforward, given a stellar model and interior and exterior metrics valid to the higher order, but no analytical expressions are known, so such calculations must be carried out numerically. For conciseness, in this section (only) we use units in which $c=G=k_B=1$, where $c$ is the speed of light, $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant.
Physical Picture and Summary of Calculations
--------------------------------------------
Before presenting our calculations of the most important elements of the sonic-point model, we first describe the model in more detail, summarizing the results of our calculations and indicating where these results are presented in the subsections that follow. We shall assume that the spin axes of the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources are closely aligned with the rotation axes of their accretion disks. This is expected to be the case in these LMXBs, because mass transfer is expected to produce an accretion disk in which the gas circulates in the same sense as the orbital motion of the system. The torque on the neutron star created by such a disk will align the spin axis of the star with the axis of the accretion disk in a time short compared to the duration of the mass transfer phase in such systems (see Daumerie et al. 1996).
[*Accretion flow near the star*]{}.—As discussed in § 2.2, if the stellar magnetic field is of intermediate strength we expect a Keplerian disk flow to penetrate inside the magnetosphere. What happens to the flow there depends on the magnitude of the radiation drag force (Miller & Lamb 1993, 1996) and on whether the radius $R$ of the neutron star is larger or smaller than the radius $R_{\rm ms}$ of the innermost stable circular orbit. There are four possibilities (see Table \[table:FlowCases\] for a summary).
Suppose first that $R < R_{\rm ms}$. This will be the case if the equation of state of neutron-star matter is relatively soft and the star in question has an intermediate-to-high mass and is not spinning near its maximum rate. There are then two possibilities (§ 3.2):
(1a) If the drag force exerted by radiation coming from near the neutron star’s surface is strong enough to remove $\gta 1$% of the angular momentum of the gas in the Keplerian disk flow just outside $R_{\rm ms}$, gas in the inner disk drifts slowly inward in nearly circular orbits until it reaches the critical angular momentum loss radius $R_{\rm aml}$, where it transfers so much angular momentum to the radiation so rapidly that centrifugal support fails and the radial velocity of the gas increases sharply. Inside $R_{\rm aml}$ the gas spirals inward in a disk flow in which the radial velocity is supersonic until the gas is channeled by the star’s magnetic field or collides with the star’s surface.
(1b) If instead the radiation drag is so weak that it removes $\ll 1$% of the angular momentum of the gas in the Keplerian disk flow by the time the gas reaches $R_{\rm ms}$, gas in the inner disk drifts slowly inward in nearly circular orbits until it approaches $R_{\rm
ms}$, where general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity cause the radial velocity of the flow to increase steeply (see, e.g., Muchotrzeb 1983; Muchotrzeb-Czerny 1986). Inside $R_{\rm ms}$, the gas spirals inward in a disk flow in which the radial velocity is supersonic until the gas is channeled by the star’s magnetic field or collides with the star’s surface.
Whether case 1a or 1b applies depends primarily on the strength of the star’s magnetic field and on the mass accretion rate.
Suppose now that $R > R_{\rm ms}$. This will be the case if the equation of state of neutron-star matter is relatively stiff and the star in question has an intermediate-to-low mass or is spinning very rapidly. There are again two possibilities (§ 3.2):
(2a) If the radiation drag force is at least moderately strong, gas in the inner disk drifts slowly inward until it reaches the critical radius $R_{\rm aml}$, where it accelerates rapidly inward. Inside $R_{\rm aml}$ the gas spirals inward in a disk flow in which the radial velocity is supersonic until the gas is channeled by the star’s magnetic field or collides with the star’s surface.
(2b) If instead the radiation drag is weak, gas in the inner disk drifts slowly inward in a disk flow in which the radial velocity is supersonic until the gas is channeled by the star’s magnetic field or interacts directly with the star’s surface.
Again, whether case 2a or 2b applies depends primarily on the strength of the star’s magnetic field and on the mass accretion rate.
Regardless of whether the slow inward drift of the gas in the disk is terminated by loss of angular momentum to the radiation field or because the gas crosses the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit, the inward radial velocity of the gas increases abruptly at $R_{\rm aml}$ or $R_{\rm ms}$ and becomes supersonic within a very small radial distance. As mentioned in § 1 and earlier in this section and described in detail below, the radius where either radiation drag or general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity cause the radial velocity to increase sharply and become supersonic plays a key role in the model of the kilohertz QPOs proposed here. The radius of the sonic point is a useful indicator of the location of this transition.
Radiation drag can remove at most only a fraction of the specific angular momentum of the gas and therefore can create a radially supersonic inflow in the inner disk only within a few stellar radii (§ 3.2). The reason is that the specific angular momentum of gas in circular Keplerian orbits at radii much larger than the radius of the neutron star is much greater than in orbits just outside the stellar surface, so removal of a small fraction of the angular momentum of the gas at large radii cannot cause a large fraction of it to fall to the stellar surface. In contrast, the specific angular momentum of gas orbiting near the star is not much greater than the angular momentum of gas orbiting at the stellar surface, so radiation drag can cause gas in orbit near the star to plunge to its surface.
Radiation drag can cause gas to plunge inward from a radius larger than one would estimate using the Newtonian approximation, because (1) special and general relativistic effects on the gas dynamics and radiation transport significantly increase the fraction of the angular momentum of the accreting gas that can be removed by the radiation and (2) in general relativity the specific angular momentum of gas in circular Keplerian orbits with radii varies only slowly with $r$. For this reason, the sonic-point model predicts that if radiation drag produces a transition to rapid radial inflow, the transition will occur within (for a $1.4\,\msun$ neutron star) and hence that the Keplerian frequency at the transition radius will be (§ 3.3).
Inside the sonic point, the vertical optical depth of the disk flow falls steeply with decreasing radius, usually to a value small compared to unity. The optical depth of the disk flow measured radially from the stellar surface to the sonic radius typically also becomes less than unity within a very small radial distance, unless the accretion rate is very high or the geometrical thickness of the disk in the vertical direction is very small. When the change from “optically thick” to “optically thin” disk flow is caused by the radiation drag force, the transition is somewhat analogous to the ionization front at the boundary of an H[II]{} region. In the disk flow transition, the photon mean free path becomes longer because the radiation is removing angular momentum and the flow is accelerating inward, causing the density to fall sharply, whereas in an ionization front the radiation is removing bound electrons from atoms and molecules, causing the opacity to fall sharply.
[*Generation of the QPO at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency*]{}.—Suppose first that the magnetic field of the neutron star is dynamically negligible. An element of gas in the disk flow outside the sonic radius diffuses inward subsonically. When it reaches the sonic radius, it falls supersonically to the stellar surface along a spiral trajectory like that shown in Figure \[fig:Spirals\]a. This trajectory was computed in full general relativity for a nonrotating, isotropically emitting star, using the numerical algorithm described in Miller & Lamb (1996). (The shape of the trajectory depends on the luminosity, spin, and other properties of the source; the example shown in Fig. \[fig:Spirals\]a is only illustrative.) The surface density of the disk flow is much smaller inside the sonic radius than outside because of the sharp increase in the radial velocity at the sonic point. Gas falls inward from the sonic radius and impacts the star all around its equator, producing a bright equatorial ring of X-ray emission.
The flow in the inner part of the accretion disk is expected to have density fluctuations (“clumps”) produced by a variety of mechanisms, such as thermal instability, Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, and magnetoturbulence (see Lamb et al. 1985; Shibazaki & Lamb 1987). There may be as many as several hundred such clumps at a given radius in the disk outside the sonic point. The velocity-independent radially outward component of the radiation force and the velocity-dependent radiation drag force both tend to cause gas in the shadow of a clump to overtake the clump in azimuth and radius, and hence the radiation force tends to increase clumping.
As discussed in § 3.4, a clump that forms outside the sonic radius is dissipated by gas pressure forces, turbulence, and the shear in the velocity field before the gas from it can reach the stellar surface, so such clumps do not produce significant inhomogeneities in the inflow from the sonic radius. In contrast, a clump that forms near the sonic radius can persist for up to $\sim 100$ times the infall time to the stellar surface, so such a clump generates a stream of denser infalling gas from the sonic point to the stellar surface that lasts as long as the clump survives.
The shape of the pattern formed by the denser gas falling inward from a clump depends on how the angular velocity of the infalling gas varies with radius. For example, if the angular velocity of the gas were independent of radius, the pattern of higher gas density would be a straight, radial line from the clump to the stellar surface. In general, the pattern formed by the denser gas from a clump is a fairly open curve. The shape of the pattern, like the trajectories that produce it, depends on the luminosity, spin, and other properties of the source. Figure \[fig:Spirals\]b shows the pattern formed by inflow of gas along spiral trajectories with the shape shown in Figure \[fig:Spirals\]a. In this example the pattern of denser gas is also a spiral. It is more open than the spiral trajectories of the individual elements of denser gas that produce it, because the source of the denser gas (the clump) orbits the star only slightly slower than the infalling gas.
We expect the time-averaged radiation field around the star to be nearly axisymmetric. Moreover, the gas from a given clump typically orbits the star $\sim 5 \dash 10$ times before colliding with the stellar surface, so the effects of any azimuthal variations in the radiation drag force are averaged out. Therefore, the spiral pattern of denser gas produced by the inflow from a given clump rotates nearly uniformly around the star with a rotation frequency equal to the orbital frequency of the clump that is producing it, which is the Keplerian frequency at a radius near the sonic point.
The time evolution that generates an X-ray oscillation at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency is illustrated by the four panels of Figure \[fig:KeplerQPO\]. In this figure a single clump is shown advancing in its orbit by 90 from one panel to the next. The pattern of higher density gas rotates uniformly around the star with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency of the clump, so it also advances by 90 from one panel to the next. Where the denser gas from a clump collides with the stellar surface, it produces an arc-shaped area of brighter X-ray emission. This arc-shaped brighter “footprint” moves around the star’s equator with a frequency equal to the rotation frequency of the pattern, which is the orbital frequency of the clump and is therefore approximately equal to the Keplerian frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ at the sonic point. In reality, many clumps are crossing the sonic radius at any given time, and hence there are many bright footprints moving around the star’s equator. The radiation from these footprints carries the kinetic energy of infall that is released when the gas that has fallen inward from the clumps at the sonic radius collides with the stellar surface.
As seen by a distant observer whose line of sight is inclined with respect to the orbital axis of the disk, the aspect presented by a given bright footprint varies periodically and the footprint is eclipsed with a frequency equal to the rotation frequency of the pattern, which is approximately the Keplerian orbital frequency at the sonic point. Footprints come and go as clumps form near the sonic point and then dissipate. Also, the orbital frequencies of the clumps that are producing footprints at any given time differ slightly. As a result, a distant observer sees a strong, [*quasi-periodic*]{} oscillation of the X-ray flux and spectrum at the pattern rotation frequency, which is close to $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. [*This is the the sonic-point Keplerian-frequency QPO*]{}.
The spin of the neutron star is not involved in generating the sonic-point Keplerian frequency QPO. The precise frequency of the sonic-point Keplerian QPO does depend weakly on the spin frequency of the neutron star, because the frame-dragging caused by the star’s spin has a small effect on the frequencies of Keplerian orbits near the neutron star. The sonic-point Keplerian frequency QPO mechanism described here, which generates a QPO with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency at the sonic point, differs fundamentally from the suggestion of Paczynski (1987), who speculated that when the sonic point is located at the radius of the marginally stable orbit, a QPO might be produced by unsteady flow through it with a low ($\sim 20
\dash 50\,\Hz$) frequency that would have nothing directly to do with the orbital frequency of the marginally stable orbit.
[*Generation of the QPO at the sonic-point beat frequency*]{}.—Suppose now that the magnetic field of the neutron star is weak enough that a prograde Keplerian disk flow penetrates near the surface of the star but strong enough that close to the star some of the gas is channeled by the field. The channeled gas produces slightly brighter spots where it collides with the stellar surface. If these slightly brighter spots are offset from the star’s spin axis, the enhanced radiation from them generates a beamed pattern of radiation that rotates with the star. This rotating radiation pattern creates a periodic oscillation in the radiation force that is acting on the clumps of gas crossing the sonic radius. Hence, if conditions near the star are such that the nearly Keplerian motion of the gas in the clumps orbiting near the sonic radius is terminated by loss of angular momentum to the radiation, the inward flux of mass from the clumps near the sonic radius will increase once or twice each beat period, depending on the symmetry of the radiation pattern that rotates with the star.
As a specific example, suppose that the radiation drag force experienced by the gas in a given clump orbiting near the sonic radius peaks each time the beam of radiation that rotates with the star sweeps across the clump. This will occur with a frequency equal to one or two times the difference between the orbital frequency of the clump, which is the Keplerian orbital frequency near the sonic point, and the spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$ of the neutron star. [*We call $\nu_{\rm Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$ the sonic-point beat frequency and denote it $\nu_{\rm Bs}$*]{}. If the transition to supersonic inflow is caused by radiation drag, the oscillation of the radiation drag force will cause the supersonic inflow of gas from the clumps orbiting near the sonic point to oscillate quasi-periodically with a frequency equal to one or two times the sonic-point beat frequency.
The time evolution that produces this oscillation is shown schematically in the six snapshots of Figure \[fig:BeatQPO\]. For clarity, only a single clump is shown orbiting at the sonic radius and the six snapshots show the sequence of events as seen in a frame corotating with the star. In panel (a) the clump is in the beam of radiation that rotates with the star and hence the inward flux of denser gas from the clump is greater than average. In panel (b) the clump has moved out of the beam and hence the inward flux of gas from the clump is smaller than average; the pulse of gas that was dragged off the clump by the stronger radiation flux in frame (a) is now falling inward from the clump. In panel (c) the clump has moved ahead of the beam by 180; the inward flux of gas from the clump remains smaller than average and the pulse of denser gas that began to fall inward in frame (a) is further away from the clump. In panel (d) the clump is now ahead of the beam by 270; the inward flux of gas from the clump remains smaller than average and the pulse of denser gas that began to fall inward in frame (a) is approaching the stellar surface. In panel (e) the clump has now moved back into the beam of radiation and a new pulse of denser gas is leaving the clump; the pulse of denser gas that began to fall inward in frame (a) is now very close to the stellar surface. In panel (f) the clump has again moved ahead of the beam by 90 and the inward flux of gas from the clump is again smaller than average; the pulse of denser gas that began to fall inward in frame (a) is now colliding with the stellar surface, producing a brighter beam of radiation from the footprint of the stream.
In reality, the radiation drag force, and hence the inward mass flux from a clump, may be greatest not when the clump is fully illuminated by the beam that rotates with the star, as assumed in this illustration, but at some other relative phase, because the radiation drag force depends in a complicated way on the various components of the radiation stress-energy tensor (see Miller & Lamb 1996). In any case, the inward mass flux from the orbiting clumps oscillates quasi-periodically with a frequency approximately equal to the sonic-point beat frequency $\nu_{\rm
Bs}$, producing a quasi-periodic oscillation in the luminosity and spectrum of the X-ray emission from the stellar surface. [*This is the sonic-point beat-frequency QPO*]{}.
[*Properties of the sonic-point QPOs*]{}.—In § 3.3 we show that the sonic-point mechanism naturally generates Keplerian-frequency QPOs with frequencies $\sim 300 \dash 1200$ Hz for a wide range of stellar magnetic fields and accretion rates and that it is natural for the frequencies of the sonic-point Keplerian and beat-frequency QPOs to increase steeply with increasing mass flux through the inner disk. The angular distribution of the emission from each emitting point within a footprint at the stellar surface is broad, so the power at $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ is likely to be much greater than the power at overtones of $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. The modulation of the inflow from clumps orbiting at the sonic radius is unlikely to be perfectly sinusoidal, so overtones of the sonic-point beat frequency $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ as well as $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ itself may be detectable.
In § 3.4 we argue that the sonic-point mechanism can produce QPOs with $\nu/\delta\nu$ ratios as large as $\sim 100$, i.e., similar to those observed in the atoll and Z sources. The oscillation at the sonic-point beat frequency is generated by the beating of the stellar spin frequency, which is periodic, against the quasi-periodic sonic-point Keplerian frequency oscillation. It is therefore natural to expect the $\nu/\delta\nu$ values of the oscillations in a pair to be roughly similar, in the absence of other disturbing effects. In § 3.5 we show that the steep increase in QPO amplitude with photon energy observed in many kilohertz QPOs is understandable in the sonic-point model.
The visibilities of the various QPOs generated by the sonic-point mechanism depend on the mass flux in the Keplerian disk flow that penetrates to the sonic point, the number and distribution of clumps in the disk at the sonic point, the brightness of the footprints produced by the streams from the clumps relative to the brightness of the rest of the stellar surface, the geometry and optical depth of the scattering material around the star, and the inclination of the system.
If radiation forces are required to produce large clumps with substantial density contrasts, the amplitudes of the QPOs at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies are likely to become much smaller and may become undetectable once the angular momentum loss radius $R_{\rm
aml}$ has retreated inward to the radius $R_{\rm
ms}$ of the innermost stable circular orbit, because once this has happened, the gas in the disk near the sonic point is increasingly shielded from radiation coming from the stellar surface by gas in the disk closer to the star. However, if large clumps with substantial density contrasts are formed by other mechanisms, the sonic-point Keplerian frequency QPO may still be detectable if the sonic point is at $R_{\rm ms}$, even if the sonic-point beat frequency QPO—which can only be generated if radiation forces have a significant dynamical effect at the sonic radius—has disappeared.
In § 3.6 we show that scattering by the electrons in the central corona that surrounds the neutron stars in the Z and atoll sources strongly attenuates the already intrinsically weak beaming oscillation at the stellar spin frequency as well as the weak beaming oscillations at other frequencies, making all but the strongest beaming oscillation—the one at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency—difficult to detect with current instruments. In contrast, scattering only weakly attenuates luminosity oscillations, so the luminosity oscillations at the sonic-point beat frequency and its overtones are likely to be detectable. Taking into account both the generation of these various oscillations and their attenuation in the circumstellar environment, Keplerian-frequency and beat-frequency QPOs with rms amplitudes as large as 15% appear possible.
As discussed in § 2, the Z sources appear to have significantly stronger magnetic fields than the atoll sources. The magnetic fields of the Z sources are therefore likely to channel a larger fraction of the accreting gas out of the disk plane before it penetrates close to the stellar surface, so we expect the amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs to be smaller in the Z sources than in the atoll sources. The magnetic field of the neutron star in some atoll sources may be so weak that the QPO at the sonic-point beat frequency is undetectable, even though a QPO at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency is visible. The sonic-point beat frequency may also be undetectable at some times if the scattering optical depth between the stellar surface and the sonic point is too large. In other sources or at other times, the luminosity oscillation at the sonic-point beat frequency may be detectable even though the beaming oscillation at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency has been suppressed by scattering in the corona surrounding the star.
Transition to Rapid Radial Inflow
---------------------------------
In both the atoll and the Z sources, we expect radiation drag to cause gas in the Keplerian disk flow to make an abrupt transition from slow inward drift to rapid radial inflow several kilometers above the surface of the neutron star. This transition occurs at the radius where the drag exerted by radiation from the star removes enough angular momentum from the gas quickly enough that it falls to the surface of the star unimpeded by a significant centrifugal barrier. We first describe the consequences of the transfer of angular momentum from the gas in the inner disk to the radiation and then present a fully general relativistic calculation of the gas dynamics and radiation transport in the inner disk that shows the nature of this transition in the atoll sources, which have luminosities much less than the Eddington critical luminosity. We next give approximate analytical expressions for the location and width of this transition, then discuss why the nature and location of the transition may be similar in the Z sources even though their accretion rates and luminosities are much higher than the accretion rates and luminosities of the atoll sources, and finally summarize the implications for the sonic-point QPOs.
[*Transfer of angular momentum to the radiation field*]{}.—The azimuthal drag force exerted by radiation from the star can create a radially supersonic inflow in the inner disk. However, this is possible only within a few stellar radii if the luminosity of the star is produced by accretion and most of the accreting gas flows through the inner disk. The reason is that radiation drag can remove at most a fraction of the specific angular momentum of the accreting gas (see Fortner et al. 1989; for more detailed discussions, see Miller & Lamb 1993, 1996). The specific angular momentum of gas in circular Keplerian orbits at radii large compared to the radius $R$ of the neutron star is much larger than at $R$, so radiation drag cannot cause more than $\sim$20–30% of the gas at such large radii to fall to the stellar surface. In contrast, the specific angular momentum of gas in circular Keplerian orbits very near the star is not much larger than the angular momentum of orbits at the stellar surface, so radiation drag can cause gas in Keplerian orbits near the star to plunge to the surface.
Radiation drag can create a radially supersonic inflow at a larger radius than one would estimate using the Newtonian approximation, because special and general relativistic effects significantly increase the fraction of the angular momentum of the accreting gas that is transferred to the radiation (Miller & Lamb 1993). Also, in general relativity the specific angular momentum of gas in circular Keplerian orbits with radii varies only slowly with radius. The latter point is illustrated by Figure \[fig:AngMomVsRadius\], which shows the specific angular momentum of gas in circular Keplerian orbit around a nonrotating and a slowly rotating $1.4\,\msun$ neutron star, as a function of the radius of the orbit. The specific angular momentum varies fairly steeply at , but only slowly with radius between and . For example, the specific angular momentum of circular orbits changes by less than $\sim10$% from (25 km) to (12 km). These curves are of course physically meaningful only at radii greater than the radius $R$ of the neutron star. The relatively flat shape of the angular momentum curve for circular orbits near a neutron star means that if gas orbiting there loses even $\sim 20$% of its angular momentum, it will plunge to the stellar surface.
We can estimate the outer boundary of the region where radiation coming from near the stellar surface can remove sufficient angular momentum from the gas orbiting in the disk so that it falls supersonically to the stellar surface by comparing $\eta_{\rm rad}({\rm max})$, the largest fraction of angular momentum that can be removed by radiation coming from the surface of the neutron star, with $\eta_{\rm flow}$, the fraction of the specific angular momentum of gas in a circular Keplerian orbit at radius $r$ that must be removed in order for the gas to fall from $r$ to $R_{\rm ms}$ (if the radius of the star is less than $R_{\rm ms}$, gas that has reached $R_{\rm ms}$ can fall to the stellar surface without losing any more angular momentum). These two quantities are compared in Figure \[fig:AngMomFractionVsRadius\]. Here $\eta_{\rm rad}({\rm max})$ was computed by assuming that the gravitational binding energy at the stellar surface is converted into radiation there, taking into account the relevant angular, special relativistic, and general relativistic factors (see Miller & Lamb 1996), and assuming that all of the radiation emitted in the direction of the disk interacts with the disk flow ($f=1$ in the notation of Miller & Lamb \[1993\]). Figure \[fig:AngMomFractionVsRadius\] shows that $\eta_{\rm rad}({\rm max})$ exceeds $\eta_{\rm flow}$ only inside (). This characteristic radius depends on the radius of the neutron star, because the luminosity is proportional to the gravitational binding energy at the stellar surface, but this dependence is relatively weak (the characteristic radius decreases from $21M$ to $13M$ as the stellar radius increases from $4M$ to $7M$). Hence, [*the sonic-point model predicts that if radiation drag produces a transition to rapid radial inflow, the transition will occur within and hence that the Keplerian frequency at the transition radius will be* ]{} (see § 3.3). Determining the actual radius of the transition requires gas dynamical and radiation transport calculations.
[*Model calculations*]{}.—The nature of the transition to supersonic radial inflow is illustrated by the following fully general relativistic calculations of the gas dynamics and radiation transport in the innermost part of the accretion disk flow. In these calculations the azimuthal velocity of the gas in the disk is assumed to be nearly Keplerian far from the star. Internal shear stress is assumed to create a constant inward radial velocity $v^{\hat r}$ in the disk, as measured in the local static frame, of $10^{-5}$ (here and below we take $v^{\hat r}$ to be positive for radially inward flow). The half-height $h(r)$ of the disk flow at radius $r$ is assumed to be $\epsilon r$ at all radii, where $\epsilon$ is a constant and $r$ is the radius, and the kinetic energy of the gas that collides with the surface of the star is assumed to be converted to radiation that emerges from a band around the star’s equator with a half-height equal to $\epsilon R$. For simplicity, and to show the effects of radiation forces more clearly, any effect of the stellar magnetic field on the dynamics of the disk flow near the sonic transition is neglected in this model calculation.
The surface density of the disk flow as measured by a local observer comoving with the gas is related to the surface density $\Sigma_{\rm
stat}$ of the disk flow as measured by a local static observer by a Lorentz boost, so $$\Sigma_{\rm co} = \gamma^{-1}\Sigma_{\rm stat}
\;,
\label{SigmaCo}$$ where $\gamma \equiv [1-(v^{\hat r})^2 -
(v^{\hat\phi})^2]^{-1/2}$ and we have neglected $v^{\hat z}$. For stationary disk accretion, $\Sigma_{\rm stat}$ at radius $r$ is given by (see Novikov & Thorne 1973, eq. 5.6.3) $$\Sigma_{\rm stat} =
(\mdot_{\infty}/2\pi r v^{\hat r})
(1-2M/r)^{-1/2}
\;,
\label{SigmaStatic}$$ where $\mdot_{\infty}$ is the mass accretion rate through the disk, as measured at infinity.
Close to the star, the photon mean-free-path is limited primarily by Thomson scattering and is therefore $1/n_e\sigma_T$, where $n_e$ is the electron number density in the disk flow as measured in the frame comoving with the flow and $\sigma_T=6.65\ee{-25}$ cm$^2$ is the Thomson scattering cross section. Hence, for a steady flow, the radial optical depth from the stellar surface at radius $R$ through the disk to radius $r$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\rm radial}(r) & \equiv &
\sigma_T \int_R^r n_e(r^p)\,dr^p =\nonumber\\
& & \hskip -0.8 truein
\left(\frac{\sigma_T\mdot_{i,\infty}}
{4\pi m_p}\right)
\int_R^r
\frac{[1-v^{\hat r}(r')]^{-1}}
{\gamma_r(r')\gamma(r')}\,
\frac{(1-2M/r')^{-1}}{r'h(r')v^{\hat r}(r')}
\,dr',\nonumber\\
\label{eq:RadialOpticalDepth}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mdot_{i,\infty}$ is the mass accretion rate through the inner disk, as measured at infinity. The radial coordinate $r^p$ in the first expression on the right is the proper radial distance in the frame comoving with the gas. In the second expression on the right we have estimated $n_e$ in the disk flow between $r$ and the stellar surface by assuming for simplicity that the gas in the disk is fully ionized hydrogen and using the continuity equation. Then $n_e = \Sigma_{\rm co}/2h m_p =
\gamma^{-1} (\mdot_{i,\infty}/4\pi m_p v^{\hat
r} rh)(1-2M/r)^{-1/2}$, where $m_p$ is the proton mass and $h$ is the half-thickness of the disk flow. The differential proper radial distance $dr^p$ in the frame comoving with the gas is related to the differential radial distance in the local static frame by a Lorentz boost, so $dr^p = (1-v^{\hat
r})^{-1}{\gamma_r}^{-1} dr_{\rm stat}$, where $v^{\hat r}$ is the inward radial velocity and $\gamma_r \equiv [1-(v^{\hat r})^2 ]^{-1/2}$. The differential radial distance in the local static frame is in turn related to the differential radial distance $dr'$ in the global (Boyer-Lindquist) coordinate system by $dr_{\rm
stat} = (1-2M/r')^{-1/2} dr'$, so $dr^p =
(1-v^{\hat r})^{-1}\, {\gamma_r}^{-1}\,
(1-2M/r')^{-1/2}\, dr'$.
Once the drag force exerted by the radiation from the stellar surface begins to remove angular momentum from the gas in the Keplerian disk, centrifugal support is lost and the gas falls inward, accelerating rapidly. Radiation that comes from near the star and is scattered by the gas in the disk is generally scattered out of the disk plane and hence does not interact further with the gas in the disk. Moreover, second and successive scatterings do not contribute proportionately to the azimuthal radiation drag force on the gas because the radiation field is aberrated by the first scattering and afterward carries angular momentum (see Miller & Lamb 1993, 1996). We therefore treat the interaction of the radiation with the gas in the disk by assuming that the intensity of the radiation coming from the star is attenuated as it passes through the gas in the disk, diminishing as $\exp(-\tau_{\rm radial})$, where $\tau_{\rm
radial}(r)$ is given by equation (\[eq:RadialOpticalDepth\]), and that scattered radiation does not contribute to removal of angular momentum from the gas. In calculating the radiation drag force, we assume for simplicity that the differential scattering cross section is isotropic in the frame comoving with the accreting gas (this gives results very close to those using a Thomson differential cross section; see Lamb & Miller 1995). The radiation field and the motion of the gas are computed in full general relativity.
The optical depth of the disk flow near the star is generally much less than one would estimate by calculating it without taking into account the radiation forces. The reason is that the loss of centrifugal support caused by transfer of angular momentum to the radiation causes the inward radial velocity of the gas in the disk at radii less than the radius $R_{\rm aml}$ of the radiation-induced transition to supersonic inflow to be orders of magnitude higher, and the density of the gas to be orders of magnitude lower, than if radiation forces were neglected (see Miller & Lamb 1996). Hence the mean free path in the disk flow is much larger, and the optical depth from the stellar surface to a given radius in the flow is much smaller, than they would be in the absence of radiation drag. In this way the radiation increases the transparency of the disk flow, so its effects are felt much farther out in the flow than one would estimate from the properties of the undisturbed flow.
Figure \[fig:SimpleExamples\] shows results obtained by solving self-consistently for the gas dynamics and the radiation field in this simple model, for a disk flow of semi-thickness $\epsilon \equiv h/r = 0.1$, a nonrotating neutron star with gravitational mass and radius , and accretion rates through the inner disk of 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, and $0.05\,\mdote$, where $\mdote$ is the mass accretion rate that produces the Eddington critical luminosity at infinity (see Lamb & Miller 1995). These accretion rates are typical of the lower-luminosity atoll sources. The calculations were carried out using the numerical algorithm described in Miller & Lamb (1996).
The results shown in Figure \[fig:SimpleExamples\] demonstrate that radiation forces and general relativistic effects create a sharp transition to supersonic inflow several kilometers above the stellar surface and that the transition radius decreases with increasing mass flux when the transition is caused by radiation drag. These results are not intended to represent the inflow in any particular source. For and $0.03\mdote$, the transition to rapid radial inflow occurs at $7.3\,M$ and $6.3\,M$, respectively, and is caused by transfer of angular momentum from the gas to the radiation field. For and $0.05\,\mdote$, most of the radiation from the star does not penetrate as far out as the radius $R_{\rm ms}=6M$ of the innermost stable circular orbit, so the transition to rapid radial inflow occurs at $R_{\rm ms}$ and is caused by the absence at of circular orbits with the specific angular momentum of the orbit at .
The radial velocity profiles plotted in Figure \[fig:SimpleExamples\]a show that at the sonic point the radial velocity typically increases by about two orders of magnitude in a very small radial distance . The angular velocity profiles plotted in Figure \[fig:SimpleExamples\]b show that the effect of radiation forces on the angular velocity is smaller, but is still very significant. For and $0.05\,\mdote$, the angular velocities outside $6M$ are nearly Keplerian, because the gas there is shielded from the radiation by the gas further in. However, for and $0.03\mdote$, the angular velocity drops below the Keplerian value well outside $6M$. It is this departure from Keplerian orbital motion, and the associated loss of centrifugal support, that causes the flow to accelerate radially inward. All the angular velocity profiles turn downward near the stellar surface because of the strong azimuthal radiation drag force there. The decrease in the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the inflowing gas is exactly compensated by the increase in the energy and angular momentum carried outward by the escaping radiation (see Miller & Lamb 1993, 1996).
Figure \[fig:SimpleExamples\]c shows that the vertical column density of all four disk flows drops abruptly from $\sim10^4~\gpsqcm$ outside the sonic radius to $\lta\,$10 inside. The radial optical depth measured outward from the stellar surface is shown in Figure \[fig:SimpleExamples\]d; it decreases by about two orders of magnitude at the sonic radius, but not as sharply as the vertical optical depth. Even when the transition to rapid radial inflow occurs at $R_{\rm ms}$, the flow between $R_{\rm ms}$ and the stellar surface is generally strongly affected by radiation forces, as shown by the differences between the velocity and optical depth profiles for and $0.05\,\mdote$. We caution that these results are only illustrative. For example, X-rays may be emitted from a larger fraction of the stellar surface than we have assumed, in which case $R_{\rm aml}$ will be larger for a given accretion rate.
[*Radius of the transition*]{}.—In the model of gas dynamics and radiation transport just described, under conditions such that loss of angular momentum to radiation drag is important outside $R_{\rm ms}$, loss of centrifugal support and rapid radial inflow begins about five photon mean-free-paths from the stellar surface, i.e., the transition occurs where . In this model the inward radial velocity of the gas in the disk inside $R_{\rm aml}$ typically rises very sharply to $\about 0.1\,c$ and then changes more slowly until the gas collides with the stellar surface (see also Miller & Lamb 1993, 1996). Hence we can estimate $R_{\rm aml}$ by setting in equation (\[eq:RadialOpticalDepth\]), scaling $v^{\hat r}$ and $h/r$ in units of $10^{-2}\,c$ and $0.1$, respectively, and solving for the radius. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm aml} &\approx& R + 5\,
\left(\frac{\mdoti}{0.01\mdote}\right)^{\!-1}
\left({R\over{10~\km}}\right)\times\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\times
\left({h/R\over{0.1}}\right)
\left({v^{\hat r}\over{10^{-2} c}}\right)
\;{\rm km}\;.
\label{eq:EstimateRaml}
\end{aligned}$$ This estimate is in rough agreement with the transition radius found in our numerical calculations.
[*Width of the transition*]{}.—Under conditions such that the transition to rapid radial inflow is caused by radiation drag, the width $\delta$ of the radial velocity transition is determined by $\lambda^{\rm K}_\gamma$, the photon mean-free-path in the Keplerian disk flow at $R_{\rm aml}$, because this is the characteristic distance over which the gas first becomes exposed to radiation from the star, and by the radial distance $\delta_{\rm aml}$ over which the gas in the disk loses its angular momentum once it is exposed to radiation from the star. From expressions similar to those used above to compute the radial optical depth in the Keplerian disk flow, we find $$\frac{\lambda^{\rm K}_\gamma}{r} \sim 10^{-4}
\Bigg(\frac{\mdoti}{0.01\mdote}\Bigg)^{-1}
\Bigg(\frac{h/R}{0.1}\Bigg)
\Bigg({v^{\hat r}\over{3\ee{-5}\,c}}\Bigg)\;,
\label{eq:EstimateDeltaTau1}$$ where we have scaled the quantities that enter this expression in terms of their approximate values in the transition region. This estimate is consistent with the results of our numerical calculations. From the expression for the radiation drag rate given by Miller & Lamb (1993, 1996), we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\delta_{\rm aml}\over {r}} &\sim&
3\,c_s^{3/2}
\left(\frac{\mdot}{\mdote}\right)^{-1/2}
\nonumber\\
&\sim&
10^{-3}
\left(\frac{c_s^{}}{10^{\!-3}_{}}\right)^{3/2}
\left(\frac{\mdot}{0.01\,\mdote}\right)^{\!-1/2},
\label{eq:EstimateDeltaTau2}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have scaled $c_s$ in terms of the typical value for a gas-pressure-dominated inner disk. These estimates show that the radial velocity is expected to increase over a very small radial distance $\delta \sim 10^{-3}\,r$– $10^{-4}\,r$. This expectation is in accord with the results of our numerical calculations presented above. As noted in § 3.1, this transition is somewhat analogous to the transition at the boundary of a Strömgren sphere, except that here the radiation removes angular momentum from the gas rather than stripping electrons from atoms or molecules and causes a sharp increase in the inward radial velocity rather than in the degree of ionization.
If the neutron star radius is smaller than $R_{\rm ms}$ and conditions are such that the transition to rapid radial inflow is caused by general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity, the radial velocity increases rapidly near $R_{\rm ms}$ because gas inside $R_{\rm
ms}$ can fall to the stellar surface without losing any angular momentum. The precise location of the sonic transition is slightly affected by pressure forces and, if the shear stress is large, by outward angular momentum transport within the disk flow (see Muchotrzeb 1983; Muchotrzeb-Czerny 1986). In the absence of shear stresses and pressure forces, the radial velocity $v^{\hat r}$ of an element of gas at radius $r=R_{\rm ms}(1-\xi)$, where , that has fallen inward from a circular orbit at $R_{\rm ms}$ is approximately $(\xi/2)^{3/2}$ (Miller & Lamb 1996). Hence, for $c_s \sim 10^{-3}$, the inflow becomes supersonic over a radial distance $\delta \sim
\xi r \sim (c_s)^{2/3}r \sim 10^{-2}\,r$.
[*Summary and implications for kilohertz QPOs*]{}.—For sources in which the radius $R$ of the neutron star is larger than the radius $R_{\rm ms}$ of the innermost stable circular orbit and accretion is under conditions such that angular momentum loss to the radiation field terminates the Keplerian flow at a radius larger than $R$, our results show that the Keplerian disk flow near the star is terminated by angular momentum loss to radiation and that the radius of the transition to rapid radial inflow decreases steeply with increasing mass flux through the inner disk. Hence the orbital frequency at the sonic radius, and therefore the frequency of the associated QPO, increases steeply with increasing mass flux. If instead conditions are such that radiation forces do not terminate the Keplerian flow, the Keplerian flow is probably terminated by interaction with the stellar surface, in which case generation of a coherent QPO with a frequency equal to the orbital frequency at the stellar surface appears very unlikely.
For sources in which $R$ is smaller than $R_{\rm
ms}$ and accretion occurs under conditions such that radiation forces terminate the flow outside $R_{\rm ms}$, our results show that the Keplerian flow is terminated by angular momentum loss to radiation and that the radius of the transition to rapid radial inflow decreases steeply with increasing mass flux. Hence the frequency of the QPO associated with the orbital frequency at the sonic radius again increases steeply with increasing mass flux. If instead conditions are such that radiation forces do not terminate the Keplerian flow outside $R_{\rm ms}$, the Keplerian flow is terminated by general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity and the radius of the transition to rapid radial inflow is approximately independent of the mass flux. Hence, under these conditions the frequency of any QPO with the orbital frequency at the sonic point will be approximately independent of the accretion rate.
Although the numerical results presented here are for accretion rates typical of the atoll sources, which have very weak magnetic fields and are accreting at rates much less than the Eddington critical rate, we expect the structure of the accretion flow and the behavior of the sonic-point Keplerian QPO frequency to be similar in the Z sources, even though they are thought to have stronger magnetic fields and are accreting at much higher rates. There are three reasons.
(1) The radius of the transition to rapid radial inflow that we are considering is necessarily close to the neutron star whatever the luminosity, because the fraction of the angular momentum in the Keplerian disk flow that can be removed by radiation drag is small and general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity are important only near the neutron star. (Although the luminosities of the Z sources are much higher, the angular momentum flux that must be removed to create a radial inflow is correspondingly higher. In sources with luminosities very close to the Eddington critical luminosity, radiation drag can significantly affect the motion of up to of the accreting gas further away, but can only affect the motion of most of the accreting gas close to the star \[see Fortner et al. 1989; Lamb 1989\].)
(2) The inferred magnetic fields of the neutron stars in the Z sources are stronger than those of the neutron stars in the atoll sources, and hence a larger fraction of the disk flow is likely to be channeled out of the disk by the stellar magnetic field, causing the mass flux through the inner disks of the Z sources to be comparable to the mass fluxes through the inner disks of the atoll sources.
(3) The vertical thickness of the inner disk flow is likely to be larger in the Z sources than in the atoll sources.
All of these effects act in the direction of making the radius of angular momentum loss in the Z sources similar to its value in the atoll sources. We do expect significant departures from the behavior found in the present calculations when the luminosity equals or exceeds the Eddington critical luminosity. These points are discussed in more detail in § 4.
Frequencies of the Sonic-Point QPOs
-----------------------------------
We consider now the frequencies that are generated by the sonic-point mechanism. There are two fundamental QPO frequencies: (1) the Keplerian frequency at or near the sonic radius and (2) the sonic-point beat frequency, which is generated by interaction of radiation from the neutron star with the accretion flow near the sonic radius. QPOs may also be detectable at overtones of the Keplerian and beat frequencies. QPOs at sideband frequencies and oscillations at the spin frequency of the neutron star and its overtones are likely to be very weak.
In analyzing the frequencies generated by the sonic-point mechanism, we shall for definiteness use Boyer-Lindquist global coordinates, which are familiar because they are commonly used to describe the spacetime of rotating black holes. However, all of the expressions we give are accurate only to first order in $j$ and hence would be unchanged if we used circumferential rather than Boyer-Lindquist coordinates.
In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, the circular frequency of an element of matter on the surface of the rotating star or of an element of gas in orbit around it is $$\nu \equiv (1/2\pi)(d\phi/dt) \comma
\label{eq:CircFreq}$$ where $\phi$ and $t$ are the azimuthal and time coordinates of the element of matter or gas. When measured in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, any rotational frequency appears to be the same at every point in space and is equal to the frequency measured by a distant observer because of the symmetries of the spacetime outside a steadily rotating star[^1] and the fact that the Boyer-Lindquist time coordinate is the proper time of an observer at radial infinity. We emphasize that the frequency (\[eq:CircFreq\]) is [*not*]{} the frequency that would be measured by a local observer (i.e., in a local orthonormal tetrad), unless the observer is at infinity.
[*Sonic-point Keplerian frequency*]{}.—As explained earlier in this section, the radiation drag force acting on the gas in a clump near the sonic radius generates a supersonic stream of denser gas that spirals inward toward the stellar surface. To the extent that the radiation field is axisymmetric, the inspiral trajectory of the gas from each such clump is identical and hence the azimuthal separation $\Delta\phi_{\rm str}$ between any two such streams is the same at every radius inside the sonic point and equal to the azimuthal separation $\Delta\phi_{\rm cl}$ of the two clumps at the sonic radius $r_{\rm
s}$ that are producing the two streams. Therefore a collection of clumps distributed around the star at the sonic radius will generate a pattern of inspiral streams that rotates around the star at the orbital frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks} \equiv \nu_{\rm K}(r_{\rm s})$ of the gas at the sonic radius.
We can estimate $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ by noting that, to first order in $j$, the the spacetime outside a slowly and uniformly rotating star is the same as the Kerr spacetime (Hartle & Thorne 1968; the two spacetimes are not the same to higher orders in $j$). Hence, to first order in $j$ the orbital frequency of an element of gas in a prograde Keplerian circular orbit at Boyer-Lindquist radius $r_{\rm s}$ in the rotation equator of a slowly rotating star is (see Bardeen, Press, & Teukolsky 1972) $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{\rm Ks}\hskip-0.1 truein &=&
\hskip-0.1 truein
\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d\phi_{\rm Ks}(r)}{dt} =
\frac{1}{2\pi}
\left[
1-j\left(\frac{M}{r_{\rm s}}\right)^{\!3/2}
\right]
\left(
\frac{M}{r_{\rm s}^3}
\right)^{\!1/2} \nonumber\\
&\approx&
1181\,\left(M\over{1.4\,\msun}\right)^{\!1/2}
\left(r_{\rm s}\over\mbox{15\ km}\right)^{\!\!-3/2}
\,{\rm Hz}.
\label{eq:SonicKeplerFreq}
\end{aligned}$$ The [*pattern*]{} of the gas streaming inward from the clumps at $r_{\rm s}$ rotates uniformly around the star with frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. The pattern frequency is different from the [*orbital*]{} frequency $\nu_{\rm orb}(r)$ of the gas inside the sonic radius, which varies with radius. In particular, the pattern frequency is different from the orbital frequency of the gas just before it collides with the stellar surface.
The brightness pattern made by the collision of the inspiraling streams of denser gas with the stellar surface rotates around the star at frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}$, as measured by an observer at infinity. This is therefore the frequency at which the radiation pattern produced by the bright footprints of the streams rotates around the star and hence also the centroid frequency of the resulting quasi-periodic oscillation in the X-ray flux and spectrum seen by a distant observer whose line of sight is inclined to the rotation axis of the disk. Therefore the radiation pattern produced by the bright footprints of the streams generally does [*not*]{} corotate with the star, but instead moves around the stellar surface.
[*Stellar spin frequency*]{}.—As explained in § 3.1, if the star’s magnetic field is too weak to affect the accretion flow at the sonic point but is strong enough to partially channel the flow close to the stellar surface, it will create a weakly beamed pattern of radiation that rotates [*with the star*]{}. The surface magnetic fields of the neutron stars in the atoll and Z sources, which are thought to be several hundred million years old, may be nearly dipolar. If the magnetic field is dipolar but offset from the center of the star, the radiation pattern it produces will have two unequal maxima around the star, whereas if the field is a centered but tilted dipole field, the radiation pattern will have two nearly equal maxima around the star. We therefore expect that there will generally be a brightness oscillation with a frequency equal to one or two times the spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$ of the star. However, as we discuss in detail in § 4.3, we expect the relatively weak magnetic fields of the atoll and Z sources to produce radiation patterns that are only weakly beamed, even near the star. When the substantial attenuation of this inherently weak beaming that is caused by scattering in the central corona is taken into account, the X-ray oscillation at $\nu_{\rm spin}$ or $2\nu_{\rm
spin}$ seen by a distant observer may be very weak or even undetectable with current instruments.
[*Sonic-point beat frequency*]{}.—The weakly beamed pattern of radiation rotating with the star causes the radiation drag force acting on the gas in a given clump orbiting near the sonic radius to peak with a frequency equal to one or two times the difference (beat) frequency $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ between the Keplerian frequency at the sonic point and the spin frequency of the star, as explained in § 3.1. The peak in the drag force will cause a temporary increase in the flux of denser gas streaming supersonically inward from the clump with a frequency $$\nu_{\rm peak}=k\nu_{\rm Bs} \equiv
k(\nu_{\rm Ks} - \nu_{\rm spin})
\comma
\label{eq:BeatFreq}$$ where $k$=1 or 2, depending on the symmetry (see Lamb et al. 1985). The inflow time from the sonic point is typically 5–10 beat periods, so there are typically this many density enhancements in the stream of gas from a given clump to the stellar surface. These density enhancements do not lie along a single gas streamline, but instead along a sequence of streamlines. As they collide with the stellar surface they produce a sequence of brighter impact arcs around the surface in the plane of the disk. As the quasi-periodic increase in the mass flux from a given clump arrives at the stellar surface, it produces a quasi-periodic modulation in the luminosity of the star with frequency $\nu_{\rm peak}$. Because this frequency is the difference between an orbital and a spin frequency, the frequency of the resulting quasi-periodic modulation of the X-ray flux and spectrum seen by an observer at infinity is $\nu_{\rm peak}$.
[*Expected range of sonic-point QPO frequencies.*]{}—In § 3.2 we showed that either radiation forces or general relativistic corrections to Newtonian gravity cause an abrupt transition to rapid radial inflow and that the radius of this transition is bounded below by the radius of the marginally stable orbit, which is for a nonrotating $1.4\,\msun$ star, and above by the upper bound on the fraction of the angular momentum of the accreting gas that can be transferred to the radiation field, which constrains the transition radius to be for a $1.4\,\msun$ star. As discussed in § 4.2, there are several effects that are likely to reduce further the allowed range of the transition radius, perhaps to . Inserting these radii in equation (\[eq:SonicKeplerFreq\]) gives an expected range for the sonic-point Keplerian frequency of . For stars with spin frequencies , the expected range of beat frequencies is then . These ranges are similar to the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs detected so far.
[*Overtones and sidebands of the sonic-point QPO frequencies.*]{}—In addition to the beaming oscillations at $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ and $\nu_{\rm
spin}$ and the luminosity oscillation at $\nu_{\rm Bs}$, we expect accretion onto weakly magnetic neutron stars to generate brightness oscillations at several other frequencies. For example, the X-ray brightness modulation produced by the motion of the brighter impact footprints around the star with frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ is unlikely to be [*exactly*]{} sinusoidal, so there may be some power at overtones of $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. However, the angular distribution of the X-ray emission from the impact footprints is expected to be very broad (see § 3.1), so the power at overtones of $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ is likely to be much smaller than the power at $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. The radiation pattern that rotates with the star is also expected to be very broad by the time the radiation escapes from the central corona, so the power at overtones of $\nu_{\rm spin}$ is likely to be much smaller than the power at $\nu_{\rm spin}$, which is itself expected to be small for the reasons discussed above. However, the radiation pattern that rotates with the star is likely to be narrower at the sonic radius than outside the central corona, causing the modulation of the mass flux from the sonic point to be somewhat non-sinusoidal and giving rise to weak overtones of the sonic-point beat frequency. Luminosity oscillations are not as strongly attenuated by scattering in the central corona (see § 4.1), so it may be easier to detect overtones of $\nu_{\rm Bs}$.
The sonic-point mechanism causes a modulation of the inward mass flux and hence the stellar luminosity at the sonic-point beat frequency; from the point of view of a distant observer, this luminosity is then modulated at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency by the motion of the brighter footprints around the star. As a result, QPOs are generated at some sideband frequencies. However, by far the strongest QPOs are generated at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies. To see this, consider as an example the X-ray flux waveform $$\begin{aligned}
\hskip -0.2 truein
f(t) & = &
[1 + K_1\cos (2\pi\nu_{\rm K}t + \phi_{\rm K1})\nonumber\\
&&\quad\mbox{} + K_2\cos (4\pi\nu_{\rm K}t + \phi_{\rm K2})]
\times\nonumber\\&&\quad\times\;
[1 + B_1\cos (2\pi\nu_{\rm B}t + \phi_{\rm B1})\nonumber\\
&&\quad\qquad \mbox{} + B_2\cos (4\pi\nu_{\rm B}t + \phi_{\rm B2})]
\;,
\label{FluxWave}
\end{aligned}$$ which describes these modulations. In equation (\[FluxWave\]) we have included for the sake of illustration only the fundamental and first overtones of the Keplerian and beat frequencies; higher harmonics may of course also be present. The frequencies that are generated are listed in Table \[table:FreqGen\]. The only first-order QPOs are those at the sonic-point beat and Keplerian frequencies. There are also QPOs at the second harmonics of the beat and Keplerian frequencies. The lowest-order QPOs generated by the modulation of the beat-frequency “carrier” by the motion of the footprints around the star are of second order and are at the stellar spin frequency $\nu_{\rm
spin}$ and at the very high frequency $2\nu_{\rm
Ks} - \nu_{\rm spin}$. The only QPO of intermediate frequency generated by this modulation is a QPO at $\nu_{\rm Ks} - 2\nu_{\rm
spin}$ that is third-order and hence likely to be very weak. All the other QPOs generated are also third-order and in addition have very high frequencies. They are therefore likely to be intrinsically weak, strongly attenuated by scattering in the central corona, and difficult to detect.
As we discuss in § 4.3, only brightness oscillations that are fairly large near the neutron star and are not strongly attenuated by the gas surrounding the star will be detectable by a distant observer. In the sonic-point model, only the sonic-point beat frequency QPO and its overtones are luminosity oscillations; the other QPOs are beaming oscillations and are therefore more attenuated by scattering. For this reason, we expect strong QPOs only at $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ and $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. Nonetheless, QPOs at other frequencies, such as $\nu_{\rm spin}$, $2\nu_{\rm
Bs}$, and $2\nu_{\rm Ks}$ may be detectable. Detection of oscillations at any of these frequencies would corroborate the sonic-point model.
Coherence of Sonic-Point QPOs
-----------------------------
A key question any theory of the kilohertz QPO sources that relates a QPO frequency to orbital motion must address is why narrow peaks are seen in power spectra of the brightness variations of these sources, rather than a broad continuum corresponding to the range of orbital frequencies in the inner disk. Indeed, the remarkably high coherence ($\nu_{\rm QPO}/\delta\nu_{\rm QPO}
\gta 100$) of some of the kilohertz QPOs places very strong constraints on any model of these QPOs, because there are many physical effects that tend to decrease the coherence of oscillations at kilohertz frequencies. We discuss some of the most important effects, derive the resulting constraints on the accretion flow, and show that the sonic-point mechanism can produce narrow peaks consistent with the observed coherence of the kilohertz QPOs.
Gas in the inner disk orbits the neutron star with a wide range of frequencies, so at first glance one might think that fluctuations in the gas density throughout the inner disk would generate a broad spectrum of brightness variations. For the reasons discussed in § 2.3, it is very unlikely that such fluctuations can produce large amplitude brightness variations via direct emission or occultation. We have therefore focused our attention on the brightness variations that such density fluctuations produce indirectly, as gas from them falls inward and impacts the stellar surface. Here we show that the accretion flow in the vicinity of the sonic radius acts as a filter that [*selects*]{} brightness oscillations at the sonic-point orbital frequency while [*suppressing*]{} brightness oscillations at higher and lower frequencies. In order to see how this filtering occurs, we analyze the X-ray emission at the stellar surface produced by clumps that form at different radii in the inner accretion disk.
[*Effects of azimuthal shear*]{}.—Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the thickness of the inner disk is infinitesimal and that the flow there is laminar (we discuss the effects of turbulence shortly). Suppose further that a very small, roughly spherical density fluctuation (clump) has formed well outside the sonic radius and consider what will happen to the gas in this clump and how it will affect X-ray emission from the star. When a small clump forms, the orbital phases of the elements of gas that comprise it are necessarily very similar, because of the small azimuthal extent of the clump. The elements of gas that comprise the clump also have very similar orbital frequencies, because the radial extent of the clump is small. As the clump drifts inward, elements of gas at different radii are sheared relative to one another in the azimuthal direction.
The frequency of the X-ray brightness oscillation that is generated by the inspiraling gas from a clump is approximately equal to the Keplerian frequency at the radius where the clump originally formed (see the discussion in § 3.3).[^2] A clump that forms very near the sonic radius will therefore produce an X-ray brightness oscillation at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency. If clumps can form inside the sonic radius, such clumps would produce X-ray brightness oscillations at the orbital frequencies where they formed.
This analysis shows that if the clumps were small and the flow laminar, differential rotation of the gas would not by itself pick out any particular orbital frequency. Consequently, if clumps were to form at a wide range of radii and nothing besides inward drift and azimuthal shear were to happen, gas inspiraling from the clumps and colliding with the stellar surface would produce brightness fluctuations with a wide range of frequencies up to the orbital frequency at the stellar surface (see, e.g., Kluzniak, Michelson, & Wagoner 1990).
[*Effects of clump destruction*]{}.—In reality, clumps that form [*outside*]{} the sonic radius are destroyed before they drift inward to the sonic point and gas in them can reach the stellar surface. Clumps (if any) that form [*inside*]{} the sonic radius orbit the star at a rapidly changing frequency and collide with the stellar surface before gas from them can produce a long wavetrain. Hence, only clumps that form very near the sonic radius can produce strong, relatively coherent brightness oscillations. In this way the disk flow filters out brightness oscillations at orbital frequencies other than the sonic-point Keplerian frequency.
In order to illustrate the effects of clump destruction in the Keplerian flow, we consider a simple model in which clumps form and are then destroyed by small-scale turbulence in the disk, such as that produced by the magnetoturbulence that is thought to be responsible for angular momentum transport within the disk flow (Balbus & Hawley 1991, 1992, 1997; Brandenburg et al.1995, 1996; Hawley, Gammie, & Balbus 1995, 1996). In this simple model we assume that the forces that formed the clump in the first place no longer act to hold it together. If the clump has size $\xi$, turbulent motions on scales $\ell\gta\xi$ will tend to advect the clump without destroying it; only turbulent motions on scales $\ell\ll\xi$ will disrupt the clump. We assume that the effect of these small-scale turbulent motions on the clump can be described by a diffusion coefficient , where $\beta$ is a dimensionless parameter that describes the strength of the small-scale turbulence and $c_s$ is the thermal sound speed in the disk; for turbulent motions with scales $\ell \ll \xi$, $\beta$ is small compared to unity. As a result of outward angular momentum transport by the magnetoturbulence, a clump of initial size $\xi$ that forms at radius $r$ will drift slowly inward with radial velocity $v^{\hat r} \sim
\alpha (h/r) c_s$, where $\alpha$ is the usual viscosity parameter and $h$ is the half-thickness of the disk. Such clumps will be dissipated by turbulent diffusion in a time $t_{\rm diss} \sim (\xi/\beta c_s) \sim
(\xi/\beta h\Omega_{\rm K})$.
In this model, a clump that forms a radial distance $\delta r$ [*outside*]{} the sonic radius $r_{\rm s}$ can reach the sonic radius and generate a supersonically inspiraling stream of gas before being destroyed only if $\delta r <
v^{\hat r} t_{\rm diss}$, i.e., only if the clump forms within a radial distance $$\delta r \lta (\alpha/\beta) (h/r_{\rm s})
(\xi/r_{\rm s}) r_{\rm s} \lta
10^{-2}\,r_{\rm s}$$ of the sonic radius. Turbulence on small scales may be weak, and the effects that form the clumps in the first place—such as thermal instability, magnetic stresses, and radiation forces—may tend to continue to hold them together as they drift inward toward the sonic point, so that clumps can survive somewhat longer than $t_{\rm diss}$. Even so, it is clear that clumps that form even a small distance outside the sonic radius will be disrupted by turbulence before they reach the sonic point. This process suppresses brightness oscillations with frequencies less than the sonic-point Keplerian frequency.
It appears improbable that clumps will form in the hypersonic radial inflow between the sonic radius and the stellar surface, but even if clumps do form in this region, they will not produce appreciable brightness oscillations, for two reasons. First, a clump that forms inside the sonic radius will collide with the stellar surface after completing $\sim$1–10 orbits. A clump that lives only for a time $t_{\rm
lifetime}$ will generate power over a range of frequencies $\delta \nu_{\rm lifetime} \sim (\pi
t_{\rm lifetime})^{-1}$. Hence the power produced by a clump that forms inside the sonic radius will be spread over a frequency range $\delta \nu_{\rm lifetime} \gta 0.03\,\nu $. Second, a clump that forms inside the sonic radius orbits the star at a frequency that rapidly increases from, for example, the $\sim
500\,\Hz$ orbital frequency at the sonic radius to the $\sim 1500\,\Hz$ orbital frequency at the stellar surface, as the clump spirals inward. For these reasons, even if clumps do form inside the sonic radius, any power they generate will be spread over a wide range of frequencies rather than concentrated in a narrow peak.
[*Coherence of the sonic-point Keplerian frequency QPO*]{}.—Clumps that form outside the sonic radius but close enough to it to reach it before being destroyed have initial orbital frequencies in the relatively narrow range $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\nu \sim
\left(\frac{\delta r}{r_{\rm s}}\right)
\,\nu_{\rm Ks} \sim
\left(\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)
\left(\frac{h}{r_{\rm s}}\right)
\left(\frac{\xi}{r_{\rm s}}\right)\,
\nu_{\rm Ks}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\leq 10^{-2}\, \nu_{\rm Ks},
\end{aligned}$$ which is consistent with the observed narrowness of the kilohertz QPO peaks. Clumps orbiting at different distances above or below the midplane of the disk will generally also have slightly different orbital frequencies. To estimate the resulting spread in frequencies, we assume that at each distance $z$ above and below the disk plane the inward radial velocity increases sharply from subsonic to supersonic at some cylindrical radius $R_{\rm
s}$. We call the axisymmetric two-dimensional surface defined by $R_{\rm s}(z)$ the sonic surface. If the sonic surface is cylindrical, the oscillation frequency generated by the clumps orbiting in the midplane of the disk is slightly greater than the oscillation frequency generated by the clumps orbiting above and below the midplane. The spread in oscillation frequencies depends on the precise shape of the sonic surface, but to lowest order in $(h/r_{\rm
s})$ the spread in frequencies caused by this effect is $\delta\nu \sim (h/r_{\rm s})^2\,
\nu_{\rm Ks}$, which is consistent with the observed narrowness of the kilohertz QPO peaks if $h_{\rm s}/r_{\rm s} \lta 0.1$.
The persistence of a clump orbiting at the sonic radius is limited by its decay as gas inspirals from it to the stellar surface and by its disruption by small-scale turbulence, pressure forces, and other effects. In the simple model considered here, the clump decay timescale is $t_{\rm decay} \sim \xi/v^{\hat r} \sim
(1/\alpha) (\xi/h_{\rm s}) (r_{\rm s}/h_{\rm s})
(1/\Omega_{\rm K})$, which broadens the QPO peak by an amount $\delta\nu_{\rm decay} \sim \alpha
(h_{\rm s}/\xi) (h_{\rm s}/r_{\rm s})\, \nu_{\rm
Ks} \lta 10^{-2}\, \nu_{\rm Ks}$, which is consistent with the observed narrowness of the kilohertz QPO peaks. The dissipation of clumps by turbulent diffusion contributes a relative width $\delta\nu_{\rm diss} \sim \beta (h_{\rm
s}/\xi)\,\nu_{\rm Ks}$, which is consistent with the observed narrowness of the Keplerian frequency QPO peaks if $\beta \ll 1$ or the effects that form the clumps in the first place, such as thermal instability, magnetic stresses, and radiation forces, continue to hold them together as they orbit at the sonic point.
This simple model shows that if a clump is too small, it will persist for such a short time that the power it generates will be spread over a broad frequency range, whereas if a clump is too large it will persist for such a long time that its orbital frequency will change appreciably during its lifetime and the power it generates will again be spread over a broad frequency range. It is the clumps of intermediate size that generate relatively coherent oscillations.
In addition to frequency variation and lifetime broadening, other effects may increase the width of the Keplerian frequency QPO peak. For example, the radiation field inside the sonic radius is not perfectly axisymmetric, and hence the radiation forces acting on the inspiraling gas will vary slightly with azimuth. As a result, the radius of the sonic point and the density patterns produced by the inspiraling gas will be slightly different at different azimuths. A quantitative treatment of these effects is well beyond what is possible with current accretion disk models.
The simple model we have discussed shows the crucial role played by the sharp transition to rapid radial inflow at the sonic radius that was found in § 3.2. In the absence of such a transition, density and magnetic field fluctuations in the inner disk would produce weak brightness variations over a wide range of frequencies rather than in the narrow range of frequencies needed to create a QPO peak. In the presence of such a transition, on the other hand, clumps orbiting in a narrow range of radii near the sonic radius produce strong X-ray brightness variations with a correspondingly narrow range of frequencies. Simple estimates of the broadening produced by the different orbital frequencies of these clumps and by their finite lifetimes appear consistent with the high observed coherence of the Keplerian frequency QPOs.
[*Coherence of related QPOs*]{}.—If there is a QPO at the beat frequency $\nu_{\rm Bs}$, we expect that its FWHM will in general be comparable to the FWHM of the QPO at $\nu_{\rm Ks}$. This is because the peak at $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ is at the beat frequency of the sonic-point Keplerian frequency with the stellar spin frequency, which is nearly coherent and therefore adds relatively little to the width of the QPO peak. However, we do [*not*]{} expect the widths of the QPO peaks at $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ and $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ to be identical, because scattering by the moving gas in the central corona affects the oscillations at $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ and $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ differently.
Photon-Energy Dependence of the Sonic-Point QPOs and Time Lags
--------------------------------------------------------------
The X-ray spectra of systems powered by accreting, weakly magnetic neutron stars, such as the kilohertz QPO sources, are formed primarily by Comptonization, as described in § 2.2. Cyclotron and bremsstrahlung photons with energies 1 keV are produced near the neutron star surface and are then Comptonized by hot electrons in the region where the accretion flow interacts with the stellar surface and in the hot central corona that surrounds the star and its magnetosphere, yielding the observed X-ray spectra.
During a sonic-point Keplerian or beat-frequency oscillation, the rotation of the patterns of denser gas spiraling inward from clumps orbiting at the sonic radius causes the optical depth along the line of sight from the neutron star surface to the observer to vary quasi-periodically. The rate of production of soft photons and the physical properties of the Comptonizing gas may also oscillate, especially during the sonic-point beat-frequency oscillation, which is mainly a luminosity (accretion rate) oscillation. These oscillations cause the X-ray spectrum produced by the system to oscillate quasi-periodically with various frequencies. A small fractional variation in the optical depth causes a much larger fractional variation in the number of photons at high photon energies, because of the characteristic way in which the spectrum produced by Comptonization changes as the optical depth oscillates (see Miller & Lamb 1992). To the extent that the effects of Comptonization dominate, the oscillations at $\gta 10~\keV$ will lag the oscillations at $\sim 5~\keV$, because the photons above 10 keV have scattered more times in escaping from the source.
An accurate, quantitative treatment of the X-ray spectral oscillations produced by the inhomogeneous and time-dependent accretion flow in the kilohertz QPO sources would require a three-dimensional, time-dependent radiation hydrodynamic calculation in full general relativity. This is beyond present computational abilities. However, one can obtain a qualitative understanding of the dependence of QPO amplitudes on photon energy and the time lags to be expected using the following simplified model of the Comptonization process.
Assume that soft photons with a characteristic energy $E_{\rm in}$ that is much smaller than the electron temperature $T_e$ are injected at the center of a static, uniform, spherical Comptonizing region of radius $R_{\rm C}$, electron density $n_e$, and scattering optical depth $\tau\equiv n_e \sigma_T R_{\rm C}$, where $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson scattering cross section. Assume further that $y \equiv 4 T_e
\tau^2/m_e\lesssim 1$, where $m_e$ is the electron rest mass, and that the electrons have a negligible bulk velocity. These are good approximations for modeling formation of the time-averaged X-ray spectra of the atoll sources (see Psaltis & Lamb 1998b). The region of approximately radial inflow that develops when the mass accretion rate becomes comparable to $\dot{M}_{\rm E}$ (see Lamb 1989, Lamb 1991, and § 2) introduces additional effects on the spectra of the Z sources that cannot be treated in this way; we do not consider these effects here (but see Psaltis & Lamb 1998b). We treat the effects of oscillations in the rate of soft-photon production and in the properties of the Comptonizing region near the star by varying these quantities in the spherical model. In particular, we mimic the effects of the quasi-periodic variation of the optical depth along the line of sight by varying the optical depth of the model. We assume that the oscillation period is longer than the mean time for photons to escape from the Comptonizing region, an approximation that appears to be excellent for the kilohertz QPO sources.
[*Photon-energy dependence of the sonic-point Keplerian and beat-frequency oscillation amplitudes*]{}.—The X-ray number spectrum that emerges from the Comptonizing region at photon energies $E \gg E_{\rm in}$ can be approximated by (see, e.g., Rybicki & Lightman 1979, pp. 221-222) $$f(E) \propto \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\!\left(\frac{E}{E_a}\right)^{2+\alpha},
\;\; E\ll E_b\\ \\
\!\!\left(\frac{E_b}{E_a}\right)^{\alpha}
\!\!\left(\frac{E}{E_a}\right)^2
\!\exp[-(E-E_b)/T_e],
\;\; E\gg E_b
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:Spectrum}$$ where $T_e$ is the electron temperature, $E_a$ is a normalization constant that is typically a few keV, $E_b \sim (1 \dash 3)T_e$ is the cutoff energy, and $$\alpha =
-\frac{3}{2}-\sqrt{\frac{9}{4}+\frac{4}{y}}
\;.$$
For small-amplitude oscillations in which the variation of the electron temperature in the Comptonizing region is negligible (see below), the relative amplitude $\gamma(E)$ of the oscillation is approximately (Miller & Lamb 1992) $$\gamma(E)=\frac{\Delta
\dot{N}_{\rm s}}{\dot{N}_{\rm s}}
+\frac{d}{d\tau}\ln[f(E)] \,\Delta \tau\;.
\label{eq:AmpGeneral}$$ Here $\Delta \dot{N}_{\rm s}/\dot{N}_{\rm s}$ is the relative change in the rate at which soft photons are injected into the Comptonizing region during an oscillation and $\Delta\tau$ is the change in the optical depth of the region. The relative amplitude $\gamma(E)$ is computed by considering a full oscillation period.
In general, the soft photon injection rate and the optical depth both vary during the oscillation. If so, equations (\[eq:Spectrum\])–(\[eq:AmpGeneral\]) give $$\vert\gamma(E)\vert\simeq\left\vert
\frac{\Delta \dot{N}_{\rm s}}{\dot{N}_{\rm s}}
+\gamma_{\rm \tau}(E) \right\vert\;,
\label{eq:AmpAbsGeneral}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AmpKepler}
\gamma_{\rm \tau}(E)
\hskip-0.1 truein
&\simeq&
\hskip-0.1 truein
-0.6 \left(\frac{T_e}{10~\hbox{keV}}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{3}{\tau}\right)
\left(\frac{\Delta \tau/\tau}{0.05}\right)
\times\nonumber\\&&
\hskip-0.5 truein\times
\left[\frac{\ln(E_b/E_a)}{2}\right]
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\ln(E/E_a)}{\ln(E_b/E_a)}\;, & E\ll E_b\\
\\
\quad\; 1 \;, & E\gg E_b
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:GammaTau}
\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the expected properties of the Comptonizing region and we have neglected the weak dependence of the normalization constant $E_a$ on $\tau$. Equations (\[eq:AmpAbsGeneral\]) and (\[eq:GammaTau\]) show that in this case the relative amplitude of the QPO depends both on the relative change in the soft-photon injection rate, $\Delta \dot{N}_s/\dot{N}_s$, and on the relative change in the optical depth, $\Delta \tau/\tau$. In writing equation (\[eq:AmpGeneral\]) we have assumed that the electron temperature in the Comptonizing cloud remains constant during the oscillation. If the electron temperature were allowed to vary, then the relative amplitude of the oscillation would not be constant at high photon energies, in disagreement with observations.
The quantity $\gamma_{\rm \tau}$ is negative for the spectrum (\[eq:Spectrum\]) and is small at low photon energies. If the oscillation in the injection rate of the soft photons is in phase with the oscillation in the optical depth, i.e., if $\Delta \dot{N}_s/\dot{N}_s$ and $\Delta
\tau/\tau$ have the same sign, and if $\gamma_\tau$ is larger in magnitude than $\Delta
\dot{N}_s/\dot{N}_s$ at high photon energies, then the relative amplitude of the oscillation in the photon number will not be a monotonic function of photon energy. For $\Delta \dot{N}_s/\dot{N}_s$ comparable in magnitude to $\Delta \tau/\tau$ and a Comptonizing region with the properties used in scaling equation (\[eq:GammaTau\]), the relative amplitude of the oscillation has a minimum in the energy range $\sim 5 \dash 10~\keV$. The sonic-point beat frequency QPO is primarily a luminosity oscillation (see § 3.1), so the photon production rate is likely to vary significantly at the beat frequency. [*The relative amplitude of the beat-frequency QPO may therefore have a minimum in the $5 \dash 10~\keV$ energy range*]{}.
If the relative change in the photon injection rate during an oscillation is very small, the first term on the right side of equation (\[eq:AmpAbsGeneral\]) is likely to be negligible compared to the second term. In this case the relative amplitude of the oscillation will increase monotonically with increasing photon energy, for energies less than $E_b \simeq
10-30$ keV, but will become independent of photon energy for energies greater than $E_b$. We expect this to be the case for the oscillation at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency, which is mainly a beaming oscillation (see § 3.1) and hence involves a relatively small variation in the photon production rate. [*We therefore expect the relative amplitude of the Keplerian-frequency QPO to increase steeply in the $5 \dash 10~\keV$ energy range and then flatten at high energies*]{}.
When the photon injection rate and spectrum of injected soft photons do not change appreciably during a QPO cycle, the amplitude of the oscillation in luminosity caused by the oscillation in optical depth is comparable to the amplitude of the optical depth oscillation and is given by $$\frac{\Delta L}{L} \sim \Delta y = 0.07
\left( \frac{T_e}{10~\mbox{keV}} \right)
\left( \frac{\tau}{3} \right)^2
\left( \frac{\Delta \tau/\tau}{0.05} \right) \;.
\label{eq:LumOsc}$$ Equations (\[eq:AmpKepler\]) and (\[eq:LumOsc\]) demonstrate that [*a relatively weak oscillation in optical depth of only a few percent that is accompanied by a luminosity oscillation of moderate amplitude can produce naturally a much larger oscillation in the countrate at high photon energies*]{}.
Equation (\[eq:AmpKepler\]) also shows that the relative amplitude of the oscillation at a given photon energy is different for different electron temperatures and optical depths, unless the relative amplitude of the oscillation in optical depth $\Delta \tau/\tau$ varies in such a way as to compensate for this effect. We therefore expect that as the mass accretion rate onto the neutron star changes (on timescales much longer than a beat-frequency period), the electron temperature and optical depth in the Comptonizing region will change, causing the photon-energy dependence of the beat-frequency and Keplerian-frequency oscillation amplitudes to change.
[*Photon-energy dependence of the sonic-point Keplerian and beat-frequency oscillation phases*]{}.—At photon energies 30 keV, the cross section and hence the electron scattering mean free path of the photons in the central corona is nearly independent of photon energy. Therefore, the average escape time of photons from the corona is also independent of their energy. However, the photons that stay in the corona longer experience more scatterings on average, and therefore gain more energy by scattering off hot electrons and emerge from the medium with a larger energy. As a result, the oscillation at high photon energies is expected to lag the oscillation at low photon energies. If the injection rate of soft photons and the properties of the corona are constant in time, the magnitude of the time lag is determined mainly by the properties of the corona (see, e.g., Wijers, van Paradijs, & Lewin 1987; Bussard et al. 1988). If instead the source of soft photons or the properties of the corona are time-dependent, then the time lag will depend on the details of this time-dependence.
For the simplified model described earlier in this section, the average energy after $u$ scatterings of a photon injected at energy $E_{\rm in}$ is $$E(u) \sim {\rm min}[ E_{\rm in}
\exp(4T_e u/m_e), E_b]\;.$$ Therefore, for photons with energies smaller than $\sim E_b$, the ratio of the energies of two photons that have experienced a different number of scatterings is $E_2/E_1\sim \exp(4 T_e
\Delta u/m_e)$, where $\Delta u$ is the difference in the number of scatterings. The photon mean-free time is $\sim (n_e \sigma_T
c)^{-1}$ and hence the time lag introduced between the oscillations at the two photon energies is $$\begin{aligned}
\hskip-0.3 truein
\delta t
&\hskip-0.1 truein \sim &\hskip-0.1 truein
\frac{R}{c \tau} \frac{m_e}{4 T_e}
\ln \left(\frac{E_2}{E_1}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\hskip-0.1 truein = &\hskip-0.1 truein
\frac{400}{\tau}
\left(\frac{R}{10^6~\mbox{cm}}\right)
\left(\frac{T_e}{10~\mbox{keV}}\right)
\ln \left(\frac{E_2}{E_1}\right)~\mu\mbox{s},
\label{eq:timelag}
\end{aligned}$$ when both $E_1$ and $E_2$ are smaller than $\sim
E_b$. Because of the diffusion in energy and the systematic downscattering of photons with energies $\gtrsim E_b$, equation(\[eq:timelag\]) is not valid at energies $\gtrsim E_b$.
We emphasize that, for a variety of reasons, equation (\[eq:timelag\]) gives only an upper bound to the expected time lag at photon energies $\lesssim E_b$. First, this equation assumes that all photons are injected at the center of a spherical medium. However, if most of the photons are produced near the surface of the neutron star and escape a few kilometers above it, the time lag can be significantly smaller. Second, equation (\[eq:timelag\]) was derived under the assumption that photons slowly diffuse outward. This is not a very good approximation for electron scattering optical depths $\tau
\lesssim 3$; if a fraction of the photons escape directly from the corona without interacting with the electrons, the average escape time could be significantly smaller. Finally, equation (\[eq:timelag\]) was derived under the assumption of a uniform electron density. If instead most of the optical depth is concentrated near the center of the corona, this will also reduce significantly the average escape time.
[*In summary, to the extent that the effects of Comptonization dominate, we expect the sonic-point Keplerian- and beat-frequency oscillations at high photon energies should lag the corresponding oscillations at lower photon energies and the time lag between a few keV and $\sim 15$ keV should be a fraction of a millisecond*]{}, for the densities and temperatures of the electrons expected around the neutron stars in the Z and atoll sources.
Attenuation of Kilohertz QPOs
-----------------------------
In the sonic-point model, gas spirals inward from density inhomogeneities in the accretion flow at the sonic radius and collides with the stellar surface, producing a radiation pattern that rotates around the star with the Keplerian frequency at or near the sonic point $\nu_{\rm
Ks}$. Because the rate of mass accretion over the whole neutron star surface remains approximately constant in time as the radiation pattern rotates, the total luminosity emerging from the system also remains approximately constant in time. For conciseness we call the oscillations produced by rotation of this radiation pattern a [*beaming*]{} oscillation, because it is caused by the angular variation of the radiation field, even though the radiation pattern is unlikely to be a narrow beam. In a pure beaming oscillation, the total luminosity emerging from the source is independent of time. As described earlier, the accretion flow is also expected to produce a much weaker beaming oscillation at the stellar spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$.
If the magnetic field of the neutron star is strong enough to channel the accretion flow near the stellar surface, the sonic-point model predicts that the resulting radiation pattern, which rotates with the star, will modulate inflow from the inner disk at the beat frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$, producing a [*luminosity*]{} oscillation with this frequency. In a pure luminosity oscillation, the total luminosity of the system changes with time, but the angular pattern of the radiation field remains unchanged. In the sonic-point model, the only luminosity oscillation is the beat frequency oscillation.[^3]
When the luminosity oscillation is present, it is necessarily modulated by the motion of the emission regions around the stellar surface, which generates second-order beaming oscillations at the stellar spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$ and the difference frequency $2\nu_{\rm
Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$ (see § 3.3 and Table 3). In general, higher-order oscillations are also generated at other (mostly much higher) frequencies.
Scattering generally attenuates beaming oscillations much more than luminosity oscillations, for the conditions relevant to LMXBs (Lamb 1988). The reason is that an anisotropic radiation pattern becomes approximately isotropic after only a few scatterings, whereas a luminosity oscillation is attenuated by scattering only if the time required for photons to escape from the scattering region is much larger than the period of the oscillation, which requires a large optical depth for the oscillation frequencies and coronal dimensions of interest to us.
The relative amplitude $A_\infty$ of a luminosity oscillation with angular frequency $\omega=2\pi\nu$ outside a spherical scattering cloud of radius $R_{\rm C}$ and optical depth $\tau$ is related to the relative amplitude $A_0$ at the center of the cloud by the expression (Kylafis & Phinney 1989) $$A_{\infty,{\rm lum}}
\approx \left(2^{3/2}x
e^{-x}+e^{-\tau}\right)A_{0,{\rm lum}}\;,
\label{eq:LumAtten}$$ where $x\equiv[(3/2)\omega R_{\rm
C}\tau/c]^{1/2}$. This expression is accurate to better than 6% for $x>1.3$ (Kylafis & Phinney 1989). The first term in parenthesis on the right side of equation (\[eq:LumAtten\]) describes the amplitude attenuation caused by the spread of escape times from the cloud whereas the second term (which has been added in by hand) describes the amplitude of the oscillation produced by the photons that escape from the cloud without scattering.
For a beaming oscillation caused by rotation of a narrow pencil beam, the amplitude of the oscillation outside the cloud is (Brainerd & Lamb 1987; Kylafis & Phinney 1989) $$A_{\infty,{\rm beam}} \simeq
\left[\left(\frac{2}{1+\tau}\right)2^{3/2}x
e^{-x}+e^{-\tau}\right]A_{0,{\rm beam}}\;.
\label{eq:BeamAtten}$$ The factor multiplying $A_{0,{\rm
beam}}$ in equation (\[eq:BeamAtten\]) describes the tendency of scattering to isotropize the photon distribution. The amplitudes of oscillations produced by the broad radiation patterns or the radiation patterns with more than one lobe that we are concerned with here are reduced even more by scattering (Brainerd & Lamb 1987).
Of all the beaming oscillations that may be generated by the accretion flow, only the one at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency is likely to have a large enough amplitude at the neutron star to produce an oscillation that is strong enough, after attenuation by passage through the central corona, to be observed easily with current instruments. In contrast, the oscillation at the sonic-point beat frequency, which is the only luminosity oscillation produced by the flow, should be strong enough to be observed even if its amplitude at the neutron star surface is moderate. As a result, we expect that from the collection of possible frequencies of oscillations, the only oscillations that will appear strong far from the star will be those at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies.
COMPARISON WITH OBSERVATIONS
============================
In this section we describe the observational implications of the sonic-point model and compare them with observations of the kilohertz QPOs. We first list the important properties of these QPOs that any model must explain. These properties are (see § 1): (1) high (300–1200 Hz) frequencies, which can vary by several hundred Hertz in a few hundred seconds (see Wijnands et al. 1998 and van der Klis 1995); (2) similar frequency ranges in stars with significantly different magnetic field strengths and accretion rates; (3) relatively high coherence ($Q \equiv \nu/\delta\nu$ up to $\sim 100$); (4) 2–60 keV rms amplitudes $\lta1$% in the Z sources but much higher (up to 15%) in the atoll sources; (5) the common occurrence of two (but never more than two) simultaneous kilohertz QPOs in a given source; (6) a frequency separation $\Delta\nu$ between the two kilohertz QPOs that is approximately constant in a given source; (7) approximate consistency of $\Delta\nu$ with the stellar spin frequency inferred from burst oscillations; (8) the similarity of most atoll and Z source spin frequencies; (9) the frequently similar FWHM of the two QPO peaks seen simultaneously; (10) the increase of the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs with increasing inferred accretion rate that is observed in many sources; and (11) a steep increase in the amplitude of the higher-frequency of the two kilohertz QPOs with increasing photon energy in the 2–15 keV energy band in many sources.
In § 4.1 we show that the stellar magnetic field strengths and electron scattering optical depths required for the sonic-point mechanism to operate are consistent with the stellar magnetic field strengths and optical depths of the compact central corona inferred from previous modeling of the X-ray spectra and $\lta100$ Hz X-ray variability of the atoll and Z sources. In § 4.2 we compare the kilohertz QPO and neutron star spin frequencies expected in the sonic-point model with the kilohertz QPO and neutron star spin frequencies observed in the atoll and Z sources. We also discuss the expected and observed dependence of the QPO frequencies on accretion rate. In § 4.3 describe the amplitude and coherence of the various QPOs expected in the sonic-point model, comparing them with the observed amplitudes and coherence of the kilohertz QPOs. In particular, we show that the sonic-point model explains naturally why at most two kilohertz QPOs have been detected in the power spectrum of each source. We also discuss the relative coherence of QPOs at different frequencies and the expected dependence of QPO amplitudes on accretion rate and photon energy. In § 4.4 we describe the inverse correlation between QPO amplitude and stellar magnetic field expected in the sonic-point model and show that there is already substantial evidence for such a correlation.
Consistency with Previously InferredProperties of the Atoll and Z Sources
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operation of the sonic-point mechanism for producing strong, coherent kilohertz QPOs requires that a number of conditions be satisfied:
(1) In order to produce the higher-frequency kilohertz QPOs with the large amplitudes observed in some sources, the neutron star magnetic fields in these sources must be relatively weak, so that a substantial fraction of the accreting gas penetrates close to the star in a Keplerian disk flow (§ 3.1).
(2) In order to produce the lower-frequency kilohertz QPOs, the neutron star magnetic field, although relatively weak, must be strong enough to channel some of the accreting gas near the stellar surface to produce bright spots that rotate with the star and modulate the accretion rate at the sonic-point beat frequency (§ 3.1).
(3) In order to generate QPOs with the high coherence observed in most sources, the disk flow at the sonic point must be geometrically thin (§ 3.4).
(4) In order that only the QPOs at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies be detectable and that X-ray oscillations at the stellar spin frequency be very weak or undetectable at present sensitivities, electron scattering in the central corona must help to attenuate the weak beaming oscillations at other frequencies and at the stellar spin frequency. The central corona must therefore have an electron scattering optical depth $\gta 3$ (§ 3.6).
As we now explain briefly, all of these conditions follow naturally from the unified model of weak-field accreting neutron stars described in § 2.2.
The magnetic field strengths in the 4U atoll sources are thought to be low enough ($\lta\,
10^9$ G) that at their inferred accretion rates ($\sim 0.01$–$0.1\,{\dot M}_E$) the cylindrical radius $\varpi_0$ at which the Keplerian disk flow couples strongly to the stellar magnetic field is $\lta 2\ee6$ cm. The magnetic field strengths of the neutron stars in the Z sources are thought to be a few times larger than in the 4U atoll sources, but the accretion rates are much larger as well, so $\varpi_0$ is comparable to its value in the atoll sources. Thus, in both the 4U atoll sources and the Z sources, the gas in the Keplerian disk penetrates close to the star before any of it couples strongly to the stellar magnetic field. We therefore expect that a significant fraction of the accreting gas will remain in a Keplerian disk flow down to the sonic point and will continue in a disk flow very close to the stellar surface, as required in the sonic-point model.
Evidence that the magnetic fields of neutron stars in LMXBs, while typically weak, are nevertheless strong enough in many sources to channel the flow near the star and hence to produce a QPO at the sonic-point beat frequency comes from power spectra constructed from observations of (van der Klis et al.1996e), 1 (van der Klis 1996a, 1996b, 1996d, 1997b), (Wijnands et al. 1997c), and (Wijnands et al. 1998). In addition to two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs, these power spectra show horizontal branch oscillations, which appear to be magnetospheric beat-frequency oscillations (see § 2 and Psaltis et al. 1998).
These power spectra indicate that in the Z sources, some of the gas in the disk couples strongly to the weak stellar magnetic field at two or three stellar radii and is funneled into hot spots that could modulate the mass flux from the sonic point at the sonic-point beat frequency by periodically irradiating the clumps at the sonic radius (see § 2). It is natural to expect that the magnetic fields of many of the atoll sources are only a little weaker than those in the Z sources and are therefore still strong enough to produce a QPO at the sonic-point beat frequency. This expectation is supported by the spectral modeling described in § 2.2.
Accretion via a geometrically-thin Keplerian disk flow, which is required to explain the high coherence of the kilohertz QPOs, is expected in the atoll sources, because at their low accretion rates the inner part of the accretion disk is likely to be gas-pressure-dominated. In the Z sources, which are thought to be accreting at close to the Eddington critical rate, gas in the Keplerian disk flow that is not channeled by the stellar magnetic field is likely to be pinched by the stellar field into a geometrically thin disk.
The final requirement listed above for the sonic-point model, namely that the optical depth of the hot central corona exceed $\sim 3$, follows directly from the spectral modeling discussed in § 2.2.
In summary, the physical picture of the atoll and Z sources that was developed prior to the discovery of the kilohertz QPOs, based on their 2–20 keV X-ray spectra and 1–100 Hz X-ray variability, give the magnetic field strengths, accretion flows, and electron scattering optical depths required by the sonic-point model.
Kilohertz QPO and Neutron Star Spin Frequencies
-----------------------------------------------
In the sonic-point model, the frequency of the higher-frequency kilohertz QPO (when two are present) is the Keplerian orbital frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ at the point in the disk flow where the inward radial velocity increases rapidly within a small radial distance, whereas the frequency of the lower-frequency kilohertz QPO is approximately the difference between $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ and the stellar spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$. In this section we describe the range of sonic-point Keplerian and neutron star spin frequencies and the variation of the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies with accretion rate expected in the model and then compare these expectations with the observations. We discuss the expected amplitudes of oscillations at other frequencies in § 4.3.
[*Similarity of the sonic-point Keplerian QPO frequencies in different sources*]{}.—A key question is why the higher-frequency kilohertz QPOs in different sources always have frequencies between $\sim\,$500 Hz and, even though the neutron stars in these sources have time-averaged mass accretion rates that differ by more than a factor of 100 and magnetic fields that are thought to differ by more than a factor of 10. In the sonic-point model there are three main reasons why the Keplerian-frequency QPO is restricted to this frequency range:
\(1) As discussed in § 3.2, there is an upper bound on the radius $R_{\rm s}$ of the sonic point, which is set by the maximum fraction of the angular momentum of the accreting gas that can be removed by radiation from the stellar surface and is $\sim 3R_{\rm ms}$, where $R_{\rm
ms}$ is the radius of the marginally stable orbit. There is also a lower bound on $R_{\rm
s}$, which is $R_{\rm ms}$ if the radius $R$ of the neutron star is smaller than $R_{\rm ms}$, or $R$ otherwise. Hence, the Keplerian frequency at the sonic point is confined to a similar interval in the atoll and Z sources, regardless of their accretion rates and magnetic field strengths. As a result, if the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources have typically accreted a few tenths of a solar mass and therefore have masses $\sim 1.7\,\msun$, these constraints on the sonic-point Keplerian frequency mean that the frequencies of their sonic-point Keplerian QPOs will fall between $\sim\,$400 Hz and $\sim\,$1300 Hz.
\(2) Modeling of the 2-20 keV X-ray spectra and 1–100 Hz power spectra of the atoll and Z sources indicates that the magnetic fields of these neutron stars are positively correlated with their time-averaged accretion rates, i.e., sources with higher accretion rates appear to have stronger magnetic fields (see § 2.2 and Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). This has an important implication for the frequency range of the kilohertz QPOs, because the stronger the stellar magnetic field, the [*larger*]{} the fraction of the gas in the disk that is likely to couple to the magnetic field at two or three stellar radii and be channeled out of the disk flow there. As a result, the stronger the magnetic field, the [*smaller*]{} the mass flux ${\dot M}_{\rm sp}$ through the disk at the sonic point. Hence, ${\dot M}_{\rm sp}$ differs by a much smaller factor in the Z and atoll sources than does the total mass flux ${\dot M}$ onto the neutron star. The sonic-point Keplerian frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ is governed more by ${\dot M_{\rm
sp}}$ than by ${\dot M}$, so the positive correlation between magnetic field and accretion rate means that the frequency ranges of the sonic-point QPOs are likely to be more similar in a collection of neutron-star LMXBs than one would expect, based only on the different ranges of ${\dot M}$ in different systems.
(3) In addition, the inner disk is expected to be thicker if ${\dot M_{\rm sp}}$ is large. As a result, the radial optical depth through the disk at a given accretion rate is smaller, which allows radiation from the neutron star surface to penetrate further out into the disk than one would expect based only on the different values of ${\dot M}$ in the different systems. This tendency also acts to make the range of sonic-point radii, and hence the frequency ranges of the Keplerian-frequency QPOs, more similar in different systems than consideration of the accretion rates alone would suggest (see § 3.2).
[*Expected and inferred neutron star spin rates*]{}.—In the sonic-point model, the separation between the frequencies of the QPOs in a pair is approximately equal to the stellar spin frequency. The frequency separations observed in the kilohertz QPO sources so far (see Table \[table:SpinFrequencies\]) all indicate spin rates of a few hundred Hertz, consistent with the spin rates expected in the magnetospheric beat-frequency model of the HBO (see § 2, Lamb et al. 1985, and Ghosh & Lamb 1992).
Oscillations have been observed during thermonuclear X-ray bursts from five kilohertz QPO sources so far (again see Table \[table:SpinFrequencies\]). Only a single oscillation has been observed from each source during a given burst, the oscillations in the tails of bursts appear to be highly coherent (see, e.g., Smith et al. 1997), and the frequencies are always the same in a given source. Furthermore, comparison of burst oscillations from over about a year shows that the timescale for any variation in the oscillation frequency is $\gta3,000$ yr (see, e.g., Strohmayer 1997). The burst oscillations are thought to be caused by emission from one or two regions of brighter X-ray emission on the stellar surface (see Strohmayer et al. 1997b), producing oscillations at the stellar spin frequency or its first overtone, respectively.
The 363 Hz frequency of the burst oscillation observed in is consistent with the separation frequency of its two simultaneous kilohertz QPOs. The 524 Hz and 581 Hz frequencies of the burst oscillations seen in and are probably twice the spin frequencies of these neutron stars (see Morgan & Smith 1996; Smith et al. 1997; Wijnands & van der Klis 1997; Zhang et al. 1996, 1997). If so, the spin rates of these stars are 262 Hz and 290 Hz, respectively. The frequencies of the fairly coherent oscillations seen at 549 Hz in 1 (Zhang et al. 1998) and at 589 Hz in the so-far-unidentified source near the Galactic center (Strohmayer et al. 1996d) may also be twice the spin frequencies of these neutron stars. These spin rates are all consistent with those expected in the sonic-point model.
[*Similarity of the neutron-star spin frequencies in different sources*]{}.—If the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources have spin frequencies comparable to their equilibrium spin frequencies, then we expect their spin frequencies to be a few hundred Hertz. This can be seen from equation (\[eq:muKepler\]) in § 2.2, which can be solved for the equilibrium spin frequencies at which continued accretion at the given rate leaves the spin frequency unchanged, with the result $$\nu_{\rm eq}
= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\!1590\,\omega_{\rm c}
\left(\mu_{0,27}\right)^{-0.87}\!
\left({\mdoti}/
{\dot{M}_E}\right)^{0.39}\times
\nonumber\\
\hskip0.05 truein
\times\left({M}/
{1.4\msun}\right)^{0.85}\;{\rm Hz},
\quad\mbox{for GPD disks;}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\!\!430\,\omega_{\rm c}
\left(\mu_{0,27}\right)^{-0.77}\!
\left({\mdoti}/
{\dot{M}_E}\right)^{0.23}\times
\nonumber\\
\hskip0.05 truein
\times\left({M}/
{1.4\msun}\right)^{0.70}\;{\rm Hz},
\quad\mbox{for RPD disks.}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:NuEquil}$$ Here $\omega_c$ is the critical fastness (Ghosh & Lamb 1979b). Hence, for $\omega_{\rm c}
\approx 1$, a $1.7\,\msun$ atoll source with $\mu_{0,27}=0.5$ accreting from a GPD disk at a rate $\mdoti=0.001\,{\dot M}_E$ has an equilibrium spin frequency of 230 Hz, which is similar to the 240 Hz equilibrium spin frequency of a $1.4\,\msun$ Z source with $\mu_{0,27}=2$ accreting from an RPD disk at a rate $\mdoti=0.5\,{\dot M}_E$.
A recent analysis (Psaltis et al. 1998) of the properties of the HBOs and kilohertz QPOs in a collection of five Z sources shows that they are consistent with many of the predictions of the magnetospheric beat-frequency model of the HBO and that the agreement is best if, as expected in this model, they are all in spin equilibrium (see also Ghosh & Lamb 1992). In particular, this analysis shows that [*the narrow range of spin frequencies observed in the Z sources is to be expected if they are in spin equilibrium*]{}.
[*Variation of kilohertz QPO frequencies with mass accretion rate*]{}.—In the sonic-point model, the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs are expected to rise as the accretion rate increases, within the bounds set by the orbital frequencies at the angular momentum loss radius and at the radius of the marginally stable orbit (see above and § 3.2). In order to see why an increase is expected, suppose that the sonic radius is at $R_{\rm s1}$ for a given accretion rate. An increase in the accretion rate will cause the radial optical depth from the stellar surface to $R_{\rm s1}$ to increase, if all other physical quantities remain constant, and hence the sonic point will move inward to the smaller radius $R_{\rm s2}$ at which the optical depth from the stellar surface is approximately the same as before, causing an increase in the orbital frequency at the sonic radius. The X-ray luminosity between bursts is produced almost entirely by accretion and hence an increase in the accretion rate causes an increase in the luminosity. We therefore expect a strong, positive correlation between the frequencies of the sonic-point Keplerian- and beat-frequency QPOs and the persistent X-ray luminosity.
These basic ideas are illustrated by the general relativistic accretion flow calculations of § 3.2. As shown in Figure \[fig:nuKvsL\], the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies given by these calculations increase steeply with increasing mass accretion rate until the sonic point reaches $R_{\rm ms}$, at which point their frequencies stop changing. This flattening of the two frequency vs. accretion luminosity relations is one possible signature of the existence of a marginally stable orbit (see also § 5.4). Coherent Keplerian- and beat-frequency QPOs are unlikely to be produced if the sonic point moves inward, close to the stellar surface, because of the disruptive effect of the surface magnetic field and the strong viscous shear layer that is expected to develop if the Keplerian flow interacts directly with the neutron star surface.
We emphasize that these calculations are intended to be illustrative rather than to reproduce the QPO frequency behavior of any particular source. If the mass of the neutron star is $1.7\,\msun$, rather than $1.4\,\msun$ as assumed in these calculations, the limiting frequency would be 1.3 rather than 1.6 (see Miller, Lamb, & Psaltis 1998). Again, if the accretion disk is thicker near the star than is assumed in these calculations, more of the inner disk will be illuminated and hence the angular momentum loss radius $R_{\rm aml}$ will be larger, causing the sonic-point Keplerian frequency at a given accretion rate to be lower. If the disk thickness changes with accretion rate, then the variation of the sonic-point Keplerian frequency with accretion rate will be different from the variation found in the calculations reported here, which treat the disk thickness as constant. Despite these uncertainties, the calculations described here show that an increase in the mass accretion rate leads naturally to an increase in the sonic-point Keplerian frequency.
We stress that caution must be used in comparing the predicted variation of QPO frequencies with accretion with the countrate measured by a given X-ray detector, because countrates are known to be poor indicators of the mass accretion rate and the accretion luminosity, at least for some sources at some times. The most likely reason is that a particular instrument measures the photon number flux over only a restricted energy range and that a change in the mass accretion rate typically causes a change in the shape of the X-ray spectrum as well as its normalization. Hence the detector countrate typically is not proportional to the accretion rate.
In the Z sources, the mass accretion rate is known to be different when the countrate is the same but the source is on a different branch of the Z track (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989; Lamb 1989; Psaltis et al.1995). Moreover, in the “Cyg-like” Z sources, the normal/flaring branch vertex, which is thought to correspond to a mass accretion rate approximately equal to $\mdote$ (Lamb 1989), occurs at different countrates during different observations (Kuulkers 1995).
The observations of Ford et al. (1997a) show that the properties of the accretion flow are not uniquely related to the X-ray countrate in the atoll sources. In these observations, the dependence of the kilohertz QPO frequencies on countrate seen in data on taken with in 1996 August differs, both in slope and in normalization, from the dependence of the QPO frequencies on countrate seen in data taken in 1996 April. In contrast, when the QPO frequencies are plotted against the energy of the spectral peak, which may be a good indicator of the accretion rate (Psaltis & Lamb 1998c), the slope and normalization of the curves are the same for both observations (Ford et al. 1997b).
Clearly, bolometric and other corrections are typically important, so comparison of QPO frequency versus countrate data with the QPO frequency versus accretion rate predictions of theoretical models must be approached with caution. Despite this caveat, it is worth emphasizing that there is a strong, positive correlation between the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs seen in , , , and KS 1731$-$260, and the countrate measured by , as expected in the sonic-point model if the countrate increases with increasing accretion rate.
It is interesting to speculate about the dependence of kilohertz QPO frequencies on luminosity that is to be expected if such QPOs are detected during a thermonuclear X-ray burst. In this case the mass accretion rate and the radial optical depth are no longer tied to the luminosity, and hence the expected dependence of $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ on luminosity is different from what is expected during the periods between type I X-ray bursts. When radiation forces are extremely strong, such as at the peak of a type I X-ray burst that causes photospheric radius expansion, the radiation controls the accretion flow out to large radii and we therefore do not expect any QPO at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency or at the sonic-point beat frequency. However, QPOs at these frequencies may reappear in the tail of the burst. While the burst luminosity is several times the persistent accretion luminosity, we expect the sonic point to be farther from the star than when the luminosity is lower. Thus, we expect that if sonic-point QPOs are detected in the tail of a thermonuclear burst, their frequencies will increase as the luminosity declines. Note, however, that during the decay phase of such a burst, the luminosity changes rapidly. If the frequencies of the QPOs track this change, the QPO peaks in power spectra will be smeared out, unless the spectra are constructed from short ($\lta 0.1$ s) segments of data.
So far, no kilohertz QPOs have been observed near the maximum of type-I X-ray bursts, which is consistent with what is expected in the sonic-point model. More sensitive searches will be required to determine if kilohertz QPOs are present during the decay phase of bursts.
Kilohertz QPO Amplitudes and Coherence
--------------------------------------
[*Amplitudes of oscillations at different frequencies*]{}.—A key question that any theory of the kilohertz QPOs must answer is why at most two strong QPOs have so far been seen simultaneously in the kilohertz QPO sources. In addressing this question, it is important to consider both the [*generation*]{} of oscillations near the neutron star and the effects of [*propagation*]{} of the radiation through the gas surrounding the neutron star. In order to be detectable far away, an oscillation must be strong at the source or have a small attenuation, or both.
The QPOs at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies are the only QPOs expected to have moderately high amplitudes far from the neutron star because the optical depth and luminosity oscillations that produce them generate relatively high amplitudes near the star, because these frequencies (and their overtones) are the [*only*]{} frequencies generated by the sonic-point mechanism in lowest order, and because scattering of photons by the gas surrounding the neutron star selectively suppresses the already weak higher-frequency oscillations generated at higher orders.
As discussed in § 3.3, to lowest (first) order, the sonic-point mechanism generates oscillations only at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies (see Table \[table:FreqGen\]). As explained there, only very weak overtones of the sonic-point Keplerian frequency are likely to be generated, because the angular distribution of the radiation from the bright impact footprints of the rotating density pattern produced by clumps is expected to be very broad.
The radiation pattern that rotates with the star is also expected to be broad, but at the sonic radius, where it interacts with the orbiting gas to generate the luminosity oscillation at the sonic-point beat frequency, it is not likely to be perfectly sinusoidal. Hence overtones of the sonic-point beat frequency $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ may be generated in the inward mass flux from the clumps at the sonic radius, producing overtones of $\nu_{\rm Bs}$ in the X-ray flux from the star. As radiation from the stellar surface propagates outward through the part of the central corona that extends beyond the sonic radius, the radiation pattern that rotates with the star is likely to be broadened further (see below), reducing the amplitudes of oscillations at the stellar spin frequency and its overtones seen by a distant observer.
In addition to the QPOs at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies and their overtones, in second order the sonic-point mechanism also generates QPOs at $\nu_{\rm spin}$ and $2\nu_{\rm Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$ and in third order at $\nu_{\rm Ks}-2\nu_{\rm spin}$, $\nu_{\rm
Ks}+\nu_{\rm spin}$, $3\nu_{\rm Ks}-2\nu_{\rm
spin}$, and $3\nu_{\rm
Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$ (again see Table \[table:FreqGen\]). These high-order oscillations are expected to be very weak, even near the neutron star.
The attenuation of an oscillation depends strongly on whether it is a [*beaming*]{} oscillation or a [*luminosity*]{} oscillation (see § 3.6). A beaming oscillation is an oscillation produced by rotation of an angular radiation pattern, like the beam of a lighthouse; in a pure beaming oscillation, the luminosity remains constant as the radiation pattern rotates. In contrast, a luminosity oscillation is one produced by an oscillation of the luminosity of the source; in a pure luminosity oscillation, the radiation pattern remains static as the luminosity oscillates. In the sonic-point model, the sonic-point Keplerian frequency is the only intrinsically strong beaming oscillation, and the sonic-point beat frequency is the only luminosity oscillation produced by the accretion flow.
In passing through a scattering region, luminosity oscillations are attenuated only by time-of-flight smearing whereas beaming oscillations are also attenuated by the isotropization of the radiation pattern by the scattering. Hence beaming oscillations are weakened more by propagation through a scattering corona. Figure \[fig:AttenFactor\] compares the attenuation of luminosity and beaming oscillations produced at the center of a uniform, spherical, scattering cloud of radius $R_{\rm C}
= 3\ee6$ cm, as a function of the optical depth of the cloud. The size of this cloud is comparable to the dimensions of the small scattering coronae with optical depths $\sim\,$3–5 that are thought to surround the neutron stars in the atoll and Z sources (Lamb 1989, 1991; see also § 2.2). The frequencies of the oscillations shown in Figure \[fig:AttenFactor\] have been chosen to represent a hypothetical accreting neutron star with $\nu_{\rm Ks}=\,1100$ Hz and $\nu_{\rm
spin}=\,300$ Hz. The beat-frequency luminosity oscillation is therefore at 800 Hz. The attenuation factors have been calculated using equations (\[eq:LumAtten\]) and (\[eq:BeamAtten\]). Figure \[fig:AttenFactor\] shows that the beaming oscillation at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency must have a relatively high intrinsic amplitude in order to produce a strong, observable QPO for a distant observer, whereas the luminosity oscillation at the sonic-point beat frequency needs only to have a moderate amplitude.
The amplitudes of the oscillations at the overtones of either luminosity or beaming oscillations seen by a distant observer are expected to be far smaller than the amplitudes seen at the fundamental frequencies, for several reasons. For example, beaming patterns with multiple lobes are much more easily isotropized by scattering than are beaming patterns with single lobes (see, e.g., Brainerd & Lamb \[1987\]). Moreover, for either beaming or luminosity oscillations, overtones of an oscillation are at higher frequencies than the fundamental and are thus more susceptible to time-of-flight smearing.
As a specific example, we consider . As interpreted within the sonic-point model, the spin frequency of this neutron star is 363 Hz (see Table 3). During one observation, $\nu_{\rm Ks}$ was 1045 Hz. Assuming that this neutron star is surrounded by a central corona with a radius $R_{\rm C}=3\ee6$ cm and an optical depth $\tau=5$, the amplitude of the luminosity oscillation at the beat frequency $\nu_{\rm Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin} = 682~\Hz$ seen by a distant observer is about 85% of the amplitude at the neutron star. For comparison, the beaming oscillation at $\nu_{\rm Ks}+\nu_{\rm spin} =
1408~\Hz$, which is generated only in third order and is therefore likely to be very weak even near the neutron star, has an amplitude at infinity which is only about 20% of its amplitude at the star. The amplitudes of oscillations at the overtones of the sonic-point Keplerian frequency are all reduced by factors $\gta$20. For these reasons, it is not surprising that the only strong QPOs seen are at the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies.
Although oscillations at frequencies other than the sonic-point Keplerian and beat frequencies are likely to be very weak, their amplitudes are surely not zero. We therefore expect that, if neutron-star LMXBs are observed with sufficient sensitivity, oscillations at other frequencies will be detected. In particular, a careful search near the spin frequency, at the first overtone of the beat frequency, and near the sum of the Keplerian and spin frequencies in sources with pairs of high-frequency QPO peaks may reveal very weak QPOs at these frequencies.
The oscillation at the beat frequency is a [*luminosity*]{} oscillation, but in the sonic-point model it is created by interaction of the weakly [*beamed*]{} radiation pattern that is rotating at the stellar spin frequency with the clumps of gas that are orbiting at or near the sonic point. It is therefore important to emphasize why the beaming oscillation at the stellar spin frequency is strong enough to modulate significantly the mass inflow rate from clumps at the sonic point, yet too weak to produce a significant peak in power spectra constructed by a distant observer.
Previous modeling of the X-ray spectra (Lamb 1989, 1991; Psaltis et al. 1995; Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c) and the 1–100 Hz X-ray variability of the atoll and Z sources (Lamb 1989, 1991; Miller & Lamb 1992) strongly indicates that a hot, central, Comptonizing corona surrounds the neutron star, extending several stellar radii from its surface (see § 2.2). The sonic radius is well inside this corona, so the scattering optical depth from the stellar surface to the sonic point is much less than the scattering optical depth from the stellar surface to infinity. The finite size of the neutron star also diminishes the effect of attenuation on the amplitude of X-ray brightness oscillations for gas orbiting close to the star. These factors make the brightness oscillation produced by the radiation pattern that rotates with the star much stronger at the sonic radius than it is far away.
[*Dependence of QPO amplitudes on accretion rate*]{}.—In the sonic-point model, the ratio of the amplitude of the QPO at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency to the amplitude of the QPO at the sonic-point beat frequency generally depends on the strength of the neutron star magnetic field. If the magnetic field is too weak to channel gas even near the stellar surface, the amplitude of the oscillation at the beat frequency will be too small to be detected (see § 3.1). However, the ratio of the amplitudes of the QPOs at different frequencies is also expected to depend on the mass accretion rate.
For example, as the mass accretion rate rises, the electron density and optical depth of the gas around the neutron star also rise. Hence, the amplitude at infinity of the beaming oscillation at the sonic-point Keplerian frequency will fall faster relative to the amplitude of the luminosity oscillation at the sonic-point beat frequency, all else being equal; indeed, the QPO at the Keplerian frequency may become undetectable while the QPO at the beat frequency remains strong. This expectation is consistent with the observed behavior of the kilohertz QPO pair in (Strohmayer et al. 1996c), assuming that the increasing mass accretion rate causes an increase in the countrate (but see § 4.2). In this source, the amplitude of the higher-frequency QPO decreases relative to the amplitude of the lower-frequency QPO as the countrate increases.
Alternatively, if the sonic point moves far enough away from the stellar surface, as may happen at low accretion rates (and hence countrates), the optical depth through the flow from the stellar surface to the sonic radius may become large enough to reduce greatly the amplitude at the sonic point of the radiation pattern that rotates with the star, thereby suppressing the luminosity oscillation at $\nu_{\rm Bs}$. This is consistent with an observation of in which the lower-frequency QPO is not observed when the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO is low (Strohmayer et al. 1996c).
This analysis shows that if only a [*single*]{} high-frequency QPO peak is observed, it could be either the sonic-point Keplerian-frequency QPO or the sonic-point beat-frequency QPO, depending on the magnetic field of the neutron star and the mass accretion rate at the time. In this case, a secure identification can only be made by considering other properties of the QPO and comparing them with the properties of the QPOs seen in other observations of the same source.
[*Dependence of QPO amplitudes on photon energy*]{}.—In the sonic-point model, the relative amplitudes of the Keplerian frequency and beat frequency QPOs are expected to increase steeply with photon energy over the $\sim\,$5–10 keV energy range (see § 3.5). This is because the optical depth is expected to oscillate at both frequencies: the optical depth along the line of sight from the stellar surface oscillates at the Keplerian frequency, while the total optical depth of the scattering region oscillates at the beat frequency as the density of the accreting gas falling on the stellar surface oscillates at this frequency. As shown in § 3.5, a modest oscillation in the optical depth produces a QPO with a large relative amplitude at high photon energies. This is consistent with the steep increase of QPO amplitude with increasing photon energy observed in the higher-frequency of the two simultaneous QPOs in (Zhang et al. 1996), (Ford et al. 1997b), and KS 1731$-$260 (Wijnands & van der Klis 1997), in the lower-frequency of the two simultaneous QPOs in (Berger et al. 1996; Méndez et al. 1998) and (Strohmayer et al. 1996c), and in the kilohertz QPOs in the Z sources (van der Klis et al. 1996e), (Wijnands et al. 1997c), and (Wijnands et al. 1998).
In § 3.5 we used a simple analytical model to derive an expression for the photon energy dependence of the rms amplitude of a QPO produced by oscillations in the optical depth and in the injection rate of soft photons. Figure \[fig:AmpVsEnergy\] compares the results of a more detailed numerical calculation performed using the algorithm of Miller & Lamb (1992) with amplitude data for the lower-frequency kilohertz QPO observed in and the higher-frequency kilohertz QPO seen in . In performing this calculation we made the same assumptions as in § 3.5 and assumed further that the injection rate of soft photons is constant in time, that the spectrum of the injected photons is a blackbody at temperature $kT=0.6$ keV, that the electron temperature in the central corona is $kT_e=9$ keV, and that the optical depth varies from $\tau=3$ to $\tau=3.3$ during an oscillation. The model matches the data well. The geometry of the actual upscattering region is undoubtedly much more complicated than assumed in this calculation, but the excellent correspondence with the data and the ubiquity of the steep increase of amplitude with photon energy over the 5–10 keV energy range suggest that the model has many elements in common with the true physical situation.
As a source moves in the X-ray color-color diagram and its spectrum changes (implying a change in the average optical depth and electron temperature of the Comptonizing region), we expect that the photon energy dependence of the rms amplitude of the oscillations will also change. Moreover, as discussed in §3.5, we expect that, in general, the dependence of the beat-frequency QPO amplitude on photon energy will be different from the dependence of the Keplerian-frequency QPO amplitude. This is consistent with the observations of (Ford et al.1997b) in which amplitude versus photon energy curve of the beat-frequency QPO has a minimum at $\sim\,$10 keV, whereas the amplitude versus photon energy curve of the Keplerian-frequency QPO increases monotonically from 2 keV to 20 keV. Because the QPOs amplitude depend strongly on photon energy, to be meaningful a comparison of QPO amplitudes measured for different sources or at different times for the same source must consider the same range of photon energies.
[*Coherence of the kilohertz QPOs*]{}.—In § 3.4 we showed that the high coherence of the Keplerian and beat-frequency QPOs in the sonic-point model is primarily a consequence of the extremely sharp increase in the inward radial velocity near the sonic point, which maps a small range of orbital frequencies onto the stellar surface. There we also considered the decoherence caused by destruction of clumps by turbulent dissipation within the disk flow, by advection to the stellar surface, and by decay as gas is stripped from them by the supersonic flow at the sonic point. We concluded that the QPO peaks can be as narrow as observed ($\nu/\delta\nu \sim
30$–200) for reasonable conditions in the accretion flow.
The FWHM $\delta\nu_{\rm BF}$ of the sonic-point beat frequency oscillation is expected to be comparable to the FWHM $\delta\nu_{\rm KF}$ of the sonic-point Keplerian frequency oscillation, because the beat-frequency QPO is produced by the beat of a nearly periodic signal at frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$ against the Keplerian frequency (see § 3.4). We do not expect the FWHM of the two kilohertz QPO peaks to be identical, however, because there are processes that can affect the FWHM of one but not the other. For example, the FWHM of the beat-frequency peak depends in part on the range of radii over which radiation forces can affect the mass accretion rate significantly. This range can be either less than or greater than the range of radii over which the inward radial velocity increases rapidly, and hence $\delta\nu_{\rm BF}$ can be either less than or greater than $\delta\nu_{\rm KF}$. This effect can also displace the centroid of the beat-frequency peak relative to the centroid of the Keplerian frequency peak, so that the observed frequency difference $\nu_{\rm
Ks}-\nu_{\rm Bs}$ is close to, but not exactly equal to, the stellar spin frequency.
Amplitudes of QPOs Produced by Stars with Different Magnetic Field Strengths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sonic-point model, the larger the magnetosphere, the smaller the fraction of the accreting gas that reaches the surface of the star without coupling to the magnetic field, and hence the smaller the amplitude of the kilohertz QPOs. Therefore, we expect the rms amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs to be roughly anticorrelated with the strength of the stellar magnetic field, if all other physical quantities remain fixed. As discussed in § 2.2, the “4U” atoll sources are thought to have the weakest magnetic fields, the “GX” atoll sources and the “Sco-like” Z sources are thought to have somewhat stronger fields, and the “Cyg-like” Z sources are thought to have the strongest fields (Psaltis & Lamb 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). Hence, we expect kilohertz QPOs to be common and strong in the “4U” atoll sources, but weak or even undetectable with current instruments in the “GX” atoll sources and the Z sources.[^4] This is indeed the case, as is evident from Table \[table:ReportedQPOs\]. If, as indicated by the spectral modeling discussed in § 2, the magnetic field of Cir X-1 is weak, we expect it to exhibit sonic-point QPOs when it is in its low state. We also expect that kilohertz QPOs will be undetectable by current instruments in any sources that have strong magnetic fields and therefore produce strong, periodic oscillations at their spin frequencies.
The relation between kilohertz QPO amplitude and magnetic field strength may be made semi-quantitative using the spectral calculations (see § 2.2) of Psaltis et al. (1995) and Psaltis & Lamb (1998a, 1998b, 1998c). These calculations indicate that LMXBs containing neutron stars with weaker magnetic fields generally have larger hard X-ray colors (e.g., the ratio of the 7–20 keV countrate to the 5–7 keV countrate). Based on this physical picture, we expect the rms amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs produced by the sonic-point mechanism to be higher in sources with larger hard colors. This trend is evident in Figure \[fig:AmpVsHardColor\], which shows the rms amplitudes versus the hard X-ray colors of four sources observed with the PCA detector onboard the satellite. If other sources with kilohertz QPOs follow this same trend, this will be strong support for the sonic-point model.
As discussed in § 2.3, the observed anticorrelation between kilohertz QPO amplitude and magnetic field strength is also strong evidence that the magnetospheric beat-frequency mechanism [*not*]{} the correct explanation of these oscillations.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEUTRON STARS AND DENSE MATTER
===============================================
In the sonic-point model, the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair has a frequency equal to the orbital frequency of gas near the sonic point; the relatively high coherence of this QPO is a consequence of the fact that the gas clumps that generate it are in nearly circular orbits. In this section we show that the inferred existence of a nearly circular orbit around a neutron star with a frequency in the kilohertz range can be used to derive interesting new upper bounds on the mass and radius of the star and constraints on the equation of state of the dense matter in all neutron stars. For simplicity we discuss first the case of a nonrotating star around which the radial component of the radiation force is negligible. We then consider the changes in the mass and radius constraints caused by frame-dragging when the star is spinning and by the radial component of the radiation force. We show that rotation at $\sim 300$ Hz typically increases the bound on the mass by $\sim 20$% and the bound on the radius by a few percent. In contrast, the radiation force [*reduces*]{} the upper bounds on the masses and radii by a few percent or less in the atoll sources but perhaps by much larger percentages in the Z sources.
Observations of kilohertz QPOs may be able to establish the existence of an innermost stable circular orbit around some neutron stars (see § 4.2). If this can be accomplished, it would be the first evidence concerning a prediction of general relativity in the strong-field regime. If furthermore the frequency of a particular kilohertz QPO can be securely established as the orbital frequency at the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit and if the spin frequency of the neutron star can be determined, then the frequency of the QPO can be used to fix the mass of the neutron star for each assumed equation of state, tightening the constraints on the properties of dense matter and possibly ruling out many currently viable equations of state. We discuss how this can be done and the evidence that would signal detection of a QPO with the orbital frequency of the marginally stable orbit.
Nonrotating Star
----------------
Suppose that the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz pair is $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ and that, as in the sonic-point model, $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ is the orbital frequency of gas in a nearly circular Keplerian orbit around the neutron star. Assume for now that the star is not rotating and is spherically symmetric. Then the exterior spacetime is the Schwarzschild spacetime. In this spacetime, the orbital frequency (measured at infinity) of gas in a circular orbit at Boyer-Lindquist radius $r$ around a star of mass $M$ is (see eq. \[\[eq:SonicKeplerFreq\]\]) $$\nu^\nonrot_{\rm K}(M,r)=(1/2\pi)(GM/r^3)^{1/2}\;.
\label{eq:KeplerFreqZero}$$ Here and below the superscript zero indicates that the relation is that for a nonrotating star. If the mass of the star is known, equation (\[eq:KeplerFreqZero\]) may be solved for the orbital radius $R_{\rm orb}$ where the Keplerian frequency is $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$, with the result $$R^\nonrot_{\rm orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}) =
(GM/4\pi^2\nu_{\rm QPO2}^2)^{1/3}\;.
\label{eq:OrbitalRadiusZero}$$ Conversely, if the orbital radius of the gas is known, equation (\[eq:KeplerFreqZero\]) may be solved for the mass of the star that gives an orbital frequency equal to $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$, with the result $$M^\nonrot(R_{\rm orb},\nu_{\rm QPO2}) =
(4\pi^2/G) R_{\rm orb}^3 \nu_{\rm QPO2}^2\;.
\label{eq:OrbitalMassZero}$$ If, as is so far the case for the kilohertz QPO sources, neither $M$ nor $R_{\rm orb}$ are known, equations (\[eq:OrbitalRadiusZero\]) and (\[eq:OrbitalMassZero\]) do not determine $R_{\rm orb}$ or $M$ but do establish a relation between them. In the radius-mass plane, this relation is a curve that begins at the origin and rises up and to the right.
As a specific example, the dashed curve marked $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm orb})$ in Figure \[fig:PieSlice\] shows the relation given by equation (\[eq:OrbitalMassZero\]) for $\nu_{\rm QPO2}=1220$ , a value of $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ observed in (W. Zhang, personal communication). Hence, if were not rotating, the mass of the neutron star in this source and the orbital radius of the gas clumps producing the QPO during this observation would have to correspond to some point along this dashed curve.
Consider now the constraints on the neutron star mass and radius that follow from the [*frequency*]{} of the higher-frequency QPO. Obviously, in order for gas to be in orbit, it must be outside the star. This means that for an orbit of given radius $R_{\rm orb}$, the mass $M$ of the star must be greater than $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm orb},\nu_{\rm QPO2})$; alternatively, for a star of given mass $M$, the radius $R$ of the star must be less than $R^\nonrot_{\rm orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2})$. Thus, the point that represents the mass and radius of the neutron star must lie above the curve $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm orb},\nu_{\rm QPO2})$ in the radius-mass plane. The larger the value of $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$, the higher the curve, so the most stringent—and hence the relevant—constraint on the mass and radius of the neutron star in a particular source is given by the [*highest*]{} value of $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ ever observed in that source, which we denote $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$. For example, 1220 Hz is the highest value of $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ seen so far in , so this is the current value of $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$ for this source (in fact, this is the highest value of $\nu_{\rm
QPO2}$ seen so far in [*any*]{} source). Consequently, if the neutron star in were not rotating, the point in the radius-mass plane that represents its mass and radius would have to lie above the curve , which is the dashed curve shown in Figure \[fig:PieSlice\].
So far, the only information we have used to constrain the mass and radius of the star is the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz pair. However, we have the additional information that the [*coherence*]{} of the higher-frequency QPO is high () in many sources. Let us assume that the higher-frequency QPO in a pair is generated by the same mechanism in all sources that show such pairs. Then the high coherence of these higher-frequency QPOs imposes additional constraints on the neutron star’s mass and radius because, in order to produce a QPO with such high coherence, the gas that generates the QPO must be in a nearly circular orbit. Hence $R_{\rm orb}(M,\nu_{\rm
QPO2}^\ast)$ must be greater than the radius $R_{\rm ms}(M)$ of the innermost stable circular orbit, because gas inside $R_{\rm ms}$ spirals quickly inward to the stellar surface.
For a nonrotating star, the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit is a function only of the mass of the star and is given by . Inverting this relation gives $$M^\nonrot(R_{\rm ms}) = (c^2/6G)R_{\rm ms}\;.
\label{eq:msMassZero}$$ In the radius-mass plane, relation (\[eq:msMassZero\]) is a straight line of slope $+1$ through the origin and is the dotted line marked $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm ms})$ in Figure \[fig:PieSlice\]. This line intersects $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm orb},\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$ at the mass and radius values $$\begin{aligned}
M^\nonrot_{\rm max} &\equiv&
c^3(\sqrt{864}G\pi\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)^{-1}
\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
&=&2.2\,(1000~\Hz/\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)\;\msun\;,\\
\label{eq:MassBoundZero}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
R^\nonrot_{\rm max} &\equiv&
c(\sqrt{24}\pi\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)^{-1}
\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
&=&19.5\,(1000~\Hz/\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)\;{\rm km.}
\label{eq:RadiusBoundZero}
\end{aligned}$$ If $M$ were larger than $M^\nonrot_{\rm max}$, the orbital radius $R^\nonrot_{\rm
orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$ of the gas generating the QPO would be less than $R^\nonrot_{\rm ms}(M)$, so $M^\nonrot_{\rm
max}$ is an upper bound on the mass of the star; $M^\nonrot_{\rm max}$ is inversely proportional to $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ but independent of the star’s radius and the orbital radius of the gas clumps that are producing the higher-frequency QPO. Similarly, $R^\nonrot_{\rm max}$ is an upper bound on the radius of the star; $R^\nonrot_{\rm max}$ is also inversely proportional to $\nu_{\rm QPO2}$ but independent of the star’s mass and the orbital radius of the gas clumps that are producing the higher-frequency QPO.
The heavy horizontal line plotted in Figure \[fig:PieSlice\] shows the upper bound on the mass of a nonrotating star for $\nu_{\rm
QPO2}^\ast=1220~\Hz$. This upper bound is $1.8\,\msun$, so the mass of the neutron star in would have to be less than this if it were not rotating. For $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast=1220~\Hz$, $R^\nonrot_{\rm
max}$ is 16.0 km, so the radius of the neutron star in would have to be be less than this if the star were not rotating.
Suppose now that the frequency $\nu_{\rm
QPO2}^\ast$ of a particular QPO is securely identified as the orbital frequency of gas in the innermost stable circular orbit around a particular neutron star. Then $R_{\rm orb} =
R_{\rm ms}$ for this QPO, so the representative point of the orbit is at the intersection of the diagonal $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm ms})$ line and the $M^\nonrot(R_{\rm orb},\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$ curve. The mass of the star is therefore $M^\nonrot_{\rm max}$. Hence [*identification of a QPO frequency with the frequency of the innermost stable circular orbit immediately determines the mass of the star*]{}. The radius of the star is not determined by such an identification, but must still be less than $R^\nonrot_{\rm max}$.
As a specific example, suppose that the 1220 QPO observed in is securely identified as the orbital frequency of gas in the innermost stable circular orbit around this neutron star. Then the mass of this neutron star would be determined as 1.8, if it were not rotating.
[*These arguments apply to stars with arbitrary spin rates as well as to nonrotating stars*]{}, although the expressions for $R_{\rm
orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$ and $R_{\rm ms}(M)$ are different for a rotating star and depend on the star’s spin rate as well as its mass. They may be summarized as follows:
(1) Stellar radii are excluded, because there is no Keplerian orbit with frequency $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$ outside a star with such a large radius; the value of $R_{\rm
ms}(M)$ is irrelevant.
(2) If $R<R_{\rm orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$ but $R_{\rm ms}(M) >$$R_{\rm
orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$, there is a Keplerian orbit with frequency $\nu_{\rm
QPO2}^\ast$ outside the star, but any oscillation produced by gas in this orbit would have a coherence much lower than that observed.
(3) If $R<R_{\rm orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$ and $R_{\rm ms}(M) <$$R_{\rm
orb}(M,\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast)$, there is a Keplerian orbit with frequency outside the star and the oscillation produced by gas in this orbit can have the required high coherence.
(4) If the frequency $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$ of a particular QPO is securely identified as the orbital frequency of gas in the innermost stable circular orbit around a particular neutron star, the mass of the star is $M^\nonrot_{\rm max}$; its radius must be less than $R^\nonrot_{\rm
max}$.
For a nonrotating star with , the combinations of stellar mass and radius allowed by condition (3) are the points in the radius-mass plane above the curve but below . This region is outlined in Figure \[fig:PieSlice\] by the heavy solid line. The point representing the mass and radius of the neutron star in would have to lie in this region if the star were not rotating. The allowed region collapses to the heavy solid horizontal line if the QPO frequency is identified as the orbital frequency of gas in the innermost stable circular orbit so that condition (4) applies.
Figure \[fig:EOSconstraints\] compares the mass-radius relations for nonrotating neutron stars given by five equations of state for neutron-star matter ranging from soft to hard with the regions of the radius-mass plane allowed if $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^{\ast}$ is a Keplerian orbital frequency, for nonrotating stars and three values of $\nu_{\rm
QPO2}^{\ast}$. In order to make possible comparisons with previous studies of neutron star properties (see, e.g, Pethick & Ravenhall 1995), we show the mass-radius curve given by the early Friedman-Pandharipande-Skyrme (FPS) realistic equation of state (Friedman & Pandharipande 1981; Lorenz, Ravenhall, & Pethick 1993). The FPS equation of state uses a different approach, but is similar to the softest equations of state permitted by modern realistic models of the nucleon-nucleon interaction (Pandharipande, Akmal, & Ravenhall 1998). These equations of state all give maximum gravitational masses of about $1.8\,\msun$ for nonrotating stars.
As an example of the mass-radius curves given by later realistic equations of state, we show the mass-radius curve predicted by the UU equation of state (Wiringa, Fiks, & Fabrocini 1988). Although it is based on older scattering data, the UU equation of state is similar to the recent ${\rm
A18} + {\rm UIX'} + \delta v_{\rm b}$ equation of state (Akmal, Pandharipande, & Ravenhall 1998), which is based on the most modern scattering data. Like the ${\rm A18} + {\rm UIX'}
+ \delta v_{\rm b}$ equation of state, the UU equation of state gives a maximum mass of about $2.2\,\msun$ for a nonrotating neutron star.
As an example of the mass-radius curves predicted by the relatively stiff equations of state typically given by mean field theories, we include the mass-radius curve for the mean-field equation of state of Pandharipande & Smith (1975b; L in the Arnett & Bowers \[1977\] survey). The maximum mass of a nonrotating star constructed using equation of state L is $2.7\msun$. We also show the mass-radius curve given by the very early tensor interaction (TI) equation of state of Pandharipande & Smith (1975a; M in the Arnett & Bowers \[1977\] survey) and the Reid soft-core equation of state of Pandharipande (1971; A in the Arnett & Bowers \[1977\] survey). The maximum masses of nonrotating stars constructed using equations of state M and A are $1.8\,\msun$ and $1.65\,\msun$, respectively. Equations of state A, L, and M are no longer of interest to nuclear physicists and are included here primarily to facilitate comparison with previous work on mass-radius constraints.
For a particular source, QPO frequency, and equation of state, the allowed portion of the mass-radius relation is the segment within the pie-slice shaped region analogous to the region in Figure \[fig:PieSlice\] outlined by the heavy line or, if the QPO frequency is identified as the frequency of the innermost stable circular orbit, simply the horizontal heavy line. If the mass-radius relation given by a particular equation of state intersects the allowed region defined by the highest QPO frequency seen in a given source, that particular equation of state is viable. If that equation of state is furthermore the correct equation of state, the mass and radius of the neutron star in the source must correspond to one of the points along the segment of the mass-radius relation that lies within the pie-slice shaped region, so the mass and radius of the star are bounded from above [*and*]{} from below; for most equations of state, only a narrow range of radii is allowed.
For example, the highest-frequency QPO so far seen in any source is the 1220 Hz QPO observed in (W. Zhang, personal communication). Hence, if equation of state M is the correct equation of state, then the mass and radius of the neutron star in would have to satisfy $1.7\,\msun<M<1.8\,\msun$ and $11.6~\km<R<16.0~\km$ if it were nonrotating. If equation of state M is the correct equation of state and 1220 Hz is identified as the frequency of the innermost stable circular orbit, then the mass and radius of the neutron star in would be determined as about $1.8\,\msun$ and between 11 and 12 , if the star were not rotating.
An equation of state that gives a mass-radius relation that does [*not*]{} intersect the region allowed for a given source is ruled out for that source. We stress that [*because the equation of state of the matter in neutron stars is expected to be essentially the same in all such stars, an equation of state that is inconsistent with the properties of any neutron star is excluded for all neutron stars*]{}. For example, observation of a 1500 Hz Keplerian orbital frequency in any source would rule out equations of state L and M.
So far our discussion of constraints on the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources has assumed that they are not rotating. As we discuss in the next subsection, the changes in these constraints caused by the spin of the star are likely to be small in most sources.
Effects of Stellar Rotation
---------------------------
Rotation affects the structure of the star for a given mass and equation of state and the spacetime exterior to the star. Hence the mass-radius relation, the orbital frequency at a given radius, and the radius $R_{\rm ms}$ of the innermost stable circular orbit are all affected. As a result, the bounds on the mass and radius of the star and the constraints on the equation of state implied by observation of a kilohertz QPO of a given frequency are affected. Obviously, the size of these effects depends on the spin rate of the star. Treating these effects accurately will be particularly important if the frequency of a kilohertz QPO is ever securely identified as the Keplerian frequency at the marginally stable orbit around a neutron star (see § 5.4), because the ability to rule out some equations of state may depend on it.
The parameter that characterizes the importance of rotational effects is the dimensionless quantity , where $J$ and $M$ are the angular momentum and gravitational mass of the star. The value of $j$ that corresponds to a given observed spin frequency depends on the neutron star mass and equation of state, and is typically higher for lower masses and stiffer equations of state. For example, at the 363 Hz spin frequency inferred for (Strohmayer et al. 1996c), a $1.4\,\msun$ neutron star with the softer equation of state A has , whereas a $1.4\,\msun$ neutron star with the very stiff equation of state L has (see Table \[table:jValues\]).
As discussed in § 5.1, if the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair is an orbital frequency, then the region of the radius-mass plane allowed for the neutron star in that source is bounded below by the curve $R_{\rm
orb}(M)$, which gives the orbital radius at which the Keplerian frequency is equal to the highest observed frequency $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$ of the higher-frequency QPO. Given $j$, it is straightforward to compute the orbital radius for any given orbital frequency as a function of $M$. However, it is not $j$ but instead the star’s spin frequency $\nu_{\rm spin}$ that is determined by the observations. Hence, [*to obtain the relevant $R_{\rm orb}(M)$ curve one must vary $j$ in such a way that $\nu_{\rm
spin}$ is kept constant as $M$ is varied*]{}. Moreover, $j$ depends not only on $\nu_{\rm
spin}$ and $M$ but also on the equation of state. Thus the relevant $R_{\rm orb}(M)$ curve depends not only on the star’s spin rate, but also on the equation of state assumed. Therefore, for rotating stars (unlike static stars), one cannot present a single $R_{\rm
orb}(M)$ curve that constrains all equations of state, even for a star with a given spin frequency.
As also discussed in § 5.1, the region of the radius-mass plane allowed for the neutron star in a given source is bounded above by the horizontal line $M=M_{\rm max}$, which is the mass at which the curve $R_{\rm orb}(M)$ intersects the curve $R_{\rm ms}(M)$; the radius $R$ of the star is bounded above by $R_{\rm
orb}(M_{\rm max})$. The two curves $R_{\rm
ms}(M)$ and $R_{\rm orb}(M)$ are both affected by rotation of the star, so $M_{\rm max}$ depends on the stellar spin rate.
Determining the mass at which is equivalent to determining the mass at which $\nu_K(R_{\rm
ms})$ is equal to $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$. Here we focus on the latter condition. The allowed mass of a rotating star is bounded above if, as $M$ is increased at constant $\nu_{\rm spin}$, the orbital frequency $\nu_K(R_{\rm ms})$ crosses the QPO frequency $\nu_{\rm QPO2}^\ast$ from above, once and only once. As we show below, this is the case for slowly rotating stars. However, this may not be the case for some neutron star equations of state and spin rates. (For a Kerr black hole with fixed spin frequency, $\nu_{\rm K}(R_{\rm ms})$ first decreases and then increases with increasing mass.)
Fortunately, most of the neutron stars that exhibit kilohertz QPOs appear to have spin frequencies in the range 250–350 Hz (see § 4.2), which is low enough that a first-order treatment of rotational effects is adequate. To see this, note that neutron stars with masses have moments of inertia , so stars with spin frequencies have $j$-values (see Table \[table:jValues\]). The lowest-order changes in the structure of a rotating star are ${\cal O}(j^2)$ so, to first order in $j$, the mass-radius relation and moment of inertia of a rotating star are the same as for a nonrotating star of the same mass (Hartle & Thorne 1968). Thus the error made by neglecting higher-order terms is for spin frequencies .
We now compute the mass and radius constraints imposed on a slowly rotating neutron star by observation of a kilohertz orbital frequency. The calculation is simplified by the fact that to first order in $j$, the spacetime outside a uniformly and steadily rotating relativistic star is the same as the Kerr spacetime for the same $M$ and $j$ (Hartle & Thorne 1968).
Consider first the effect of stellar rotation on the motion of gas orbiting the star. To first order in $j$, the orbital frequency (measured at infinity) of gas in a prograde Keplerian orbit at a given Boyer-Lindquist radius $r$ is $$\nu_K(r,M,j) \approx
[1-j(GM/rc^2)^{3/2}]\,\nu^\nonrot_K(r,M)
\label{eq:KeplerFreqFirst}$$ and the radius of the marginally stable orbit is $$R_{\rm ms}(M,j) \approx
[1-j(2/3)^{3/2}]\,R^\nonrot_{\rm ms}(M)\;,
\label{eq:msRadiusFirst}$$ where $\nu^\nonrot_K$ and $R^\nonrot_{\rm ms}$ are the Keplerian frequency and radius of the marginally stable orbit for a nonrotating star. Expressions (\[eq:KeplerFreqFirst\]) and (\[eq:msRadiusFirst\]) are first-order expansions of the exact expressions for these quantities given by Bardeen, Press, & Teukolsky (1972) for the Kerr spacetime. Hence, to first order in $j$, the frequency of the prograde orbit at $R_{\rm ms}$ around a star of given mass $M$ and dimensionless angular momentum $j$ is (cf. Kluźniak, Michelson, & Wagoner 1990) $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{\rm K, ms} &\approx&
\left[
1-j(1/6)^{3/2}
\right]
\left[
1+j(2/3)^{1/2}
\right]\nu^0_{\rm K, ms}
\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
&\approx&
2210\,(1+0.75j)(M_\odot/M)\,\Hz\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu^0_{\rm K, ms}$ is the Keplerian orbital frequency at the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit for a nonrotating star. Therefore, [*the net effect of the star’s rotation is to increase the frequency of the prograde orbit at $R_{\rm ms}$*]{}.
As explained above, the region of the radius-mass plane allowed for a given star is not the region allowed for constant $j$ but is instead the region allowed for constant $\nu_{\rm spin}$. To demonstrate that the mass and radius of the star are bounded from above, it is sufficient to show that $\nu_K(R_{\rm ms})$ decreases with increasing $M$ at fixed $\nu_{\rm spin}$, or equivalently, that $(d\nu_{\rm
K,ms}/dM)_{\nu_{\rm spin}}<0$ for all $M$ for the equation of state under consideration. Now to first order in $j$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Slope}
\left[
\frac{d\nu_{\rm K,ms}(M,j)}{dM}
\right]_{\nu_{\rm spin}}
= \quad \left\{
\left[\frac{\pd\nu_{\rm K,ms}}
{\pd M}(M,0)\right]_{j}
\right.
\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
\left.
\mbox{}
+ \left[\frac{\pd \nu_{\rm K,ms}}
{\pd j}(M,0)\right]_{M}
\left(\frac{dj}{dM}\right)
\right\}_{\nu_{\rm spin}}\\
\nonumber\\
\approx
-\ \frac{\nu^0_{\rm K,ms}(M)}{M}
\left[
1 + 0.75j\left(2 - \frac{d\ln I}{d\ln M}\right)
\right]_{\nu_{\rm spin}} .
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the derivatives on the right side of equation (\[Slope\]) are to be evaluated at $j=0$. In order to show that $(d\nu_{\rm
K,ms}/dM)_{\nu_{\rm spin}}$ is negative for slowly rotating stars, it is sufficient (but not necessary) to show that $({d\ln I}/{d\ln
M})_{\nu_{\rm spin}}$ is always less than 2. This is the case for all the equations of state tabulated by Cook et al. (1994) and is the case even for incompressible matter, which is unphysically stiff. (For a star made of incompressible matter, $I \propto MR^2 \propto
M^{5/3}$, so .) Thus, [*for slowly rotating stars $\nu_K(R_{\rm ms})$ decreases with increasing mass for constant $\nu_{\rm spin}$, so the masses and radii of such stars are bounded above*]{}.
Computation of the mass and radius constraints is straightforward but depends on the stellar spin rate and equation of state. The upper bounds on the mass and radius are given implicitly by $$M_{\rm max} \approx
[1+0.75j(\nu_{\rm spin})]M^\nonrot_{\rm max}
\label{eq:FirstMaxMass}$$ and $$R_{\rm max} \approx
[1+0.20j(\nu_{\rm spin})]R^\nonrot_{\rm
max}\;,
\label{eq:FirstMaxRadius}$$ where $j(\nu_{\rm spin})$ is the value of $j$ for the observed stellar spin rate at the maximum allowed mass for the equation of state being considered and $M^\nonrot_{\rm max}$ and $R^\nonrot_{\rm max}$ are the maximum allowed mass and radius for a nonrotating star (see eqs. \[\[eq:MassBoundZero\]\] and \[\[eq:RadiusBoundZero\]\]). Expressions (\[eq:FirstMaxMass\]) and (\[eq:FirstMaxRadius\]) show that [*the bounds are always greater for a slowly rotating star than for a nonrotating star, regardless of the equation of state assumed*]{}.
Figure \[fig:RotationEffects\] illustrates the effects of stellar rotation on the region of the radius-mass plane allowed for a given star for spin rates $\sim 300~\Hz$, like those inferred for the kilohertz QPO sources, and , the frequency of the highest-frequency QPO so far observed in , which is also the highest-frequency QPO so far observed in any source. Our calculations show that [*the mass of the neutron star in must be less than $\sim 2.2\,\msun$ and its radius must be less than $\sim 17~\km$*]{}. As explained above, the precise upper bounds depend on the equation of state assumed.
For rapidly rotating stars, $j$ is not small compared to unity and the structure of the star depends appreciably on its rotation rate. Derivation of bounds on the mass and radius of a given star for an assumed equation of state therefore requires construction of a sequence of stellar models and spacetimes for different masses using the assumed equation of state, with $\nu_{\rm spin}$ as measured at infinity held fixed. The maximum and minimum possible masses and radii allowed by the observed QPO frequency can then be determined.
Effects of the Radial Radiation Force
-------------------------------------
The luminosities of the Z sources are typically $\sim 0.5 \dash 1\,L_E$, where $L_E$ is the Eddington luminosity (see § 2). Hence, in the Z sources the outward acceleration caused by the radial component of the radiation force can be a substantial fraction of the inward acceleration caused by gravity. Therefore, in these sources the radial component of the radiation force must be included in computing the Keplerian orbital frequency near the neutron star and taken into account when constraints on the mass and radius of the star are derived using the procedures discussed in § 5.1 and § 5.2.
The radially outward component of the radiation force reduces the orbital frequency at a given radius. For example, if the star is spherical and nonrotating and emits radiation uniformly and isotropically from its entire surface, the orbital frequency (measured at infinity) of a test particle at Boyer-Lindquist radius $r$ is $$\nu_{\rm K}(L)=
\nu_{\rm K}(0)
\left[1-{(1-3GM/rc^2)^{1/2}\over{(1-2GM/rc^2)}}
{L\over{L_E}}\right]^{1/2}\;,
\label{eq:RadForceFreq}$$ where $L$ is the luminosity of the star measured at infinity and $\nu_{\rm K}(0)$ is the Keplerian frequency in the absence of radiation forces. Thus, the Boyer-Lindquist radius of a circular orbit with a given frequency is smaller in the presence of the radial radiation force and the constraints on the mass and radius of the star are therefore tightened.
For the atoll sources, which have luminosities $L \lta 0.1\,L_E$, the change in the Keplerian frequency is at most $\sim\,$5%. For the Z sources, on the other hand, which have luminosities , the change may be much larger, although the change in the sonic-point Keplerian frequency may be smaller than would be suggested by a naive application of equation (\[eq:RadForceFreq\]), if a substantial fraction of the radiation produced near the star is scattered out of the disk plane before it reaches the sonic point. A more detailed analysis of the effect of the radial radiation force on the constraints on the mass and radius of the star will be reported elsewhere.
Signatures of the Innermost StableCircular Orbit
------------------------------------------------
As explained in § 4.2, observations of kilohertz QPO sources may be able to demonstrate the existence of an innermost stable circular orbit around some of the neutron stars in these sources. If so, this would be the first confirmation of a strong-field prediction of general relativity and an important step forward in our understanding of strong-field gravity.
If the frequency of a kilohertz QPO produced by an LMXB can be securely established as the orbital frequency at the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit and the spin frequency of the star can be determined, the mass of the neutron star in that source can be determined for each assumed equation of state. Depending on the range of allowed equations of state and masses, this could have profound consequences for our understanding of the equation of state of neutron stars.[^5] For example, establishing a mass of $2.0\,\msun$ for a slowly rotating neutron star would rule out eight of the twelve currently viable equations of state considered by Cook et al. (1994).
Given the profound consequences that would follow from identifying the frequency of a kilohertz QPO with the orbital frequency of the innermost stable orbit in any source, it is very important to establish what would constitute strong, rather than merely suggestive, evidence of such a detection. Observations that would signal detection of the innermost stable orbit include the following:
[*QPO frequency signature*]{}.—The strongest evidence that a QPO with the orbital frequency of the innermost stable orbit has been detected would be reproducible observation of a fairly coherent, kilohertz QPO with a frequency that first increases steeply with accretion rate but then, at a high frequency, becomes nearly constant as the accretion rate continues to increase (see § 3.3, § 4.2, and Fig. 9).
The QPO frequency will approach a constant because the sonic point in the flow cannot retreat closer to the star than the radius of the marginally stable orbit and coherent QPOs are not expected from the rapidly inspiraling gas inside the sonic point. Although the count rate above which the frequency becomes constant may vary, the constant frequency itself should not vary, because the orbital frequency of the marginally stable orbit depends only on the mass and rotation rate of the neutron star, which remain almost constant over many years.
In the sonic-point model, the frequency of the lower-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair is the beat frequency and therefore should also increase steeply with accretion rate at first but then become approximately constant at the same accretion rate at which the frequency of the higher-frequency QPO becomes constant.
[*QPO amplitude signature*]{}.—A second signature that the marginally stable orbit has been detected would be reproducible observation of a decrease in the amplitude of the lower-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair or a simultaneous decrease in the amplitudes of both QPOs in a pair, at a QPO frequency that is always the same in a given source.
The amplitude of the QPO at the beat frequency is expected to decrease once the sonic point has moved inward to the marginally stable orbit because in the sonic-point model, the QPO at the beat frequency is generated by the drag force exerted by the radiation coming from the stellar surface that reaches the sonic point. Therefore, a strong QPO is expected at the sonic-point beat frequency only if the drag force exerted by the radiation is dynamically important at the sonic point. If, however, the sonic point has moved inward to the innermost stable orbit and remains there as the accretion rate continues to increase, the optical depth from the stellar surface to the sonic point will continue to rise and radiation drag will become less and less important there, causing modulation of the inflow from the sonic point by the radiation force to weaken. Thus, a decrease in the amplitude of the QPO at the sonic-point beat frequency with increasing accretion rate would signal the approach of the sonic-point to the radius of the innermost stable orbit (see § 3.1).
If radiation forces play an important role in creating or amplifying the clumps that produce the QPOs (see § 3.1), the amplitude of the Keplerian-frequency QPO may also decrease with increasing accretion rate, once the radius of the sonic point has reached the radius of the innermost stable orbit (see § 3.2).
[*Possible QPO coherence signature*]{}.—A possible signature that the orbit of the gas that is generating the QPO has receded inside the radius of the marginally stable orbit would be a steep drop in the coherence of both QPOs in a kilohertz QPO pair (or in the coherence of the Keplerian-frequency QPO, if the beat-frequency QPO is not visible), at a certain critical frequency, as the frequencies of the QPOs increase steadily with accretion rate. This would occur if radiation forces are able to generate clumping in the flow at a radius inside the sonic point. If this occurs at all, clumps are likely to be produced at a range of radii and to last only a short time, so any oscillations that may be generated are likely to have low coherence (see § 3.4). The critical frequency would be the orbital frequency at the marginally stable orbit and hence should always be the same in a given source.
Approach of the sonic radius to the radius of the innermost stable orbit can be distinguished from approach of the sonic radius to the radius of the star because coherent Keplerian- and beat-frequency QPOs may continue in the fist case but are very unlikely in the second. Kilohertz QPOs are unlikely to be generated if the sonic point moves close to the stellar surface because of the disruptive effect of the stellar magnetic field and the the viscous shear layer that is expected to develop if the Keplerian flow interacts directly with the stellar surface (see § 4.2).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
======================
The sonic-point model explains naturally the most important features of the kilohertz QPOs observed in the atoll and Z sources, including their frequencies, large amplitudes, and high coherence. It also explains the frequent occurrence of two simultaneous QPOs, the observed steep increase of kilohertz QPO amplitudes with increasing photon energy in the $\sim\,$5–10 keV energy range, and the anticorrelation of kilohertz QPO amplitudes with the strength of the stellar magnetic field inferred from spectral models. An attractive feature of the sonic-point model is that the magnetic fields, accretion rates, and scattering optical depths that it requires are completely consistent with those inferred previously from observations and modeling of the X-ray spectra and lower-frequency X-ray variability of the kilohertz QPO sources.
The sonic-point model leads to several general expectations about the kilohertz QPOs:
(1) [*Kilohertz QPOs with the properties seen in the atoll and Z sources should not be observed in black-hole LMXBs*]{}, because collision of the accretion flow with the stellar surface plays an essential role in the sonic-point model.
(2) [*The rms amplitudes of the kilohertz QPOs should be anticorrelated with the strength of the neutron star’s magnetic field*]{}. From this it follows that kilohertz QPOs should be very weak or undetectable with current instruments in the GX group of atoll sources and in the Cyg-like Z sources (which include 2, , and ), and undetectable with current instruments in any sources that have strong magnetic fields and therefore produce strong, periodic oscillations at their spin frequencies. (After this specific prediction was made in the original version of this paper, kilohertz QPOs with very low amplitudes were detected in all six of the originally identified Z sources; see § 4.4.) Another consequence of expectation (2) is that the positive correlation of rms amplitude with hard color shown by the four sources plotted in Figure \[fig:AmpVsHardColor\] should be found to be general among sources showing kilohertz QPOs.
(3) [*If kilohertz QPOs are detected in the tails of X-ray bursts, their frequencies will tend to be lower when the accretion rate is higher.*]{}
(4) [*Weak oscillations should eventually be detected at overtones of the sonic-point beat and Keplerian frequencies and perhaps at the stellar spin frequency, but oscillations at other frequencies, such as $\nu_{\rm Ks}+\nu_{\rm
spin}$, should be extremely weak.*]{}
At a lower level of certainty, the sonic-point model suggests that (1) the dependence of QPO amplitude on photon energy will change as the X-ray spectrum of the source changes, (2) the amplitude of the higher-frequency QPO in a kilohertz QPO pair will drop relative to the amplitude of the lower-frequency QPO at high luminosities, and (3) either the lower-frequency QPO or the higher-frequency QPO in a pair may be undetectable even when the other QPO is detectable.
In closing, we emphasize that measurement of Keplerian frequencies in the kilohertz range provides interesting new upper bounds on the masses and radii of the neutron stars in the kilohertz QPO sources and important new constraints on the equation of state of the matter in all neutron stars, as we have shown in § 5. As we demonstrated there, if the neutron star in the atoll source has a spin frequency of $\sim 290$ Hz, as indicated by the difference between the spin frequencies of its two high-frequency QPOs, the 1220 Hz QPO observed in this source constrains its mass to be less than about $2.2\,\msun$ and its radius to be less than about 17 km; the precise bounds depend on the equation of state assumed.
If at some future time we are able to demonstrate the existence of an innermost stable circular orbit around one or more neutron stars using observations of kilohertz QPOs, this would be the first confirmation of a prediction of general relativity in the strong-field regime and a major advance in our understanding of strong-field gravity. If the frequency of a kilohertz QPO is securely established as the orbital frequency at the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit in a particular system by, for example, observing the signatures discussed in § 5, and if, in addition, the spin frequency of the neutron star can be determined, then the frequency of the QPO will fix the mass of the neutron star for each assumed equation of state, providing a better understanding of the properties of dense matter and possibly ruling out many currently viable equations of state.
It is a pleasure to thank Phil Kaaret, Vicky Kalogera, Ed Morgan, Michiel van der Klis, Tod Strohmayer, Tom Baumgarte, Stu Shapiro, and Tomek Bulik for useful discussions. We especially thank Rudy Wijnands for providing the PCA response matrix and the X-ray spectral data used to compute the X-ray colors plotted in Figures 11 and 12, Greg Cook for providing the mass-radius relations for the equations of state plotted in Figure \[fig:EOSconstraints\], and Ron Taam for discussions about black hole disk solutions.
This work was supported in part by NSF grants AST 93-15133 and AST 96-18524, NASA grant NAG 5-2925, and NASA RXTE grants at the University of Illinois, NASA grant NAG 5-2868 at the University of Chicago, and through the Fellowship Program, by NASA grant NAS 5-2687.
Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V.R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. C. submitted (nucl-th/9804027)
Alpar, A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nature, 316, 239
Angelini, L., Stella, L., & Parmar, A. N. 1989, ApJ, 346, 906
Arnett, W.D., & Bowers, R.L. 1977, ApJ Suppl., 33, 415
Balbus, S.A., & Hawley, J.F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214
———. 1992, ApJ, 400, 610
———. 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys., in press
Bardeen, J.M., Press, W.H., & Teukolsky, S.A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347
Berger, M., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Vaughan, B., Kuulkers, E., Augusteijn, T., Zhang, W., Marshall, F.E., Swank, J.H., Lapidus, I., Lochner, J.C., & Strohmayer, T.E. 1996, ApJ, 469, L13
Bradt, H., Shirey, R., & Levine, A. 1998, in The Active X-Ray Sky: Results from BeppoSAX and Rossi-XTE, Nuclear Phys. B Proceedings Supplements, ed. L. Scarsi, H. Bradt, P. Giommi, & F. Fiore, in press (Amsterdam: North Holland)
Brainerd, J., & Lamb, F.K. 1987, ApJ, 317, L33
Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, Å., Stein, R.F., & Torkelsson, U. 1995, ApJ 446, 741
———. 1996, ApJ, 458, L45
Bussard, R.W., Weisskopf, M.C., Elsner, R.F., & Shibazaki, N. 1988, ApJ, 327, 284
Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823
Daumerie, P., Kalogera, V., Lamb, F.K., & Psaltis, D. 1996, Nature, 382, 141
Dieters, S., & van der Klis, M. 1997, MNRAS, in press
Finger, M. H., Wilson, R. B., & Harmon, B. A. 1996, ApJ, 459, 288
Ford, E., Kaaret, P., Tavani, M., Harmon, B.A., Zhang, S.N., Barret, D., Bloser, P., & Grindlay, J. 1996, IAU Circ. 6426
Ford, E., Kaaret, P., Chen, K., Tavani, M., Barret, D., Bloser, P., Grindlay, J., Harmon, B. A., Paciesas, W. S., & Zhang, S. N. 1997b, ApJ, 486, L47
Ford, E., Kaaret, P., Tavani, M., Barret, D., Bloser, P., Grindlay, J., Harmon, B. A., Paciesas, W. S., & Zhang, S. N. 1997a, ApJ, 475, L123
Fortner, B.I. 1992, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Fortner, B.I., Lamb, F.K., & Miller, G.S. 1989, Nature 342, 775
Friedman, B., & Pandharipande, V.R. 1981, Nucl. Phys. A, 361, 501
Ghosh, P. 1996, ApJ, 459, 244
Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F.K. 1979a, ApJ, 232, 259
———. 1979b, ApJ, 234, 296
———. 1991, in Neutron Stars: Theory and Observation, ed. J. Ventura and D. Pines, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 363
———. 1992, in X-Ray Binaries and Recycled Pulsars, ed. E.P.J. van den Heuvel and S.A. Rappaport, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 487
Hartle, J. B., & Thorne, K. S. 1968, ApJ, 153, 807
Hasinger, G., & van der Klis, M. 1989, A&A 225, 79
Hawley, J.F., Gammie, C.F., & Balbus, S.A. 1995, ApJ, 440, 742
———. 1996, ApJ, 464, 690
Kaaret, P., Ford, E.C., & Chen, K. 1997, ApJ, 480, L27
Jonker, P.G., Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., Psaltis, D., Kuulkers, E., & Lamb, F.K. 1998, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/9804070)
Kluźniak, W., Michelson, P., & Wagoner, R.V. 1990, ApJ, 358, 538
Kuulkers, E. 1995, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam
Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., Oosterbroek, T., Asai, K., Dotani, T., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W.H.G. 1995, A&A, 289, 795
Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., & Vaughan, B.A. 1996, A&A, 311, 197
Kylafis, N., & Phinney, E.S. 1989, in Timing Neutron Stars, ed. H. Ögelman and E.P.J. van den Heuvel (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 731
Lamb, F.K. 1984, in High Energy Transients in Astrophysics, ed. S.E. Woosley (AIP Conf. Proc. No. 115), 179
———. 1988, Adv. Space Res., 8, 421
———. 1989, in Proc. 23rd ESLAB Symp. on X-ray Astronomy, ed. N.E. White (ESA SP-296), 215
———. 1991, in Neutron Stars: Theory and Observation, ed. J. Ventura and D. Pines, (Dordrecht:Kluwer), 445
Lamb, F.K., & Daumerie, P.R. 1996, in Physics of Accretion Disks: Advection, Radiation, & Magnetic Fields, ed. S. Kato, S. Inagaki, S. Mineshige, & J.Fukue (Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach), 179
Lamb, F.K., & Miller, M.C. 1995, ApJ, 439, 828
Lamb, F.K., Shibazaki, N., Alpar, A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nature, 317, 681
Lorenz, C.P., Ravenhall, D.G., & Pethick, C.J. 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 379
Méndez, M., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Vaughan, B., & Kuulkers, E. 1997, ApJ, 485, L37
Méndez, M., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Vaughan, B.A, Kuulkers, E., Zhang, W., Lamb, F.K., & Psaltis, D. 1998, ApJ, 494, L65
Middleditch, J., & Priedhorsky, W. 1986, ApJ, 306, 230
Miller, G.S., & Lamb, F.K. 1992, ApJ, 388, 541
Miller, M.C., & Lamb, F.K. 1993, ApJ, 413, L43
———. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1033
Miller, M.C., Lamb, F.K., & Psaltis, D. 1998, in preparation
Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., & Wheeler, J.A. 1973, Gravitation (New York: Freeman)
Morgan, E.H., & Smith, D.A. 1996, IAU Circ. 6437
Muchotrzeb, B. 1983, Acta. Astron., 33, 79
Muchotrzeb-Czerny, B. 1986, Acta. Astron., 36, 1
Novikov, I.D., & Thorne, K.S. 1973, in Black Holes, ed. C. DeWitt & B. DeWitt (New York: Gordon & Breach), 343
Oosterbroek, T., van der Klis, M., Kuulkers, E., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W.H.G. 1995, A&A, 297, 141
Paczynski, B. 1987, Nature, 327, 303
Pandharipande, V.R., Akmal, A., & Ravenhall, D.G. 1998, in Nuclear Astrophysics, Proc. International Workshop XXVI on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations, ed. M. Buballa, N. Nörenberg, J. Wambach, & A. Wirzba (Darmstadt: GSI), 11
Pandharipande, V.R. 1971, Nucl. Phys., A174, 641
Pandharipande, V.R., & Smith, R.A. 1975a, Nucl. Phys., A237, 507
———. 1975b, Phys. Letters, 59B, 15
Pethick, C.J., & Ravenhall, D.G. 1995, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Par. Sci., 45, 429
Psaltis, D., & Lamb, F.K. 1998a, in Proc. 1997 Joint European National Astronomy Meeting, Astron. & Astrophys. Transactions, in press
———. 1998b, in Neutron Stars and Pulsars, ed. N. Shibazaki, N. Kawai, S. Shibata, & T. Kifune (Tokyo: Universal Academy Press), 179
———. 1998c, in preparation
Psaltis, D., Lamb, F.K., & Miller, G.S. 1995, ApJ, 454, L137
Psaltis, D., Wijnands, R., Homan, J., Jonker, P.G., van der Klis, M., Miller, M.C., Lamb, F.K., Kuulkers, E., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W.H.G. 1998, ApJ, 501, L95
Rybicki, G.B., & Lightman, A.P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York: Wiley)
Scharlemann, E.T. 1978, ApJ, 219, 617
Shibazaki, N. 1989, in Proc. 23rd ESLAB Symp. on Two Topics in X-Ray Astronomy, ed. N. E. White (Noordwijk: ESA), 237
Shibazaki, N., & Lamb, F.K. 1987, , 318, 767
Shinoda, K., Kii, T., Mitsuda, K., Nagase, F., Tanaka, Y., Makishima, K., & Shibazaki, N. 1990, PASJ, 42, L27
Shirey, R.E., Bradt, H.V., Levine, A.M., & Morgan, E.H. 1996, ApJ Lett., 469, L21
Smale, A.P., Zhang, W., & White, N.E. 1996, IAU Circ. 6507
———. 1997, ApJ, 483, L119
Smith, D.A., Morgan, E.,H., & Bradt, H. 1997, ApJ, 479, L137
Spruit, H.C., & Taam, R.E. 1990, A&A, 229, 475
Strohmayer, T. 1997, talk presented at the 1997 meeting of the High Energy Astrophysics Division of the American Astronomical Society in Estes Park, Colorado
Strohmayer, T., Lee, U., Jahoda, K. 1996d, IAU Circ. 6484
Strohmayer, T., Zhang, W., Smale, A., Day, C., Swank, J.H., Titarchuk, L., & Lee, U. 1996b, IAU Circ. 6387
Strohmayer, T., Zhang, W., & Swank, J.H. 1996a, IAU Circ. 6320
Strohmayer, T., Zhang, W., & Swank, J.H. 1997b, , 487, L77
Strohmayer, T., Zhang, W., Swank, J.H., Smale, A., Titarchuk, L., & Day, C. 1996c, ApJ, 469, L9
Strohmayer, T., Jahoda, K., Giles, A.B., & Lee, U. 1997a, 486, 355
van der Klis, M. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 517
———. 1995, in X-Ray Binaries, ed. W.H.G. Lewin, J. van Paradijs, & E.P.J. van den Heuvel (Cambridge U.P.), 252
van der Klis, M., Jansen, F., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., van den Heuvel, E.P.J., Trümper, J., & Sztajno, M. 1985, Nature, 316, 225
van der Klis, M., Swank, J., Zhang, W., Jahoda, K., Morgan, E., Lewin, W.H.G., Vaughan, B., & van Paradijs, J. 1996a, IAU Circ. 6319
———. 1996d, ApJ, 469, L1
van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Vaughan, B., Kuulkers, E., & Augusteijn, T. 1996c, IAU Circ. 6428
van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., Chen, W., Lamb, F.K., Psaltis, D., Kuulkers, E., Lewin, W.H.G., Vaughan, B., van Paradijs, J., & Dieters, S. 1996b, IAU Circ. 6424
van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., Horne, K., & Chen, W. 1997b, ApJ, 481, L97
van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., Kuulkers, E., Lamb, F. K., Psaltis, D., Dieters, S., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W., & Vaughan, B. 1996e, IAU Circ. 6511
van der Klis, M. et al.1997a, IAU Circ. 6565
Vaughan, B.A. et al. 1994, ApJ, 435, 362
Wijers, R.A.M.J., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W.H.G. 1987, MNRAS, 228, P17
Wijnands, R., Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Kuulkers, E., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Psaltis, D., & Vaughan, B. 1998, ApJ, 493, L87
Wijnands, R., Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Méndez, M., Kuulkers, E., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Psaltis, D., & Vaughan, B. 1997c, ApJ, 490, L157
Wijnands, R.A.D., & van der Klis, M. 1997, ApJ, 482, L65
Wijnands, R.A.D., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Vaughan, B., Kuulkers, E., & Augusteijn, T. 1996, IAU Circ. 6447
Wijnands, R. A. D., van der Klis, M., Kuulkers, E., Asai, K., & Hasinger, G. 1997a, A&A, 323, 399
Wijnands, R.A.D., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W.H.G., Lamb, F.K., Vaughan, B., & Kuulkers, E. 1997b, ApJ, 479, L141
Wiringa, R. B., Fiks, V., & Fabrocini, A. 1988, Phys. Rev., C38, 1010
Yu, W., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, L153
Zhang, W., Lapidus, I., White, N.E., & Titarchuk, L. 1996, ApJ, 469, L17
Zhang, W., Lapidus, I., Swank, J. H., White, N. E., & Titarchuk, L.1997, IAU Circ. 6541
Zhang, W., Strohmayer, T., & Swank, J.H. 1997, ApJ, 482, L167
———. 1998, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/9804225)
Zhang, W., Jahoda, K., Kelley, R.L., Strohmayer, T.E., Swank, J.H., & Zhang, S.N. 1998, ApJ, 495, L9
[lcccl]{}
4U 0614$+$091&atoll&400600&$6\dash 15$&Ford et al. 1996, 1997a, 1997b\
&&5001145&&van der Klis et al. 1996c\
&&327&&Méndez et al. 1997\
&&630, 727&16.5, 15.8&\
4U 1608$-$52&atoll&650890&514&Berger et al. 1996\
&&9401125&&Méndez et al. 1998\
&&570800&&Yu et al. 1997\
4U 1636$-$536&atoll&840920&6.0& Zhang et al. 1996, 1997a\
&&11501220&6.6, 6.1&van der Klis et al. 1996c\
&&580$^*$&&Wijnands et al. 1997b\
4U 1728$-$34&atoll&637716&5.26.9&Strohmayer et al. 1996a, 1996b,\
&&5001100&5.58.1&1996c, 1997a\
&&363$^*$& 1.55\
KS 1731$-$260&atoll&524$^*$&12&Morgan & Smith 1996\
&&900, 11701207&45&Smith et al. 1997\
&&&&Wijnands & van der Klis 1997\
4U 1735$-$444&atoll&1149&3.1&Wijnands et al. 1996\
4U 1820$-$30&atoll&546796&3.25.0&Smale et al. 1996, 1997\
&&1066&&\
Aql X$-$1&atoll&750830&&Zhang et al. 1998a\
&&549$^*$&&\
Cyg X-2&Z&730 1020& 35& Wijnands et al. 1998\
&&490530&&\
GX 5$-$1&Z&567895&2.06.7&van der Klis et al. 1996e\
&&325448&&\
GX 17$+$2&Z&470780&35&van der Klis et al. 1997a\
&&6451087&&Wijnands et al. 1997c\
GX 340$+$02&Z&247 625&2.5&Jonker et al. 1998\
&&625 820&2-5&\
GX 349$+$2&Z&712&1.2&Zhang, Strohmayer, & Swank 1998b\
&&978&1.3&\
Sco X-1&Z&570830&0.91.2&van der Klis et al. 1996a,1996b\
&&8701130&0.60.9&1996d, 1997b\
Unknown&unknown&589$^*$&24&Strohmayer et al. 1996d\
$^{\rm a}$Complete as of 1998 May 31. $^*$Burst oscillation.
[ccc]{}
\
$R<R_{\rm ms}$&Sonic point at $R_{\rm aml}$ (Case 1a)&Sonic point at $R_{\rm ms}$ (Case 1b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
\
$R>R_{\rm ms}$&Sonic point at $R_{\rm aml}$ (Case 2a)&No sonic point in Keplerian\
&& disk flow (Case 2b)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[lccc]{}
$\nu_{\rm Bs}$&$B_1$&—&—\
$\nu_{\rm Ks}$&$K_1$&—&—\
$2\nu_{\rm Bs}$&—&$B_2$&—\
$2\nu_{\rm Ks}$&—&$K_2$&—\
$\nu_{\rm spin}$&—&${1\over 2}K_1B_1$&—\
$2\nu_{\rm Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$&—&${1\over 2}K_1B_1$&—\
$\nu_{\rm Ks}-2\nu_{\rm spin}$&—&—&${1\over 2}K_1B_2$\
$\nu_{\rm Ks}+\nu_{\rm spin}$&—&—&${1\over 2}K_2B_1$\
$3\nu_{\rm Ks}-2\nu_{\rm spin}$&—&—&${1\over 2}K_1B_2$\
$3\nu_{\rm Ks}-\nu_{\rm spin}$&—&—&${1\over 2}K_2B_1$\
[lccl]{}
4U 0614$+$091&$\sim$330&—&Ford et al. 1997a, 1997b\
4U 1608$-$52&230290&—&Méndez et al. 1998\
4U 1636$-$536&$\sim$290&$\sim$580&Zhang et al. 1996, 1997\
4U 1728$-$34&$\sim$360&$\sim$363&Strohmayer et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1996c\
KS 1731$-$260&$\sim$260&$\sim$520&Smith et al. 1997, Wijnands & van der Klis 1997\
4U 1735$-$444&—&—&—\
4U 1820$-$30&$\sim$275&—&Smale et al. 1997\
Aql X$-$1&—&$\sim$550&Zhang et al. 1998a\
Cyg X-2&$\sim$345&—&Wijnands et al. 1998\
GX 5$-$1&$\sim$325&—&van der Klis et al. 1996e\
GX 17$+$2&$\sim$295&—&Wijnands et al. 1997c\
GX 340$+$0&$\sim$325&—&Jonker et al. 1998\
GX 349$+$2&$\sim$266&—&Zhang et al. 1998\
Sco X-1&$\sim$250300&—&van der Klis et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1996d, 1997b\
Unknown&—&$\sim$590&Strohmayer et al. 1997a\
$^{\rm a}$Complete as of 1998 May 31. Here $\Delta\nu$ is the difference between the frequencies of the kilohertz QPOs seen simultaneously in the persistent X-ray emission of the source and $\nu_{\rm burst}$ is the frequency of the brightness oscillation seen during type I (thermonuclear) X-ray bursts from the source.
[ccc]{}
A&1.40&0.13\
&1.66&0.10\
FPS&1.40&0.16\
&1.80&0.11\
L&1.40&0.28\
&2.70&0.17\
M&1.40&0.31\
&1.80&0.13\
[^1]: The spacetime outside a steadily rotating star has both timelike and spacelike Killing vector fields ${\xi}_{(t)}$ and ${\xi}_{(\phi)}$, which reflect the stationarity and axial symmetry of the spacetime (see, e.g., Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973, pp. 892–895). In any coordinate system in which the time and azimuthal coordinates are based on ${\xi}_{(t)}$ and ${\xi}_{(\phi)}$, such as the Boyer-Lindquist coordinate system, the time interval required for one rotation of an element of the star or one orbit of an element of gas orbiting the star is the same everywhere, when measured in the global time coordinate. Stated more concretely, if an element of gas emits a pulse of X-rays each time its azimuthal coordinate $\phi$ increases by $2\pi$, the time interval $\Delta t$ between the arrival of successive pulses will be the same everywhere, when measured in the global time coordinate $t$.
[^2]: At first glance, one might think that if the inward radial drift time from a given radius $r$ in the inner disk to the stellar surface is large, azimuthal shearing of a clump formed at $r$ would by itself reduce the amplitude of the brightness variation produced by gas from the clump, but this is not so. The reason is that to first order, the azimuthal velocity shear in a Keplerian flow conserves the volume of the clump, because the velocity field is divergence-free to this order. Hence, the density of the gas in a clump relative to the density of the background gas is affected only weakly by the differential rotation. In fact, if the flow were incompressible as well as laminar, the angular width of the brighter impact arc on the stellar surface would also be unaffected, even if the [*total*]{} angular extent of the clump at all radii becomes large, because the angular extent of that part of the clump that is crossing the sonic radius at any given time is unchanged by azimuthal shear.
[^3]: To clarify further the difference between luminosity and beaming oscillations, consider an observer whose line of sight to the neutron star is along the rotation axes of the disk and the star. X-rays from beams rotating with the gas in the disk or with the star will appear time-independent to such an observer and therefore will not generate any X-ray flux or color oscillations. However, the luminosity oscillation at the beat frequency caused by the oscillation of the mass flux at this frequency will be visible. Such an observer will therefore see an oscillation at the beat frequency and its overtones, but not at any other frequency.
[^4]: After this specific prediction was made in the originally submitted and circulated version of the present paper, kilohertz QPOs with very low amplitudes were detected in all six of the originally identified Z sources; see Table \[table:ReportedQPOs\]. To date, kilohertz QPOs have not been detected in any of the GX atoll sources.
[^5]: Following submission and circulation of the original version of the present paper, Kaaret, Ford, & Chen (1997) and Zhang, Strohmayer, & Swank (1997) considered the implications if the frequencies of some of the kilohertz QPOs that have already been observed are the orbital frequencies of innermost stable circular orbits.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'S.J. Jiménez-Reyes'
- 'T. Corbard[^1]'
- 'P.L. Pallé'
- 'T. Roca Cortés'
- 'S. Tomczyk'
date: 'Received March 30, 2001; accepted October 3, 2001'
subtitle: 'I. The solar cycle'
title: |
Analysis of the solar cycle and core rotation\
using 15 years of Mark-I observations:1984-1999.
---
Introduction
============
Understanding the observed solar variability is one of the major goals of solar physics. Because the frequency shifts of solar $p$-modes are known to be very sensitive to the solar activity cycle, the analysis of helioseismic data has been used to track those physical processes which underly the origin of the cyclic changes observed at the solar surface. Helioseismology based on low-degree $p$-modes is necessary to look for potential structure or dynamic changes in the deep interior.
The first report of frequency shifts of the low-degree $p$-modes was given by @woodard85. Using ACRIM data, they found that the few observed $\ell$=0 and $1$ modes presented a change in the central frequency of 0.42$\pm$0.14 $\mu$Hz in average during the declining phase of cycle 21 (1980-1984). These results were confirmed by @fossat87 by comparison with observations made at the south pole, and by @palleetal89 using a long set of data from the Mark-I instrument at Observatorio del Teide covering the full cycle 21 (1977-1988).
Subsequently, @regulo94 used Doppler observations collected from the maximum of cycle 21 to the falling phase of cycle 22 (1980-1993), obtained with Mark-I instrument, to calculate monthly frequency shifts. They showed that, for all low degree acoustic modes, there is an important frequency shift of 0.52$\pm$0.02 $\mu$Hz correlated with solar activity. In addition, the amplitude of these variations is different when $\ell$=1,3 and $\ell$=0,2 are considered separately. The odd modes present, on average, a change of 0.58$\pm$0.06 $\mu$Hz; the even ones show a full shift of only 0.33$\pm$0.06 $\mu$Hz.
Two other important properties of the low-degree changes have also been pointed out recently. @gubau92 observed the frequency dependence of the frequency shifts for the low-degree $p$-modes, [later confirmed by @chaplin98a] in agreement with the earlier results of @woodard91 for intermediate degrees. @jimenez-reyes98 found that the frequency shifts, when plotted against an activity index, show a hysteresis behavior rather than a simple linear correlation. This result was interpreted as part of structural changes associated with the solar activity which are taking place in the Sun. This must be confirmed by more observations but the interpretation of these later results as being partly due to structural changes in the interior associated with the solar activity has been found to be a complex problem. Recently, @fmi00 have studied in detail the signature left on the low-degree $p$-mode frequencies by the surface solar magnetic activity. Whether these changes are taking place only close to the surface or not is not completely clear and one of the requirements to address this question is to get precise and reliable measures of the low degree mode parameters for a long period of time.
The spectrophotomer Mark-I, has been collecting solar observations for almost two complete solar cycles. The available database for low-degree $p$-modes, probably the longest in duration and the most stable, is used in the present work to analyze the signature of the solar cycle in the mode parameters and to parameterize the observed frequency shifts as a function of various classical solar indices.
In the following section, the essential steps of the data reduction leading to the yearly spectra are presented. In general, the frequency shift between a time $t_i$ and a time $t_o$ taken as reference, can be written as a function of the frequency and the degree, i.e. $\delta\nu(t-t_o,\nu,\ell)$. In the following the reference time is $1986$ which corresponds to a minimum of solar activity. In Sect. \[sec:int\_dnu\], the integrated frequency shift ${\Delta\nu}^i\equiv<\delta\nu(t_i-t_o,\nu,\ell)>$ is analyzed where the brackett indicates an average for all observed low degrees and frequencies between 2.5 and 3.7 mHz. Two techniques are proposed to measure the frequency shift from the cross-correlation function between power spectra of time-series created at different solar activity level. In addition to the frequency shift, the second technique allows us to study the time variation of the total velocity power (TVP) which are presented in Sect. \[sec:tvp\]. Then, in Sect. \[sec:nu-dep\], we focus on the study of the frequency dependence of the frequency shifts. Again, two different techniques are used. The first one consist in simply cutting the spectra in band of 135 $~\mu$Hz before computing the cross-correlation functions. The second one is a new procedure developed here and called simultaneous fitting: all the yearly spectrum are fitted at the same time assuming that the time dependence of the mode frequencies can be described as a linear function of the radio flux at 10.7 cm $F_{10}^i$, taken as solar activity index i.e.: $$\label{eq:def1}
\delta\nu(t_i-t_o,\nu,\ell)=\delta\nu(\nu,\ell)(F_{10}^i-F_{10}^o),$$ where $F_{10}^o$ represents the radio flux at the 1986 solar minimum. In addition, we define $\delta\nu(\nu)$ as the frequency shift per radio flux unit averaged over $\ell$. We note that if we had used shorter time-series and a magnetic index instead of the radio flux to parameterize the time dependence of the frequency shift, a more complicated formulation would probably have been needed in order to take into account the hysteresis behaviour found when magnetic indices are plotted versus the frequency shift during the cycle [@jimenez-reyes98].
In order to check the $\ell$-dependence of the frequency shift, we use the fact that pairs of low-degree $p$-modes with the same parity have “almost” the same frequency and, that they are equally spaced in frequency. This allows us to provide in Sects. \[sec:int\_dnu\], \[sec:tvp\], \[sec:nu-dep\] not only the $\ell$-averaged quantities defined above ($\Delta\nu$, TVP, $\delta\nu(\nu)$) but also the quantities related to even and odd modes separately i.e. respectively: $\Delta\nu_{0,2}$, TVP$_{0,2}$, $\delta\nu(\nu)_{0,2}$ and $\Delta\nu_{1,3}$, TVP$_{1,3}$, $\delta\nu(\nu)_{1,3}$. Finally, in Sect. \[sec:l-dep\] the $\ell$-dependence analysis of the frequency shift is completed by comparing the results with those obtained at higher degrees ($\ell=1,99$) using the LOWL database.
Observations and data analysis {#sec:obs}
==============================
The data used in this work come from the observations carried out at the Observatorio del Teide between 1984 and 1999. The observations consist of daily measurements of the solar radial velocity obtained with the Mark-I resonant scattering spectrophotometer. This instrument has been sited at the Observatorio del Teide since 1975. After some hardware updates in 1984, the experiment has been running without interruption other than bad weather and instrumental failures. The data reduction process is explained in more detail elsewhere [@vdraay85; @palle86; @palle93]. Briefly, the data are corrected from the annual scan (Earth’s orbit around the Sun) of the non-linear solar line shape, and calibrated by fitting the known daily velocity of the observatory; only two parameters are fitted, taken to be the same over the all 15 years analyzed here. Then, the daily residuals are joined in consecutive 360 days leading to a total of 30 time-series with 6 months in common between consecutive series. Although all series are not independent, they show very similar duty cycles (around $25\%$). Finally, the corresponding power spectra were calculated for every time-series using a traditional Fourier analysis. All the spectra show the peaks of the low-degree $p$-modes with $\ell\leq3$. The typical sideband structure appears in the spectra at $k_D$=11.57 $\mu$Hz as a direct consequence of the observing window achieved from just one station.
Frequency integrated frequency shifts {#sec:int_dnu}
=====================================
Once the power spectrum of each time-series has been calculated, the integrated frequency shifts $\Delta\nu^i$ are determined. This is done by computing the cross-correlation $\rho^i(\nu_{j})$ of each power spectrum $i$ with the power spectrum of the time-series covering 1986 taken as reference. As we show in Sect. 5, the dependence of the frequency shift for low and intermediate-degree $p$-modes appears to be essentially null below 2 mHz, whereas at high frequency (above 3.7 mHz) the frequency shift is expected to drop quickly. The analysis of the integrated changes is limited to the modes between 2.5 and 3.7 mHz. considering a larger interval could bias the results by including the strong high frequency variations that are less accurately determined and have possibly different physical explanation [@goldreich91].
In order to calculate the position of the cross-correlation main peak, two different methods have been used. The first was used in previous analyses [@regulo94; @jimenez-reyes98] and takes the maximum of a second-order polynomial fitted to the logarithm of the cross-correlation function in an interval $\pm\sigma$ around the main peak (where $\sigma$ is the second-order moment). This cross-correlation is calculated starting at an appropriate lag for which the function is symmetric, and which is obtained by calculating the third-order moment. This procedure directly provides a value of the mean frequency shift between the $\ell\leq3$ $p$-modes and the corresponding values at solar activity minimum, the chosen reference.
The second method, introduced here, is based on the shape of the cross-correlation function. Assuming that each oscillation mode can be modeled by a damped harmonic oscillator, each peak in the spectra has a Lorentzian profile and the correlation function has also a Lorentzian profile. In order to improve the determination of the frequency shift, the model also take into account the presence of sidebands with amplitude $\beta_{|1|}$ located at $\pm$11.57 $\mu$Hz. Thus, our model of the cross-correlation function between the spectrum $i$ and the reference spectrum can be written as: $$\label{mcross}
M^i_\rho(\nu_j)= \!\!\!\!\sum_{k=-1}^{1} \! \beta_{|k|} \frac{ A^i
(\Gamma^i/2)^2}{(\nu_j-\Delta\nu^i+k_D
\cdot k)^2+ (\Gamma^i/2)^2} +B^i,$$ where the parameters to be fitted are:
- $A^i$, the amplitude of the central peak;
- $\Gamma^i$, the linewidth of the Lorentzian profile;
- $\Delta\nu^i$, the average frequency shift in the chosen frequency interval;
- $B^i$, the constant background level;
- $\beta_{|k|}$, the ratio of the sidebands to the central peak ($\beta$=1 for $k$=0 );
- $k_D=11.57\mu$Hz is the constant separation of the sidebands and it is the only fixed parameter in the fit.
The best estimation, in the least square sense, of the parameters related to each time-series $i$, is obtained by minimizing the following quantities: $$\label{fitccf}
\chi^{2}_i = \sum_{j=1}^{N}{\mid \rho^i(\nu_{j}) - M^i_\rho(\nu_{j}) \mid^{2}},$$ where $N$ is the total number of frequency bins in an interval of $\pm$20 $\mu$Hz around the main peak of the cross-correlation function. We applied a Levenberg-Marquard method (Press et al. 1992) but any other minimization routine may be used.
We note that the first technique is more objective in the sense that it does not require a physical hypothesis or modeling of the $p$-mode excitation and damping mechanisms. It uses only information contained in the spectrum while the second method assumes symmetric Lorentzian profiles. There is some evidence that the shape of the peaks in the power spectra are slightly asymmetric [@sabri00]. In order to check the efficiency of both methods and the influence of the duty cycle in the final result, we analyzed the frequency shifts in periods of 36 days for which the duty cycle varies. The differences between the two methods remain in general within the error bars. The only significant differences are found for time-series with very small duty cycle (around $10\%$) but, for the yearly time-series analysed here, the duty cycle is moderately high and quite stable (around $25\%$) from year to year. Regarding to the observed asymmetry of the $p$-modes, they are not thought to be important for this analysis. The second method takes into account the known distance from the sidebands to the main peak ($\pm$11.57 $\mu$Hz) which improve the results. Moreover this method allows to study not only the frequency shift but also the TVP by providing amplitudes and widths of the cross-correlation functions (see Sect. \[sec:tvp\]). Therefore hereafter only the second method will be considered but, for completeness, Fig. \[fig:diff\_fit\_ccf\] shows the marginal differences between the frequency shifts obtained by applying both methods to the yearly time-series.
---------- ------- ------------- -------------- -- ------- ------------------- ------------- -- ------- ------------------- -------------
Index $\Delta\nu$ $\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ $\Delta\nu_{1,3}$
$r_P$ $r_S$ $P_s$ $r_P$ $r_S$ $P_s$ $r_P$ $r_S$ $P_s$
R$_{I}$ 0.94 0.88 9 10$^{-11}$ 0.76 0.70 1 10$^{-5}$ 0.90 0.85 4 10$^{-9}$
F$_{10}$ 0.94 0.87 4 10$^{-10}$ 0.77 0.72 7 10$^{-6}$ 0.90 0.83 1 10$^{-8}$
KPMI 0.90 0.86 8 10$^{-10}$ 0.79 0.71 1 10$^{-5}$ 0.85 0.84 8 10$^{-9}$
MPSI 0.94 0.88 5 10$^{-10}$ 0.83 0.76 2 10$^{-6}$ 0.88 0.85 1 10$^{-8}$
TSI 0.89 0.89 3 10$^{-8}$ 0.78 0.78 1 10$^{-5}$ 0.83 0.83 2 10$^{-7}$
He 0.94 0.88 9 10$^{-11}$ 0.79 0.74 2 10$^{-6}$ 0.89 0.83 2 10$^{-8}$
---------- ------- ------------- -------------- -- ------- ------------------- ------------- -- ------- ------------------- -------------
\[corr\_dnu\]
As mentioned in the introduction, the asymptotic theory predicts that, for low-degree $p$-modes, pairs of modes with alternately odd and even degrees are equally spaced in frequency with a separation of about $67$ $\mu$Hz i.e. half of the so-called big separation [e.g. @Deubner84]. The contributions of even ($\ell$=0,2) and odd degrees ($\ell$=1,3) to the integrated frequency shift can therefore be separated simply by applying a mask to the spectra before using the procedure explained above. It should also be noted that, for full disk observations, the contribution of the two modes of a pair is not the same, due to the geometry of the modes at the surface. In the case of the odd modes, the frequency shifts come essentially from $\ell$=1 due to the high ratio in sensitivity between $\ell$=3 and 1 ($\sim$ 0.1) whereas, in the case of the even modes the sensitivity ratio is close to one and therefore the contributions of $\ell$=0 and 2 are nearly the same.
Figure \[fig:dnui\] illustrates the frequency averaged frequency shift between $2.5$ and $3.7$ mHz. The results corresponding to $\ell$=0,2 and $\ell$=1,3 have been plotted in the sub plot at the top-right corner and their average is shown in the main figure. The solid line represents the radio flux averaged over the same periods as the time-series used for this work.
Although there are few departures from the general trend which do not agree with the smooth behavior of the solar index, the integrated signal concurs very well with the radio flux, which represents here the behavior of the solar cycle. The average of both contributions ($\ell$=0,2 and $\ell$=1,3) follows well the integrated signal as expected. The amplitude, measured as the straight difference from peak-to-peak, for all observed modes is $0.45\pm0.05$ $\mu$Hz, while in the case of the even and odd degree modes are 0.48$\pm$0.05 and $0.55\pm0.07$ $\mu$Hz respectively. Although the difference in amplitude between even and odd degree modes seems to remain, the frequency shift for the even modes is larger than that obtained by @regulo94.
---------- ------------------- ------------------- -----------------------------
Solar Intercept $a$ Slope $b$
Index (nHz) (nHz per activity unit$^*$)
R$_I$ $\Delta\nu$ 18.25$\pm$14.77 2.56$\pm$0.18
$\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ -48.08$\pm$25.94 1.98$\pm$0.32
$\Delta\nu_{1,3}$ 60.62$\pm$21.51 2.91$\pm$0.26
F$_{10}$ $\Delta\nu$ -139.07$\pm$24.17 2.69$\pm$0.19
$\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ -173.73$\pm$41.78 2.11$\pm$0.32
$\Delta\nu_{1,3}$ -115.88$\pm$36.40 3.03$\pm$0.28
KPMI $\Delta\nu$ -98.43$\pm$27.42 22.92$\pm$2.04
$\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ -154.75$\pm$37.20 19.08$\pm$2.78
$\Delta\nu_{1,3}$ -63.15$\pm$40.42 25.34$\pm$3.02
MPSI $\Delta\nu$ 33.79$\pm$14.04 149.06$\pm$10.46
$\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ -39.06$\pm$21.10 124.22$\pm$15.59
$\Delta\nu_{1,3}$ 79.81$\pm$22.19 164.63$\pm$16.56
TSI $\Delta\nu$ -528.06$\pm$51.63 386.71$\pm$37.80
$\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ -437.13$\pm$65.43 320.07$\pm$47.90
$\Delta\nu_{1,3}$ -585.31$\pm$71.58 428.67$\pm$52.40
He $\Delta\nu$ -438.86$\pm$42.45 10.92$\pm$0.73
$\Delta\nu_{0,2}$ -417.59$\pm$73.56 8.87$\pm$1.26
$\Delta\nu_{1,3}$ -447.34$\pm$67.87 12.21$\pm$1.17
---------- ------------------- ------------------- -----------------------------
: Intercept and slope of the frequency shift expressed as a linear function of different solar indices.
\[slope\_dnu\]
[$^*$Units: nHz; nHz/(10$^{-22}$ J/s/m$^2$/Hz), nHz G$^{-1}$, nHz G$^{-1}$, nHz W$^{-1}$m$^2$, nHz mÅ$^{-1}$ respectively.]{}
Since the time-series created are one year long, the time variation of the integrated frequency shift analyzed here informs only on long-term changes. A recent analysis covering different time scales from one to seven months using 9 years of BiSON data can be found in @Chaplin2001. Average values of the following solar activity indices have been computed over the same one year periods than the frequency shifts in order to obtain the corresponding correlation coefficients:
- the International Sunspot Number, R${_I}$;
- the integrated radio flux at 10.7 cm, F$_{10}$;\
(both obtained from the Solar Geophysical Data)[^2];
- the Kitt Peak magnetic index (KPMI) extracted from the Kitt Peak full disk magnetograms [@harvey84];
- the Mount Wilson Magnetic Plage Strength Index [@ulrich91], MPSI;
- the Total Solar Irradiance, TSI [@frohlich98]; and
- the equivalent width of HeI 10830Å averaged over the whole solar disk using data from Kitt Peak observatory.
The Pearson correlation coefficient $r_P$, which is a measure of the strength of the linear relationship between two indices, and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, $r_S$ which provides a measure of the correlation between the ranks of two indices during the chosen period, are shown in Table \[corr\_dnu\] for the frequency shift. The correlation between the different solar activity indices themselves have been investigated in details by @BW94.
In addition, the probability $P_s$ of having null correlation between the ranks of any of the solar indices and the frequency shift is indicated. We note that the database of MPSI and TSI indices, covers only the first 28 time-series. The correlation analysis for these two indices was therefore made with two fewer points than for the others.
The integrated signal shows very high correlation with the various solar indices, whereas the frequency shift corresponding to $\ell$=1,3 and, more significantly, $\ell$=0,2 are slightly lower. The general trend of the frequency shift corresponding to the even and odd degree modes separately is quite clear but, in addition to the difference in amplitude already mentioned, the frequency shifts measured for the even modes seem to be sensitive to the solar cycle later than the odd ones and the resulting difference in phase between the two curves is probably at the origin of the lower correlation coefficients found for $\ell$=0,2. As demonstrated by @fmi00 different modes would respond differently at different phases of the cycle depending on the positions of the activity (i.e. sunspots) on the disk. Aside of the long term differences, there are also fluctuations at shorter time scales which are different for the two data sets.
Because of the excellent linear correlation coefficients found, the frequency shifts were fitted as a linear function of the different solar indices $I$ by: $$\label{eq:fit}
\Delta\nu^i=a + b \cdot I^i.$$ In Table \[slope\_dnu\] we report the intercepts and the slopes obtained for all the solar indices considered, and an example is given for the radio flux in the lower part of Figure \[fig:dnui\]. The slopes can be compared with the results shown in Table 1 of @regulo94 also obtained for low-degree $p$-modes. The three solar indices in common to both works present similar slopes; the differences are less than 3 times our error bars. Notice that, more or less, all activity indices used here produce similar values of the correlation coefficient with the frequency shifts leading to the conclusion than none is much better, for this purpose, than others.
The numbers also agree with those obtained recently by @jain00 for intermediate-degrees ($\ell$=20-100) using GONG data. However, intermediate degree modes are confined closer to the surface and one may expect them to be more sensitive to the activity changes and therefore the slope to be larger for those modes than for low-degree modes. This is indeed what we found analyzing LOWL data [@jimenez-reyes01a] but, as we shall see, this depends also strongly on the range of frequencies considered to calculate the average values.
The interpretation of the different behavior found for $\ell=$1,3 and $\ell$=0,2 is not straightforward. In order to understand better the underlying physics, one may instead look at the velocity power variations and at the frequency and $\ell$-dependences. This is considered in the following section.
Total velocity power variations {#sec:tvp}
===============================
The first observations of the variation of the TVP for all measured $p$-modes was reported by @palle90a [@palle90b] who found an increase of 30 to $40\%$, anti-correlated with the solar activity cycle. Afterwards, @gubau92 found similar changes using different analysis techniques and more data of the same type; they interpreted these results as a decrease in the efficiency of the excitation of such modes at solar activity maximum, since absorption of mode power by local magnetic structures [see e.g. @bogdan93] is a small influence and cannot explain such a high ratio.
We have also calculated the TVP in the spectrum which is proportional to the area under the main peak of the cross-correlation function. Once the main peak is fitted to a Lorentzian profile, the TVP is calculated as the amplitude times the width (i.e $TVP^i=A^i\cdot \Gamma^i$). We show in Fig. \[dos\], the percentile changes of the TVP compared to its minimum value. Again, the radio flux is shown here as an index of the solar activity cycle. From the figure, we are able to see that the variation of the TVP between minimum and maximum of the solar cycle is around 20$\%$. Moreover, the lower figure shows clearly the anti-correlation with the solar cycle, the TVP decreases when activity increases. The separated contributions of the odd and even pairs of modes were also studied (see the inset box in Fig. \[dos\]) as we did in the analysis of the frequency shifts. The results are shown in the sub panel on Fig. \[dos\]. Notice that the variation of the TVP between extreme phases of the cycle for even and odd degrees is approximately 20$\%$, in good agreement with the amplitude of the integrated measurement. Moreover, both contributions are in phase, which contrasts with the results found for the frequency shifts, where even modes seems to respond later than the odd ones. Odd and even TVP appear also better correlated around the maximum than during the low activity phases: both present exactly the same bump in the middle of the maximum of activity close to 1990, anti-correlated with decreasing activity during the same period, but their short term variations are different around 1986 and 1996 during the activity minima
------------- ------- ------- ------------- -- ------- ------------- -------------- -- ------- ------------- -------------
Index TVP TVP$_{0,2}$ TVP$_{1,3}$
$r_P$ $r_S$ $P_s$ $r_P$ $r_S$ $P_s$ $r_P$ $r_S$ $P_s$
$R_{I}$ -0.84 -0.82 4 10$^{-8}$ -0.87 -0.88 1 10$^{-10}$ -0.79 -0.71 1 10$^{-5}$
$F_{10}$ -0.83 -0.79 2 10$^{-8}$ -0.86 -0.87 5 10$^{-10}$ -0.78 -0.69 3 10$^{-5}$
KPMI -0.78 -0.75 2 10$^{-6}$ -0.81 -0.81 7 10$^{-8}$ -0.74 -0.67 6 10$^{-5}$
MPSI -0.82 -0.80 3 10$^{-7}$ -0.83 -0.85 9 10$^{-9}$ -0.80 -0.69 5 10$^{-5}$
TSI -0.76 -0.67 1 10$^{-4}$ -0.80 -0.76 2 10$^{-6}$ -0.70 -0.58 1 10$^{-3}$
He -0.84 -0.82 2 10$^{-8}$ -0.87 -0.87 4 10$^{-10}$ -0.77 -0.72 8 10$^{-6}$
$\Delta\nu$ -0.75 -0.73 4 10$^{-6}$
------------- ------- ------- ------------- -- ------- ------------- -------------- -- ------- ------------- -------------
\[corr\_ener\]
Linear and rank correlation coefficients were calculated with the same activity indicators than before and they are shown in Table \[corr\_ener\]. The values found are large, showing a good correlation, but they are systematically lower than those for the frequency shift (range \[0.67-0.84\] against \[0.86-0.94\]). Moreover, the correlations are bigger for $\ell$=0,2 than for $\ell$=1,3 contrary to the results found for the frequency shifts. The linear correlation coefficient between frequency shift and TVP change ($r_P$=-0.75, see also Table. \[corr\_ener\]) is well below the $0.9$ reached in average between frequency shift and the solar activity indices suggesting that they are not linearly correlated and Fig. \[fig:dnu\_tvp\] shows indeed that they tend to follow an hysteresis shape, rather than a strict line, when plotted against each other.
This is important because if the decrease in TVP is due to the presence of local or surface activity, as we believe is the cause for the frequency shift, then they should be well correlated with almost no hysteresis. Therefore, the fact that the TVP is less well correlated with the surface activity indices and shows an hysteresis behavior when plotted against the frequency shift, may indicate that indeed its variation is due to a decrease in the excitation efficiency or an increase of the damping rate at maximum which reflects a change in the convection zone structure that does not have to be correlated or strictly in phase with the surface magnetic features. The process of absorption and damping of $p$-modes by an increasing number of rising flux tubes during the period of high activity explored by @bogdan96 is qualitatively compatible with our results. On the other hand, if the TVP variations are only due to geometrical effects, this parameter would probably show a better correlation with the total area covered by the magnetic structures than with just the number of them. Although it is beyond the scope of this work, this should probably be further investigated to get a better picture of the possible sources of this phenomena. A more quantitative work including separate observations of the damping rate and amplitude variations of individual modes [@Chaplin2000] is certainly needed to be more conclusive. These inferences from individual mode fits are potentially more informative but remains however less robust than those obtained from the fit of the cross-correlation of the power spectra.
Frequency dependence of the frequency shifts {#sec:nu-dep}
============================================
In the previous sections, the variations of the frequency-integrated velocity power and frequency shifts have been studied. However, the time variation of the frequency shift is expected to be different at different frequencies. Previous works [e.g. @libbrecht90; @gubau92; @chaplin98a] have shown that the modes at high frequency become more sensitive to the solar cycle. The quality of our time-series and a new method to fit all the spectra at once motivates us to determine the frequency-dependence of the frequency shift for low degrees.
The first method used is related again to the fact that pairs of low-degree acoustic modes are equally spaced in the spectrum. Each spectra is divided in regions of $135$ $\mu$Hz containing a set of modes $\ell$=0,1,2 and 3. Then, every region is cross-correlated with the corresponding region of the reference spectrum (corresponding to the solar activity minimum of 1986), and the method explained above (Sect. \[sec:int\_dnu\]) is used to calculate the frequency shift. Finally, the frequency shift of each region is fitted as a linear function of the integrated radio flux at 10.7 cm.
In the second method proposed here, we try to fit together all the spectra at once. We have established that the central frequencies of the solar acoustic modes vary during the solar cycle and there is a strong linear correlation with any of the solar indices. So, in order to improve the statistics we can fit all the spectra together introducing the frequency shift as a new parameter. Here, as well as in the first method, the radio flux was chosen because, according to Table \[corr\_dnu\], it leads to the best linear correlation coefficients for the central frequency variations but, as quoted before, this choice is not crucial as all indices present similar correlations. We emphasize that, while the first method is faster, the second provides us not only individual frequency shifts but also valuable mode parameters, i.e. mode resonant frequencies corrected for the solar-cycle effects.
As the structure of the power spectrum is complicated by the presence of the $11.57\mu$Hz sidebands, modes close in frequency must be fitted simultaneously in order to maintain the stability in the fits. Therefore adjacent $(n,\ell)$ and $(n-1,\ell+2)$ peaks are fitted together. The multiplet structure induced by the rotation and the temporal sidebands for each mode of the pair are also included in the model. If we label by $p$ the $60$ $\mu$Hz wide part of the spectrum including the adjacent $(n,\ell)$ and $(n-1,\ell+2)$ peaks and $\nu_p$ the mean frequency of the pair, the model for this part of the spectrum of each time-series $i$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{m02}
M_p^i(\nu,\vec{a})= \sum_{k=-1}^{1} \beta_{|k|} \left[\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \frac{\alpha_{\mid m \mid}^{\ell} A_{n\ell}
(\Gamma_{p}/2)^2}{(\nu-\nu_{n\ell m}^{ik})^2+ (\Gamma_p/2)^2} +
\nonumber \right.\\
\left. \sum_{m=-\ell-2}^{\ell+2} \frac{\alpha_{\mid m \mid}^{\ell+2} A_{(n-1)(\ell+2)} (\Gamma_{p}/2)^2}{
(\nu-\nu_{(n-1)(\ell+2)m}^{ik})^2 +(\Gamma_p/2)^2} \right]+
B_p,\end{aligned}$$ with:
$$\label{nu_m02}
\nu_{n\ell m}^{ik} = \nu_{n\ell} + \delta\nu(\nu_{p})_{\ell,\ell+2}
\cdot (F^i_{10} - F_{10}^o) + m \cdot s_{n\ell} + k_D \cdot k,$$
where:
- $\nu_{n \ell}$, is the central resonance frequency of the mode $(n,l)$ at solar minimum;
- $\delta\nu(\nu_p)_{\ell,\ell+2}$, is the searched frequency shift per solar index unit, assumed to be the same for all the components of the pair;
- $\nu_p=(\nu_{n\ell}+\nu_{n-1,\ell+2})/2$ is the center of the $60\mu$Hz wide interval of the spectrum fitted;
- $s_{n \ell}$, is the synodic rotational splitting for a multiplet taken to be constant for all of them and equal to $400$ nHz;
- $F^{i}_{10}$, is the averaged radio flux for the given series ($F_{10}^o$ being the value at the solar cycle minimum);
- $B_p$, is a constant background level at the fitted frequency interval;
- $A_{n \ell}$, is the power at the resonance for sectoral components $m$=$\ell$
- $\alpha_{\mid m \mid}^\ell$, is a given ratio $A_{n \ell m}$/$A_{n \ell}$ constrained to take the theoretical value, for an instrument without spatial resolution, calculated by @jcd89 for the special case of resonant scattering observation using potassium line;
- $\Gamma_p$, is the linewidth of the components of the multiplet assumed to be the same for all components of the two multiplets; and
- $\beta_{|k|}$, is the ratio of the power of the sidebands ($|k|=1$) to the central peak ($|k|=0$). These are directly related to the duty cycle and can be estimated empirically. The duty cycles of the yearly time-series remaining close to their average value of $25\%$, this allows us to fix the amplitude of the sidebands to $\beta_{|1|}$=0.5 for $\beta_{0}$=1.
We assume that each $m$-component is well represented by a symmetric Lorentzian profile (even though @sabri00 have found a slight asymmetry on them) and that the individual $m$-components are independent [see @Foglizzo98]. $B_p$, $A_{n \ell}$, $\Gamma_p$, $\nu_{n \ell}$ and $\delta\nu_{n \ell}$ are the parameters to be fitted (vector $\vec{a}$, hereafter). Notice that, in Sect. \[sec:tvp\], it has been demonstrated that the TVP depends on the solar activity. This indicates that time variations may also occur for amplitudes and linewidths. Such variations have indeed been found recently from BiSON [@Chaplin2000] for low degree and GONG [@Komm2000] for higher degrees, both showing an increase of the linewidths and a decrease of the amplitudes leading to decrease of the TVP in agreement with our result. We therefore tried to parameterize amplitudes and linewidths as a function of time in the way used for frequencies, but the fits turned out to be very difficult and in many cases did not converge.
At higher frequencies ($\nu>3500$ $\mu$Hz) the peaks get wider, the width being greater than their rotational splittings ($\Gamma_p$ $\gg$ $s_{n \ell}$). Moreover, the linewidths get so large that they become comparable to, or bigger than, the small frequency separations between the pair $(\ell,n)$, $(\ell+2,n-1)$. Therefore the fit is made at frequency intervals (labeled by $q$ hereafter) of $165$ $\mu$Hz centered at $\nu_q$ and containing one pair of even modes $(n,0)(n-1,2)$ labeled hereafter by $p=1$ and one pair of odd modes $(n,1)(n-1,3)$ labeled hereafter by $p=2$. Only one Lorentzian is fitted for even and another one for odd modes. Thus the model becomes:
$$\label{mn1}
M_q^i(\nu,\vec{a})= \sum_{p=1}^{2} \frac{ A_{pq} (\Gamma_{pq}/2)^2}{(\nu-\nu_{pq}^i)^2+
(\Gamma_{pq}/2)^2} +B_q,$$
with: $$\label{mn2}
\nu_{pq}^i = \nu_{pq} + \delta\nu(\nu_q) \cdot (F^i_{10}-F_{10}^o).$$ Here the parameters $\vec{a}$ to be fitted are: $B_q$, $A_{pq}$, $\Gamma_{pq}$, $\nu_{pq}$ and $\delta\nu(\nu_q)$.
As @Woodard_Phd points out, in the case of observations without spatial resolution, the power spectrum of the solar $p$-mode oscillations is distributed around the mean Lorentzian profiles with a $\chi^{2}$ probability distribution with two degrees of freedom. Consequently, the power spectrum appears as an erratic function where an abundance of frequency fine structure can be found. For this type of statistics the joint probability function associated to the observed power spectrum $\vec{X}^i=\{X^i(\nu_j)\}_{j=1,N}$ corresponding to the time-series $i$ is given by: $$\label{dpf}
f^i(\vec{X}^i) = \prod_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{M^i(\nu_{j},\vec{a})} exp\left[-\frac{X^i(\nu_{j})}{M^i(\nu_{j},\vec{a})}\right],$$ where N is the number of frequency bins in the interval considered (i.e. the 60 $\mu$Hz wide interval for $\nu<3.5$ mHz or the 165 $\mu$Hz wide interval for higher frequencies), and $M^i$ is given either by Eq. (\[m02\]) or Eq. (\[mn1\]) depending also on the frequency domain.
The likelihood for the 30 observed spectra is then given by the product of the individual likelihood function for each year. Thus, it can be written as: $$\label{mle1}
L(\vec{a})= \prod_{i=1}^{30} {f^i(\vec{X}^i)}.$$ We then look for the vector $\vec{a}$ that will maximize the likelihood of the observed spectra according to our model. For numerical reasons one minimizes $S$, defined as the negative logarithm of the likelihood function,
$$\label{mle}
S(\vec{a})
= \sum_{i=1}^{30} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \left[{\ln(M^i(\nu_j,\vec{a}))+
\frac{X^i(\nu_j)}{M^i(\nu_j,\vec{a})}}\right].$$
To minimize this expression, we have used a modified Newton method [@numrec]. The initial guesses for the parameters are important to avoid local minima. In that aspect, the frequency shift appears to be the more sensitive parameter and the initial guess was taken from the results shown Table \[slope\_dnu\] independently of the frequency range fitted. In the case of some parameters (amplitude, noise and linewidth), the natural logarithm of those have been fitted and not the parameters themselves. Doing this, $S$ follows a normal distribution near the minimum and the covariance matrix for the vector $\vec{a}$ can be approximated by the inverse of the Hessian matrix found at the minimum of $S$. The uncertainties on each fitted parameter are therefore taken as the square roots of the diagonal elements of the inverted Hessian matrix.
The results are summarized in Fig. \[grad\_shift\_hn\]. In the top figure, the triangles represent the frequency shift integrated in bands of $135$ $\mu$Hz using the first method. The frequency dependence is quite clear, the frequency shift being close to zero at $2$ mHz and then increasing progressively with the frequency to reach approximately $2$ nHz/RF (where RF stands for radio flux units, namely $10^{-22}$J/s/m${}^2$/Hz) at the center of the $p$-mode and a maximum of $4$ nHz/RF around $3.6$ mHz, where it drops fast. The solid line denotes the inverse mode mass extracted from the solar model of @morel97. It has been averaged over the same regions in frequency and what we show represent the best fit to the data. The results corresponding to the simultaneous fits are also shown in the same figure. The frequency shift for the even modes are represented by crosses while black circles represent the odd ones. Both confirm the previous results showing a similar frequency dependence. These results are also in agreement with the analysis carried out by @chaplin98a on BiSON data for frequency below $3.6$ mHz. The mean $<\delta\nu(\nu)>$ in the 2.5-3.7mHz range can be estimated by integrating the best fit of the inverse mode mass to our results divided by the length of the frequency range i.e. 1.2mHz. This leads to a value of $2.66$nHz/RF compatible with the slope $b$ reported in Tab. \[slope\_dnu\] for the linear dependance between the integrated frequency shift and radio flux. A comparison of Eqs. (\[eq:def1\]) and (\[eq:fit\]) gives the straightforward correspondance between $b$ and the averaged frequency shift per radio flux units. We note however that the two estimates are not equivalent due to the variation of the $p$-mode energy across the five minute band. The cross-correlation function weight more the peak with higher amplitude located around $\sim2.9-3.0$mHz while the present integration gives the same weight to all the modes. At high frequency, the first points corroborate the frequency shift obtained using the first method, where a sharp downturn is found. Then, at higher frequency, a large fluctuation appears. A similar feature was found by @gubau92 and also found for intermediate degree by @libbrecht90 in the analysis of BBSO data. These authors observed that the sensitivity of the mode frequency shifts show similar sharp downturn located around $3.8$ mHz. @chaplin98a also reported (on their Fig. 4) a sharp downturn with negative frequency shift of about $-10$ nHz/RF around $4.3$ mHz but they did not find the first downturn found at $3.75$ mHz as in our analysis. The better sampling of the Mark-I data set and the fact that this first downturn was obtained with the two different methods we used for low and high frequencies make us confident in this result; moreover, this result is also found by @gubau92.
The frequency dependence of the frequency shift has been addressed from the theoretical point of view in different works. The model developed by @goldreich91 suggests that a combination of an increase of the chromospheric temperature and a chromospheric resonance can be responsible for the sharp downturn at high frequency followed by an oscillation while the progressive increase in the five-minute band can be interpreted as an increase of the filling factor of the small scale photospheric magnetic fields. On the other hand, @jainroberts93 [@jainroberts96] argue that the presence of a magnetic field in the chromosphere and a combination of temperature and magnetic field strength variations could, qualitatively, explain the observed frequency dependence of the frequency shift at both low and high frequencies. We notice that both models, those of @goldreich91 and @jainroberts96 present a *wavelike* behavior at high frequency qualitatively similar to the one found in our analysis. The particular model of @goldreich91 is even able to reproduce quantitatively this result, including the upturn around $4.5$ mHz but no evidence has been found for the required chromospheric resonance [@woodard_librecht91] and @kuhn98 point out that the change in the photospheric magnetic field strength needed in this model is much higher than the one obtained from recent infrared splitting observations of the quiet region field strengths or MDI magnetograms. Thus, @kuhn98 argues that photospheric magnetic fluctuations are unlikely to be responsible for the observed frequency shifts and proposes instead that turbulent pressure and mean solar atmosphere stratification variations resulting from entropy perturbations through the solar cycle may be the dominant process affecting $p$-mode frequencies. In this model, the associated temperature fluctuations may originate from near the base of the convection zone but in order to explore those possibilities and locate the different possible perturbations one needs to invert the even splitting coefficients [see @Dziembowski00] and track any fluctuation in the sound speed inversion using long term observations. We intend to extend our work in that direction using the observations of both low and intermediate degrees from LOWL and Mark-I.
Analysis of the $\ell$-dependence of the frequency shifts {#sec:l-dep}
=========================================================
The LOWL instrument [@LOWL], located in Mauna Loa, Hawaï, is a Doppler imager based on a Potassium Magneto-Optical Filter, and it has been collecting solar observations for more than six years. With the installation of a similar experiment at the Observatorio del Teide, a new network called ECHO (Experiment for Coordinated Helioseismic Observations) intends to continue the solar observations for a complete solar cycle [@ECHO] with an increased duty cycle. Recently, six years of data have been re-analyzed through a new pipeline producing mode parameters for low and intermediate degrees [@jimenez-reyes01b]. We have used the mode frequencies given by this analysis to compare the $\ell$- and frequency-dependence of the frequency shift at low and intermediate degrees.
Figure \[dnu\_flux2\] shows the normalized frequency shift using LOWL observations for $\ell$=1 up to 99. It has been performed using those modes between $2.5$ and $3.7$ mHz, as we did for low degree. The inverse mode mass, which was calculated as well for each one of the modes fitted and then averaged in the same way, follows remarkably well the results. The figure shows as well the $\ell$-dependence of low degree $p$-mode frequency shifts for Mark-I found in Sect. \[sec:int\_dnu\]. The general trend confirms the $\ell$-dependence of the frequency shift, the sensitivity at high degree ($\ell$=100) being almost twice to that of low-degree. We notice that the LOWL $\ell$=2 and Mark-I $\ell=$0,2 are in good agreement and significantly lower then the inverse mode mass curve. However the LOWL data error bars in $\delta\nu$ for $\ell=1$ and $\ell=2$ overlap significantly and the small value for $\ell=0,2$ could either be due to particularly small $\delta\nu$ in $\ell=2$ but also in $\ell=0$. It will therefore be important to check this results with independent observations in the future. This is important because if a geometrical effect purely related to the integrated disk measurements affect the even modes measured by Mark-I, this should not be seen for the LOWL resolved measurements. If confirmed, this lower value of the frequency shift for $\ell$=2 may therefore have a physical origin and be the signature of a localized perturbation.
Figure \[dnu\_flux1\] reproduces the frequency dependence for low degree shown in Fig. \[grad\_shift\_hn\] together with the frequency shift averaged for $\ell$’s between 1 up to 99 in intervals of $150$ $\mu$Hz obtained from LOWL data. Again, the best fit to the inverse mode mass is shown. The ratio between the two slopes in the inverse mode mass fits is $0.74$ and is nearly equal to the ratio between the mean mode mass calculated for both mode sets ($0.75$) showing that the $\ell$-dependence of the frequency shift is again well described by the $\ell$-dependence of the inverse mode mass. However, although the sensitivity is higher for higher degree modes (LOWL data), the fit is worse than for low degree (Mark-I data); moreover, in this later case, while roughly consistent with the sizes of the error bars,the scatter seems to be organized as an oscillation on top of the fitted line. The higher sensitivity of the frequency shift at high degree seems to be in contradiction with what @regulo94 pointed out, but in agreement with recent analysis of @chaplin98a. While all results point towards the existence of a perturbation confined close to the surface, there is still no convincing evidence of another cause that could exist deeper down as suggested by @regulo94. On the other hand, the oscillation, also pointed out by @gubau92, that seems to be present in the results for low degree, has the same period ($\approx$ 400-450 $\mu$Hz) that the one that is clearly found at higher frequencies (see Fig. \[grad\_shift\_hn\] bottom) and deserves further attention and confirmation.
Finally, we notice that the frequency dependence of the frequency shift obtained from the low degree modes of LOWL data is in very good agreement with the result plotted here using Mark-I data. This, added to the fact that the 6 years of LOWL data were covered also by Mark-I observations, make us very confident in the validity of our analysis of the $\ell$-dependence using both instruments.
Conclusion
==========
An analysis of the low-degree p-mode frequency shifts over more than a solar cycle has been carried out. Time dependence of the resonant frequencies and the total velocity power have been studied with several, old and new, methods, yielding a correlation and an anti-correlation with the solar activity cycle respectively which confirms previous results. Moreover, quantitative parameters have been introduced which yield the sensitivities of such variations with respect to a given activity index, in our case the radio flux at 10.7 cm. The existence of a hysteresis behavior between both parameters seems to imply different direct causes for them.
Also, the frequency shifts have been obtained as a function of frequency and degree. These studies make use of data taken from two experiments (Mark-I and LOWL) which confirm each other results, when they coincide (at very low $\ell$ modes), and complement their findings otherwise. Indeed, the main source for the variation of the frequencies with the cycle is located near the surface while a secondary, deeper rooted source, seems to be very weak if it exists at all. Interesting details such as the oscillation found for very low-$\ell$ p-modes and the surprisingly small frequency shift for $\ell$ even modes need further investigation.
The results obtained and methods used in this work will also be useful in the analysis of very long time-series covering more than half the solar activity cycle, since both resonant frequencies and, to a lesser extent, amplitudes vary cyclically with time, providing wrong results if only data taken at parts of the cycle are used. In the following paper (second part of this work) we will use these methods to minimize the effects of solar activity on these parameters in annual power spectra, allowing an average of all data thus improving the signal to noise ratio. Using this power spectra we will be able to give a new estimation of the solar rotational splitting, which combined with LOWL data, will be used to infer the solar rotation close to the core.
Finally we note that the hysteresis between frequencies of odd and even modes or between mode frequencies and magnetic flux is not addressed in this work based on yearly time series. These studies are however of considerable importance [see e.g. @fmi00] but would require shorter time series and better data (e.g. higher duty cycle) in order to reliably confirm previous analysis. This should probably be addressed in the future using long term observations of low degree modes from the ground based networks BiSON and IRIS++ ( i.e. IRIS + LOWL +Mark-I, @salabert01).
We are deeply thankful to the all members, past and present, of the helioseismology group at the IAC for doing Mark-I observations and maintenance. The use of Birmingham University resonant scattering spectrophotometer at Observatorio del Teide is also deeply acknowledged. We are extremely grateful to Tom Bogdan and Mausumi Dikpati for useful discussions and additional comments. T. Corbard acknowledges support from NASA grant S-92678-F and PPARC grant PPA/A/S/2000/00171. The High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
[^1]: *Present address:* Intitute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 OHA, UK.
[^2]: Available at http://web.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/stp.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Spin-polarized transport in magnetic materials is beginning to play an increasingly important role in fundamental and applied research due to the rapid advance of magnetoelectronics[@1]. The very definition of this new field, based on the ability of magnetic metals to carry spin-dependent current, implies that many physical phenomena and device applications are determined by the interplay of magnetic and transport properties of these materials. Although many materials are spin-polarized, technical constraints limit the number actually used in practice to only a handful. In particular, permalloy, a member of a family of binary alloys, Ni$_{x}$Fe$ _{1-x}$ ($x=0.8$), features an attractive combination of vanishingly small magnetostriction, low coercivity and high permeability, which makes it the material of choice for magnetic recording media, sensors, and nonvolatile magnetic random access memory.
Impressive progress in understanding magnetic properties of 3d-transition metal ferromagnets has been made in the last decades, particularly due to the advances of the band structure calculations, based on the local spin density approximation (LSDA). However, many aspects of the deceptively simple model system of Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ alloys still elude quantitative explanations. One of the unresolved problems is the difficulty in reconciling the itinerant character of magnetic d-electrons (which seems to be reliably established by de-Haas-van Alfen experiments [@3]) and the value as well as the positive sign of the spin polarization measured by tunneling experiments. Since the electronic density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level is higher for spin-down d-electrons than for s-electrons, it is obvious that this effect cannot be explained within simple models based on the constant tunneling matrix element approximation. The qualitative explanation was suggested in a number of papers (e.g.,Ref. ), where it was pointed out that the tunneling matrix elements for s- electrons are larger than for d- electrons. Although this picture is instructive for a qualitative understanding of the transport spin polarization, it is not very useful for quantitative analsyis, since in transition metals electrons can be only marginally divided into s- and d- types. Instead, it is more appropriate to speak in terms of different bands with different Fermi velocities. Within this approach we propose a natural quantitative interpretation of this effect based on band structure calculations, consistent with our spin polarization measurements and the most recent tunneling results[@9].
In order to make a meaningful comparison between spin polarization measurements in various experiments and the theory, the spin polarization must be clearly defined[@6; @M]. One cannot generally expect that the tunneling spin polarization, $P_T$, which is determined by a fraction of the spin-polarized current, is the same as the spin polarization probed, for instance, by spin-resolved photoemission, $P_N$. While $P_N$ is related to the electronic density of states (DOS) at the Fermi surface, $N(E_{F})$, $P_T$ is determined by a weighted average of the DOS and tunneling matrix elements, which are, in general, functions of the Fermi velocities. In the spin-polarized Andreev reflection experiments[@6; @B], yet another spin polarization, $P_A$, is measured. In the clean (ballistic or Sharvin) limit, $P_A$ is defined by the average projection of the Fermi velocity $%
v_{F}$ on [*z*]{}, the direction normal to the contact plane, and thus $P_A=P_{Nv}\propto
\left\langle N(E_{F})v_{Fz}\right\rangle .$ In the opposite, dirty (diffusive or Maxwell) limit, $P_A$ is determined by $P_{Nv^{2}}\propto
\left\langle N(E_{F})v_{Fz}^{2}\right\rangle $[@6; @M]. The same $P=P_{Nv^{2}}$ characterizes the spin polarization of the bulk electric current, as well as the tunneling current in the case of specular, low transparency barrier [@M]. In the Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ system, where the transport properties are determined by both heavy d-electrons and light s-electrons, the tunneling current as well as the current in the diffusive case of Andreev reflection are dominated by the majority spins, even though their density of states is smaller. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that $P_T$, or $P_A$ should be related to the magnetic moment, which is defined as a difference in the total number of spin-up and spin-down electrons. Since in Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ the Fermi surface is far from spherical, the effective mass is strongly dependent on the wave vector, and the bands are highly hybridized, it is unrealistic to expect that the spin-dependent transport of these compounds can be described by the simple model of the polarized homogeneous electron gas, as it was often assumed in earlier works. Consequently, the once popular idea that the spin polarization, as measured by the tunneling spectroscopy, is proportional to the bulk magnetization [@4; @5] is not applicable to this system.
In this article, we present direct detailed measurements of the transport spin-polarization of the Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ system by a newly developed Point Contact Andreev Reflection (PCAR) technique [@6]. We also perform band structure calculations of the spin polarization in this system, using a standard LSDA technique. The measured values of the transport spin polarization are almost independent of the composition [@agree], in reasonably good agreement with the theory. Based on the band structure calculations, we interpret this surprising result as a consequence of compensation of the numerous but heavy d-electrons and scarce but light s-electrons.
Many thin films and bulk samples were studied. They included a Ni single crystal, several Ni and Fe polycrystalline foils, a \[100\]–oriented single crystal Fe film grown on a GaAs substrate by molecular beam epitaxy, and a number of variable composition Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ films grown on Si-\[100\] substrates deposited by thermal (e-beam) evaporation [@9]. In order to make meaningful conclusions from the measurements and to compare the experimental results with the theory we determined the structural phase of the Ni$_{x}$Fe$
_{1-x}$ films for the entire composition range. X-ray diffraction data (specular $\theta /2\theta $-scans) were recorded for each of the Ni$_{x}$Fe$%
_{1-x}$ compositions over two angular ranges, 35$^{o}$-68$^{o}$ and 71$^{o}$-86$^{o}$. In all cases only a single phase was found [@11]: the $\gamma $(FCC)-phase is present for $x>0.47$; the $\alpha $(BCC)–phase is present for $x<0.30$. These results are consistent with the results for bulk samples [@12] and for thin films [@13]. The lattice parameters for the films were within 0.3% of the corresponding bulk values.
The details of the PCAR technique are described elsewhere [@6]. The method measures the degree of suppression of Andreev reflection at a ferromagnet/superconductor interface due to the spin polarization of the ferromagnet[@15]. The Andreev process allows propagation of a single electron with the energy below the superconducting gap $\Delta $ from the normal metal to the superconductor, by reflecting at the interface as a hole via a time reversal process. In a non-magnetic normal metal this is always allowed, because in such a metal each energy state has both spin-up and spin-down electrons. However, in a magnetic metal this is no longer true and Andreev reflection is limited by the spin direction with the smaller number of conductance channels, which drastically changes the sub-gap conductance. To account for finite temperatures and arbitrary barrier transparancy, $Z$ the normalized conductance data $G(V)/G_{n}$ ($G_n$ is obtained at voltages $V\gg \Delta/e$,$e$ is the electron charge) were compared to the modified [@6] Blonder, Tinkham and Klapwijk (BTK)[@16] model with only two adjustable parameters ($P$ and $Z$)[@17]. The temperature was generally taken to be equal to the temperature of the helium bath and $\Delta $ was defined separately from the BCS dependence [@Dynes]. This procedure allowed us to determine the [*magnitude*]{} of the spin polarization [@6].
Our adjustment mechanism consisted of a sharpened rod (superconducting or ferromagnetic) which was driven by a micrometer until it touched the (ferromagnetic or superconducting) base. Superconducting Nb, V, and Ta were used for the measurements reported here. Typical normalized conductance data $G(V)/G_{n}$ obtained by the PCAR method are shown in Fig.1 as a function of voltage [*V*]{}. For each sample a number of different contact junctions (with the contact resistance 1 $\Omega <R_{c}<$100 $\Omega $) were measured and then fitted with the modified BTK model. In Table I we present a summary of the data obtained for several samples for the end points (Ni and Fe) which were studied in more detail. Although we observed some variation in the values of [*P* ]{}for the same material, the results are quite consistent and do not appear to depend strongly on whether the ferromagnet was a bulk single crystal, a foil or a film. Furthermore, it does not seem to matter whether it was the point or base in the contact. Finally, the value of [*P*]{} does not depend strongly on the superconducting material. Accordingly, the values for $P$ for individual samples of each material were averaged together. For Fe, $\left\langle P\right\rangle = (44 \pm 3)$% and for Ni, $\left\langle P\right\rangle = (46 \pm 3)$%.
The PCAR results for the entire Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ are shown in Fig. 2. For the measurements of the thin film series a Nb tip was used. The spin polarization is almost composition-independent, whereas the measured magnetic moment (shown in the inset in Fig.2) changes by a factor of three. Evidently, our measurements do not show any correlation between the spin polarization and magnetic moment, which was observed in the early tunneling spectroscopy measurement[@18]. Although our spin polarization values differ substantially from these early results, they are quite close to the most recent tunneling measurements[@9] obtained from the “companion” Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ samples [@agree]. This result is not necessarily to be expected as PCAR probes $N(E_{F})v_{Fz}^{2}$ averaged over the entire Fermi surface, whereas tunneling through a thick barrier can be shown to probe $N(E_{F})v_{Fz}^{2}$ only at those selected points of the Fermi surface where quasi-momentum is perpendicular to the interface. Apparently, averaging over individual grains in the Ni$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$ films helps to bring the tunneling spin-polarization results close to the Fermi surface-averaged PCAR results.
To calculate the spin polarization, we performed LSDA band structure calculations[@20]. Our X-ray measurements allowed us to conclude that a single structural phase was present at any given Ni-Fe composition. Thus we were able to compare the experimental results with the calculations performed in the appropriate lattice structure. For Ni content $x<0.35$, the calculations were carried out in an average BCC lattice, for $x>0.35$ an average FCC lattice was used[@21]. Several ordered Ni-Fe supercells with the compositions NiFe$_{15}$, NiFe$_{7}$, NiFe$_{3}$, NiFe$_{2}$, Ni$_{3}$Fe, and Ni$_{7}$Fe were used. The results of the calculations of the spin polarization ($%
P_{N},P_{Nv}$ and $P_{Nv^{2}}$) are shown in Fig. 3. First of all, we observe that the three polarizations are dramatically different, which emphasizes once again the importance of the correct definition of the spin polarization for a given experiment. These differences are due to the strong variation of the kinematic properties between s-like and d-like electrons. Specifically, the Fermi velocity anisotropy between the different sheets of the Fermi surface, as well as the angular anisotropy, have to be taken into account for a quantitative description of any spin-transport experiment. While “heavy” parts of the Fermi surface dominate the DOS spin polarization, “light parts” determine the spin polarization relevant for transport and tunneling phenomena[@M]. There is good agreement between the experimental data for the Ni-rich and Ni-poor alloys and band structure calculations for the diffusive limit, $%
P_{Nv^{2}}$ (except for pure Fe where $P_{Nv}$ agrees with the experiment better than $P_{Nv^{2}}$). This result is quite reasonable because the electron mean free path, $l_{e}$, of these alloys (but not necessarily for the pure components) is typically very short (compared to the size of the contact) even at low temperatures, especially for minority spins ($l_{e}\sim$ 5-10 Å) [@23]. This is also consistent with the agreement between PCAR and tunneling spin polarizations[@9]; as mentioned above, the latter is also defined by $\langle Nv^2\rangle$.
We could not perform reliable calculations for pure Ni. This reflects a well-known problem in conventional band structure theory, which is unable to completely account for electronic correlation effects in the 3d-states of metallic oxides and, to a lesser extent, of Ni. The correlation effects in Ni are known to reduce the exchange splitting by a factor of two which, in turn, should affect the spin polarization. For a different reason, we exclude the theoretical calculations for the compounds close to the 50:50 Ni:Fe composition. At relevant lattice parameters the FCC phase of Fe is antiferromagnetic, so close to its solubility limit in the FCC Ni (approximately 60-65%) the corresponding Ni-Fe alloys must have Fe clusters which are sufficiently large to develop antiferromagnetic order. On the other hand, Fe-Ni and Ni-Ni interactions are ferromagnetic. This creates frustration leading to non-collinear spin ordering[@2]. A theory of spin-polarized transport in such systems is yet to be developed.
In summary, we have presented the band structure calculations of the transport spin polarizations in the Ni-Fe system and the experimental measurements of the same system using the PCAR technique. Overall, the spin polarization measured by PCAR technique agrees reasonably well with the band structure calculations for $%
P=P_{Nv^{2}}$. It is also in surprisingly good agreement with the most recent tunneling results [@9]. Furthermore, our results repudiate the idea of a direct relationship between the spin polarization and the magnetic moment. At the same time we show that the spin polarization in electronic transport is determined by the delicate balance of the density of states and the kinematics of the s- and d- electrons (the variation of the Fermi velocity over the Fermi surface) and, therefore, dependent on the measurement technique and the transport process in question. In particular, our calculations give a quantitative explanation for a long-standing problem of the positive values of tunneling spin polarization observed for the Ni-Fe system, which has important implications both for fundamental issues of spin transport and for magnetoelectronics applications.
We are grateful to J. S. Moodera for providing the results on tunneling[@9] prior to publication, G. Prinz for useful discussions, and T. Ambrose, C. T. Tanaka, T.J.M. Verspaget, and M. Maoliyakefu for technical assistance. We also thank J. Byers for numerous discussions and providing the modified BTK program, and P. Broussard for help in computer modeling. This work was supported by ASEE and ONR.
G.A. Prinz, Physics Today [**48,**]{} 58 (1995); G.A. Prinz, Science [**282**]{}, 1660 (1998).
H. Ebert, P. Strange, and B.L. Gyorffy, J. Phys. F [**18**]{}, L135 (1988), and reference therein.
J.B. Gadzuk, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 416 (1969); M.B. Stearns, J. Magn. Mag. Mater. [**5**]{}, 167 (1977).
J.S. Moodera [*et al*]{}, in preparation.
R. J. Soulen et al, Science [**282**]{}, 85 (1998).
I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**83**]{}, 1427 (1999).
S.K. Upadhyay [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3247 (1998).
R. Meservey, D. Paraskevopoulos and P.M. Tedrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{}, 858 (1976).
“Companion” samples of the same composition made under the same conditions (see R. van der Veerdonk, Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University, Eindhoven, 1999) and were also measured by Moodera [*et al*]{} [@9] using standard tunneling spectroscopy [@10].
Based on the signal-to-noise ratios of the strongest peak in our diffraction patterns, it is estimated that a second phase could be detected if present in quantities greater than 5%.
A.J. Bradley and A. Taylor, Phil. Mag. [**23**]{}, 545 (1937).
M. Konno and H. Konno, J. Magn. Mag. Mater. [**118**]{}, 381 (1993).
M.J.M. de Jong and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1657 (1995).
G.E. Blonder, M. Tinkham and T.M. Klapwijk, Phys Rev. B. [**25**]{}, 4515 (1982).
Note that our analysis is based on an assumption (used both in the BTK paper[@16] and in our modified version[@6]) of a ballistic contact, for which the mean free path $l_{e}$ is much larger than the size of the contact, $d$. It is difficult to assess the effect of violation of the condition ($ l_{e}\gg d$). Preliminary calculations show, however, that it mainly affects the values of $Z$ in our fits, while the changes in the resulting spin polarization are relatively small.
For some junctions we could obtain better fits by using a higher temperature. This is most likely due to the fact that we did not explicitly introduce any gap smearing, as it is customary in superconducting tunneling (i.e. R.C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{} 2437 (1984). Fitting with an increased temperature is to a large extent equivalent to an additional gap smearing. We emphasize that even when increasing the temperature parameter impoves the quality of the fits, it hardly changes the resulting spin polarization.
D. Paraskevopoulos, R. Meservey, and P. M Tedrow, Phys. Rev. B [**16**]{}, 4907 (1977). In these measurements, a two-step junction fabrication process was used, while the more recent experiments[@9] used [*in situ* ]{} fabrication. Tunneling spectroscopy is a more surface sensitive technique [@10] than PCAR and, therefore, may be susceptible to surface conditions of nickel, which are clearly improved by using an [*in-situ*]{} process[@9].
The LMTO-ASA Stuttgart code was used, see e.g. O.K. Andersen and O. Jepsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 2571 (1984).
Using the correct structural phase in these calculations is important (replacing fcc by bcc and vice versa yields significantly different results).
D.Y. Petrovykh et al, Appl. Phys. Lett.[** 73,**]{} 3459 (1998). Y. Wang et al, J. Appl. Phys. [**8**]{}, 3873 (1997).
P.M. Tedrow and R. Meservey, Phys. Rep. [**238**]{}, 173 (1994).
------------- -------------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------------------------------- ------------
Point/Base $N$ [*P*]{}(%) Point/Base $N$ [*P*]{}(%)
Fe/V (C) 9 45$\pm$2 Nb/Ni (C-1) 8 45$\pm$2
Fe/Ta (Fl) 14 46$\pm$2 Nb/Ni (C-2) 8 41$\pm$4
Fe/Nb (Fl) 3 42$\pm$3 Nb/Ni (C-3) 11 48$\pm$4
Nb/Fe (Fm) 5 41$\pm$3 Nb/Ni (Fl) 10 45$\pm$2
Ta/Fe (Fm) 12 45$\pm$2 Nb/Ni (Fm) 14 45$\pm$3
Ta/Ni (Fl-1) 8 44$\pm$4
Ta/Ni (Fl-2) 10 50$\pm$1
Average, Fe $\left\langle P\right\rangle $ 44$\pm$ 3 Average, Ni $\left\langle P\right\rangle $ 46$\pm$ 3
------------- -------------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------------------------------- ------------
: Spin polarization results for pure Fe and Ni. $N$ refers to the number of distinct point contacts made; [*P*]{} to the average polarization obtained for the $N$ contacts, and $dP$ to the standard deviation. C=crystal, Fl=foil, Fm=film.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Converting the traction power of kites into electricity can be a low cost solution for wind energy. Reliable control of both trajectory and tether reeling is crucial. The present study proposes a modelling framework describing the dynamic behaviour of the interconnected system components, suitable for design and optimization of the control systems. The wing, bridle, airborne control unit and tether are represented as a particle system using spring-damper elements to describe their mechanical properties. Two kite models are proposed: a point mass model and a four point model. Reeling of the tether is modelled by varying the lengths of constituent tether elements. Dynamic behaviour of the ground station is included. The framework is validated by combining it with the automatic control system used for the operation of a kite power system demonstrator. The simulation results show that the point mass model can be adjusted to match the measured behaviour during a pumping cycle. The four point model can better predict the influence of gravity and inertia on the steering response and remains stable also at low tether forces. Compared to simple one point models, the proposed framework is more accurate and robust while allowing real-time simulations of the complete system.'
address: 'Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Kluyverweg 1, 2629HS Delft, Netherlands'
author:
- Uwe Fechner
- Rolf van der Vlugt
- Edwin Schreuder
- Roland Schmehl
title: Dynamic Model of a Pumping Kite Power System
---
kite power ,airborne wind energy ,kite power system model ,kite model ,tether model ,kite control
damping coefficient of tether segment \[Ns/m\]
unit damping coefficient \[Ns\]
steering coefficient (one point kite model) \[-\]
tether diameter \[m\]
relative depower input of kite control unit (0, 1) \[-\]
relative steering input of kite control unit (-1, 1) \[-\]
spring constant of tether segment \[N/m\]
unit spring constant \[N\]
steering-induced drag coefficient \[-\]
tether length at beginning of time step $i$ \[m\]
mass of kite control unit \[kg\]
mass of kite \[kg\]
number of tether segments \[-\]
initial length of tether segment \[m\]
relative depower setting of kite control unit (0, 1) \[-\]
relative steering setting of kite control unit (-1, 1) \[-\]
tether reel-out speed \[m/s\]
horizontal wind velocity at 6 m height \[m/s\]
height of kite or tether segment \[m\]
vector of accelerations of tether particles \[m/s$^2$\]
drag force vector of tether segment $i$
vectors of the gravity and steering forces of kite \[N\]
lift and drag force vectors of kite \[N\]
vector of positions of tether particles \[m\]
position vectors of the front and top kite particles \[m\]
position vectors of the right and left kite particles \[m\]
vector of the residual of the implicit problem/ model
vector from the tether particle i to the particle i+1 \[m\]
velocity of tether particle $i+1$ relative to particle $i$ \[m/s\]
vector of apparent air velocity \[m/s\]
vector of wind velocity at the height of kite \[m/s\]
unit vector of the x, y and z-axis of the kite-reference frame
state vector of the implicit problem/ model
angle of attack and elevation angle \[rad\]
air density \[kg$m^{-3}$\]
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Wind energy is a major source of renewable energy. However, conventional wind turbines are restricted by physical and economic limits. Airborne wind energy has the potential to overcome some of the limitations, using tethered flying devices to reach altitudes of 400 to 600 m where the wind is stronger and steadier [@Archer2014]. The fact that airborne wind energy systems do not require towers reduces the costs per installation significantly.
The focus of this paper is the modelling of airborne wind energy systems that use the traction power of a tethered inflatable wing in a pumping cycle, as described in [@Vlugt2013] and [@Fechner2013]. The main components of such a single-tether kite power system (KPS) are the wing, the kite control unit (KCU) suspended below the wing by means of a bridle system, the tether and the drum-generator module, which is part of the ground station. It is the objective to develop a system model that is real-time capable and of sufficient accuracy for the development and verification of flight path and ground station controllers. A dynamic model of a two-line kite is derived in [@Diehl2001]. Variations of the angle of attack are not taken into account and the simplicity of the model allows for an analytical derivation of a state space representation based on four dynamic states. Further expanding on this model, [@Ahmed2011] proposed a kite power system model with three degrees of freedom (DOF), in which the kite is represented as a point mass at the end of the straight tether of variable length. Assuming a rigid wing with constant aerodynamic properties, the steering forces are derived as functions of the roll angle.
A discretisation of the tether as a multibody system has been proposed by [@Williams2007e], using a Lagrangian approach to derive the equations of motion in generalised coordinates. The advantage of this approach is the direct incorporation of constrains which results in a compact problem formulation. This model used rigid tether segments, connected by spherical joints, which is not sufficient for modelling the tether force and implementing the force control loop. In addition it is adding and removing point masses during the simulation to simulate reel-out and reel-in of the tether. According to our experience this causes artificial discontinuities in the model which makes it difficult to implement the force control loop. For the kite it also used a point mass model.
A model that uses a discretised tether with point masses connected by springs was published in [@Gohl2013]. The aerodynamics of the kite were modelled using the vortex lattice method, which means that it is using an advanced kite model. On the other hand it was not mentioned if the dynamics of the winch were modelled at all and no details were published on the question how reeling in and out was modelled. Other authors presented detailed generator and winch models [@Ahmed2011; @Coleman2013], but no or only a very simple model for the kite and the tether.
Coupling fluid and structural dynamic solvers for wind turbine applications has been studied by [@Vire2012; @Vire2012a], while fluid-structure interactions methods have been applied to kite aeroelastic behaviour by [@Bosch2014]. These kind of models might be useful for the design of improved kites, but they are very computational intensive and currently at least one order of magnitude slower than real-time [@Bosch2014].
This paper presents a model where the dynamics of all major system components - the tether, the kite and the generator - are taken into account, with a focus on a novel discretised tether model which allows smooth reel-in and reel-out. It is soft real-time capable and thus suitable for the training of kite pilots and winch operators, but can also be used for software in the loop testing of KPS control systems, the development of estimation algorithms and for the optimization of flight trajectories.
An improved one-point kite model is presented, that allows to change the angle of attack during simulation time and uses look-up tables to calculate the lift and drag as function of the angle of attack. It also takes the increased drag when flying around corners into account. In addition it uses a correction term to match the influence of gravity. This model can already be sufficient for optimizing flight trajectories.
For controller development a four-point kite model is devised, the most simple point mass model that has rotational inertial in all axis. This avoids discontinuities in the kite orientation which make the one-point kite model uncontrollable in curtain flight manoeuvres. In addition it is very close to a fully physical model: Many model parameters like the height and width of the kite and the height of the bridle can just be measured and do not need to be identified. Only the steering sensitivity parameters need to be identified because they depend on the flexibility of the kite which is not explicitly modelled.
This article will first explain the atmospheric model, then the tether model and the two kite models and finally the winch model. Furthermore, the control system is briefly explained. Subsequently a systematic approach for the model calibration is presented, with the goal to match the conditions of a real flight as good as possible.
In the results section major parameters like force, speed, power and flight trajectory as obtained from the point mass model and the four point model are compared with data, measured using the Hydra kite of Delft University of Technology. Finally conclusions are drawn about the performance and accuracy of the described models and which improvements are still needed.
Computational approach
======================
One of the requirements when building the model was, that it has to be (soft-) real-time capable. On the other hand, the programming effort should be limited and it should be easy to adapt the model to different kite power systems. It was found that high-level modelling tools like Simulink or Modellica were not capable to simulate a discretised tether that is reeling in or out in real-time. Therefore general purpose programming language was used that makes low-level optimizations of the modelling code possible.
We are modelling the kite and the tether as a particle system, using discrete point masses which are connected by spring-damper elements. This has the advantage of a coherent model structure for which efficient mathematical methods for solving the stiff equation system exist [@Eberhardt2000]. For describing the positions of the particles a ground fixed reference frame is used, where the x-axis is pointing east, the y-axis north and the z-axis upwards. The origin is placed at the ground station.
The state vector of the system was constructed using the states of the tether particles, the states of the kite particles (only needed for the the four point kite model, because otherwise the last tether particle also represents the kite) and the scalar states of the winch (generator). Because no accurate, real-time measurements of the wind speed at the height of the kite were available, an atmospheric model, describing the wind profile, was also needed.
Atmospheric model
-----------------
To determine the wind speed ${v_{{\mathrm{w}}}}$ at the height of the kite and at the height of each tether segment, the power law [@Stull2000] and the log law [@Burton2001 p. 19] are used. Input parameters are the ground wind speed ${v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}$ and the current height $z$ of the kite or tether segment. The ground wind speed used in this paper was measured at ${z_{{\mathrm{ref}}}}~=~6.0~{{\mathrm{m}}}$. The power law establishes the relationship between ${v_{{\mathrm{w}}}}$ and ${v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}$ as $${v_{{\mathrm{w,exp}}}}= {v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}~ \left(\frac{z}{{z_{{\mathrm{ref}}}}}\right)^\alpha
\label{eq:powerLaw}$$ with the exponent $\alpha$ as fitting parameter. The logarithmic law, which according to [@Burton2001 p. 20] is more accurate than the least-square power law, can be written in the following form $${v_{{\mathrm{w,log}}}}= {v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}~ \frac{\log(z / z_0)}{\log({z_{{\mathrm{ref}}}}/ z_0)} ,
\label{eq:logLaw}$$ where ${z_{{\mathrm{ref}}}}$ is the reference height and $z_0$ is the roughness length. For this paper not only the ground wind speed ${v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}$ is measured, but once per flight additionally the wind speed at two more heights, $z_1$ and $z_2$. Then, a wind profile is fitted to these three wind speeds. To make a fit with three (speed, height) pairs possible, Eqns. (\[eq:logLaw\]) and (\[eq:powerLaw\]) are combined in the following way $${v_{{\mathrm{w}}}}= {v_{{\mathrm{w,log}}}}+ K~({v_{{\mathrm{w,log}}}}- {v_{{\mathrm{w,exp}}}}) .
\label{eq:windProfile}$$ The fit is done by varying the surface roughness $z_0$ and $K$ until $v_w$ according to Eq. (\[eq:windProfile\]) matches the measured wind speed at all three heights. The exponent $\alpha$ is chosen according to $$\alpha = \frac{\log(~{v_{{\mathrm{w,exp}}}}(z_1)~/~{v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}~)}{\log(z) - \log({z_{{\mathrm{ref}}}})} ,
\label{eq:alpha}$$ which results in $~{v_{{\mathrm{w,exp}}}}(z_1)~=~ {v_{{\mathrm{w,log}}}}(z_1)$.
An average sea-level density of $\rho_0 = 1.225$ kg/m$^3$ is assumed, and the height dependency is calculated according to $$\rho = \rho_0 ~ \exp\left(\frac{z}{H_{\rho}}\right) ,
\label{eq:rho}$$ where $z$ is the height and $H_{\rho} = 8.55$ km. An example for a fitted wind profile is shown in Fig. \[fig:wind\_profile\], using the parameters from Table \[tab:simulation\_parameters\].
![Wind profile according the logarithmic law (dotted), the power law (dashed) and the fitted wind profile (solid), a linear combination of the others. Cross symbols represent measured values.[]{data-label="fig:wind_profile"}](./wind_profile){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Tether model {#sec:tether_model}
------------
The tether is modelled as a fixed number of lumped masses, connected with n spring damper elements as shown in Fig. \[fig:FourPointKite\]. To simulate reel-in and reel-out the initial length of the tether segments ${l_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ is varied according to $${l_{{\mathrm{s}}}}= \frac{{l_{{{\mathrm{t}}},i}}}{n} + \frac{{v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}~ (t-{t_i})}{n} ,
\label{eq:inital_length}$$ where ${l_{{{\mathrm{t}}},i}}$ is the tether length at the beginning of the i-th time step, ${v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}$ the reel-out velocity, $t$ the simulation time and ${t_i}$ the simulation time at the beginning of the i-th time step.
This length is then used to calculate the spring and damping constants $$k = {k_0}~\frac{l_0}{{l_{{\mathrm{s}}}}} ,
\label{eq:spring_constant}$$ $$c = {c_0}~\frac{l_0}{{l_{{\mathrm{s}}}}} ,
\label{eq:damping_constant}$$ where $l_0$ is the initial length of the tether segments at the beginning of the simulation. The differential equations of the particle system are formulated as an implicit problem $$\begin{aligned}
F(t,{\mathbf{Y}},\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}})~&=~0 , \label{eq:main_equation}\\
{\mathbf{Y}}(t_0)~&=~{\mathbf{Y}}_0 , \\
\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}}(t_0)~&=~\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}}_0 .\end{aligned}$$ The state vector ${\mathbf{Y}}$ of the particle system is defined as $${\mathbf{Y}} ~=~ ({\mathbf{p}}, {\mathbf{v}}) ,$$ where ${\mathbf{p}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}$ comprise the positions and velocities of the particles, respectively. For solving the problem only the residual ${\mathbf{R}}=F(t,{\mathbf{Y}},\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}})$ needs to be programmed. The vector ${\mathbf{R}}$ consists of two partitions, the residual of the position vectors and its derivatives, and the residual of the velocity vectors and its derivatives, $${\mathbf{R}}~=~({{\mathbf{R}}_{{\mathrm{p}}}},~{{\mathbf{R}}_{{\mathrm{v}}}}) .$$ The first partition can be calculated from Newton’s law, ${\mathbf{a}}~=~\dot{{\mathbf{v}}}$. To calculate the second partition the particle forces must be known. On each particle are acting the forces of the spring damper element above and below the particle. In addition, half of the aerodynamic drag forces of the tether segments above and below of each particle have to be taken into account.
With ${{\mathbf{f}}_{{{\mathrm{s}}},i}}$ denoting the tensile force of segment $i$ and ${{\mathbf{d}}_i}$ denoting the aerodynamic drag force of this segment as calculated in Eq. (\[eq:drag\_force\]), the forces acting on the i-th particle can be calculated according to $${{\mathbf{f}}_i}~=~{{{\mathbf{f}}_{{{\mathrm{s}}},i-1}}+{{{\mathbf{f}}_{{{\mathrm{s}}},i}}}~+~\frac{1}{2}~({{\mathbf{d}}_i}+{{\mathbf{d}}_{i-1}})}~.
\label{eq:force}$$ The first and the last particle have to be treated differently: For $i=0$ the lower spring force has to be replaced with the tether force as experienced by the ground station, and for the last tether particle the aerodynamic force of the kite has to be taken into account.
The spring forces are calculated according to Hooke’s law $${{\mathbf{f}}_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~=~{\left(k ~(\parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_i}\parallel -~{l_{{\mathrm{s}}}})~+~c~\left(\frac{{{\mathbf{s}}_i}}{\parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_i}\parallel} \cdot {{\mathbf{s}}_{{{\mathrm{v}}},i}}\right)\right) \frac{{{\mathbf{s}}_i}}{\parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_i}\parallel}~~~} ,$$ with ${l_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$, $k$ and $c$ calculated according to Eqns. (\[eq:inital\_length\]), (\[eq:spring\_constant\]), (\[eq:damping\_constant\]) and with $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{s}}_i}& = {{\mathbf{p}}_{i+1}}- {{\mathbf{p}}_i}~, \\
{{\mathbf{s}}_{{{\mathrm{v}}},i}}& = {{\mathbf{v}}_{i+1}}- {{\mathbf{v}}_i}~.\end{aligned}$$ We use linear springs with a different stiffness for the extension and compression regimes. The stiffness for compression is much lower to model the behaviour of flexible bridle and tether lines, yet provide some structural stability.
The aerodynamic drag of any tether segment is calculated in the following way: First the wind speed at the height of the i-th tether segment ${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{w,s}}},i}}$ is calculated using Eq. (\[eq:windProfile\]). Then, the average segment velocity is calculated as $${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{s}}},i}}= \frac{1}{2}~({{\mathbf{v}}_{i+1}}+ {{\mathbf{v}}_i}) ,$$ which leads to the apparent air velocity $${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i}}= {{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{w,s}}},i}}- {{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{s}}},i}}.$$ The drag of a cylinder is mainly caused by the component of ${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i}}$ that is perpendicular to the tether segment ${\mathbf{s}}_{{\mathrm{i}}}$ calculated as $${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i,\bot}}~=~{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i}}~-~\left({{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i}}\cdot \frac{{{\mathbf{s}}_i}}{\parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_i}\parallel}\right)~\frac{{{\mathbf{s}}_i}}{\parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_i}\parallel}~.$$ Using this the drag force on the tether segment is resulting in $${{\mathbf{d}}_i}~=~\frac{1}{2} ~ c_{{\mathrm{d,t}}}~\rho ~ \parallel {{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i,\bot}}\parallel ~ \parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_i}\parallel~d_{{\mathrm{t}}} ~{{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,s}}},i,\bot}}},
\label{eq:drag_force}$$ where $c_{{\mathrm{d,t}}}$ is the tether drag coefficient and $d_{{\mathrm{t}}}$ the tether diameter.
Point mass kite model {#subsec:point-mass_model}
---------------------
The point mass model proposed in [@Diehl2001 pp. 139–144] represents the kite as a discrete mass moving under the action of an aerodynamic force vector. It is also denoted as “one point" or “1p" model. Steering is incorporated by an aerodynamic side force which depends linearly on the steering input. This model does not account for rotational inertia, assuming that the wing is always aligned with the local relative flow experienced during flight. Expanding on the original work, the model presented in the following allows for tether deformation and a variable angle of attack.
### Reference frame {#reference-frame .unnumbered}
The kite reference frame ($x,y,z$) is defined on the basis of the local tether geometry and relative flow conditions. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:KiteReferenceFrame\] the $z$-axis is aligned with the last tether segment.
(1,0.70571463) (0,0)[![Kite reference frame ($x,y,z$) of the point mass kite model. The physical wing is included here for the purpose of illustrating the concept of angle of attack and the assumed alignment with the relative flow.[]{data-label="fig:KiteReferenceFrame"}](OnePointKiteSmall.pdf "fig:"){width="\unitlength"}]{} (0.52309783,0.13566052)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.52397632,0.21066957)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.40889866,0.14865481)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.47125528,0.02732639)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.37025204,0.39141717)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.29652592,0.25200616)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.24819902,0.25390188)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.34901797,0.16299502)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.24657469,0.14116669)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.1793676,0.44498375) (0.46805146,0.47298171)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.56999222,0.31736892)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.45157671,0.30673491)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.79163634,0.02851584)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.71812262,0.64055205)
The $x$- and $y$-axes are constructed such that the apparent air velocity vector ${{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}= {{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{w}}}}}- {{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{k}}}}}$ is in the $xz$-plane. This is based on the assumption that the wing is always aligned with the apparent wind velocity and that the sideslip velocity vanishes correspondingly. The vector base is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}& =~- ~\frac{{{\mathbf{s}}_{n-1}}} {\parallel {{\mathbf{s}}_{n-1}}\parallel} , \label{eq:z_vector} \\
{{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}& =~\frac{{{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\times {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}}{\parallel {{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\times {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}\parallel} , \label{eq:y_vector} \\
{{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}& =~{{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}\times {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}. \label{eq:x_vector}\end{aligned}$$ The unit vector ${{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}$ is also called *heading*, because it describes the orientation of the wing.
### External forces {#external-forces .unnumbered}
The external force ${{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{k}}}}}$ acting on the point mass representation of the kite comprises contributions of aerodynamic lift ${{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{L}}}}$ and drag ${{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{D}}}}$, the aerodynamic side force ${{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ and the gravitational force ${{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{g}}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{L}}}}&~=~ \frac{1}{2} ~\rho~ {{v^2_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}A~{{C_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}(\alpha)~ \frac{{{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\times {{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}}{\parallel {{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\times {{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}\parallel} , \\
{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{D}}}}&~=~ \frac{1}{2}~\rho~{{v^2_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}A~{{C_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}(\alpha) ~ (1 + {K_{{\mathrm{s,D}}}}~|{u_{{\mathrm{s}}}}|) ~\frac{{{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}}{\parallel{{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\parallel} , \\
{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{s}}}}&~=~ \frac{1}{2}~\rho~{{v^2_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}A~ \frac{{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}{A}~{c_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~({i_{{\mathrm{s}}}}+ {i_{{\mathrm{s,c}}}})~{{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}, \\
{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{g}}}}&~=~ ({m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}+ {m_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}) ~ {\mathbf{g}} , \\
{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{k}}}}&~=~{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{L}}}}+{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{D}}}}+{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{s}}}}+{{\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathrm{g}}}}. \label{eq:kite_force}\end{aligned}$$
It should be emphasised that the drag force increases as the kite is steered due to kite deformation. Also, the steering force is based on the side area of the kite rather than the top area of the kite. The factored term ${{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}/{A}$ represents a parametrized description of a kite’s geometry. The constant ${c_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ describes the steering sensitivity of the kite and has to be determined experimentally. The influence of the steering on the drag is described by ${K_{{\mathrm{s,D}}}}$. The empirical value of ${K_{{\mathrm{s,D}}}}~=~0.6$ is used. The variable ${i_{{\mathrm{s,c}}}}$ is a correction term for the influence of gravity on the turn rate of the kite. It is calculated as follows $${i_{{\mathrm{s,c}}}}~=~\frac{{c_{{\mathrm{2,c}}}}}{{{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}}~\sin \psi~\cos~\beta .
\label{eq:correction}$$ Equation (\[eq:correction\]) is derived from the turn rate law as presented in Eq. (\[eq:psi\]). The correction factor ${c_{{\mathrm{2,c}}}}$ must be chosen such that the identified parameter $c_2$ of the one-point model matches the measurements. Without this correction the influence of gravity in this model was more than a factor of two higher.
### Calculation of lift and drag as function of the angle of attack {#calculation-of-lift-and-drag-as-function-of-the-angle-of-attack .unnumbered}
We make the following assumptions:
- The kite-tether angle depends linearly on the depower settings ${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$;
- the kite-depower angle has the value $\alpha_0$ for ${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}~=~{u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$;
- The maximal depower value of ${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}={u_{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}$ corresponds to a kite-tether angle of $\alpha_0-{\alpha_{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}.$
Then, the angle of attack can be calculated with the following formula $$\alpha~=~\arccos \left(\frac{{{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\cdot {{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}} {{{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}} \right) - {\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}+ \alpha_0 ,
\label{eq:alpha_one_point}$$ where $\alpha_0$ is the angle between the kite and the cable when the kite is fully powered as shown in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_0\] and ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ is the additional angle resulting from reeling out the depower line $${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}= \frac{{u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}- {u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}}{{u_{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}- {u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}}~{\alpha_{{\mathrm{d,max}}}},
\label{eq:alpha_d}$$ where ${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$ is the value of the depower control input that is needed for the fully powered kite (maximal L/D) and ${u_{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}$ and ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}$ the values for ${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ and ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ respectively that are needed for the fully depowered kite.
Figure \[fig:lift\_and\_drag\] shows the lift coefficient ${{C_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}$ and the drag coefficient ${{C_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}$ as functions of the angle of attack $\alpha$. The curves are established using the models of lift and drag coefficients of stalled and unstalled airfoils from [@Spera2008], yet experience based modifications were made to better fit the coefficients of the non-ordinary wing section of a leading edge inflatable tube kite.
![The lift and the drag coefficients as function of the angle of attack.[]{data-label="fig:lift_and_drag"}](./lift_and_drag){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Four point kite model {#sec:four_point_kite_model}
---------------------
The point mass kite model can be sufficient to simulate and optimize the flight path of a power kite, because it is controllable during the power cycle and the simulated tether forces are close to the measured values. In addition the point mass model can be used to calculate the initial orientation of more complex models. However, it is not a good choice for the development and optimization of flight-path control algorithms, because the reaction of the kite to steering inputs is problematic: A point mass kite has no rotational inertia, therefore its yaw angle is *jumping* when the sign of ${{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}$ is changing. This is non-physical behaviour. In these situations controllability is lost. Therefore, we will now investigate a four-point kite model (4p model) in order to obtain a more realistic and robust model.
### Geometry and mass distribution {#geometry-and-mass-distribution .unnumbered}
The most simple particle-system based kite model that has rotational inertia in all axis is a four point kite model, which we will use from now on. The points of the this model are defined in Fig. \[fig:FourPointKite\].
(1,0.92916667) (0,0)[![Four point model of the kite defined by points ${\mathbf{A}}$, ${\mathbf{B}}$, ${\mathbf{C}}$ and ${\mathbf{D}}$. Points ${\mathbf{P}}_0$ to ${{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}$ discretize the tether.[]{data-label="fig:FourPointKite"}](particles.pdf "fig:"){width="\unitlength"}]{} (0.83646118,0.90893707)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.9484904,0.739199)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.68812368,0.74897258)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.81051717,0.69804108)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.83700134,0.50594693)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.79741557,0.3770418)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.73868073,0.26231895)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.65997101,0.17086036)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.5535286,0.10655021)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.42991496,0.06415127)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.17465035,-0.00237206)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.19122147,0.27742785)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.39659175,-0.00056181)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.33631983,0.11220507)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.84278941,0.77431226)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The kite mass ${m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ is distributed to points ${\mathbf{A}}$ to ${\mathbf{D}}$ according to Eqns. (\[eq:0\]) to (\[eq:4\]) while the mass of the kite control unit ${m_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}$ plus half of the mass of the last tether segment are used as the mass of ${{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
m_{{{\mathrm{PKCU}}}} &= {m_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}+ \frac{{{l_{{\mathrm{t}}}}}~\sigma}{2~n} , \label{eq:0}\\
{m_{{\mathrm{A}}}}&= \gamma ~ {m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}, \label{eq:1}\\
{m_{{\mathrm{B}}}}&= 0.4 ~ (1 - \gamma) ~ {m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}, \label{eq:2}\\
{m_{{\mathrm{C}}}}&= 0.3 ~ (1 - \gamma) ~ {m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}, \label{eq:3}\\
{m_{{\mathrm{D}}}}&= 0.3 ~ (1 - \gamma) ~ {m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}, \label{eq:4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the nose mass fraction of the wing, $n$ the number of tether segments, ${{l_{{\mathrm{t}}}}}$ the current tether length and $\sigma$ the linear mass density of the tether. The simulation of typical flight manoeuvres at low apparent air velocities has shown that a value of $\gamma = 0.47$ reproduces well the dive-down behaviour of the Leading Edge Inflatable (LEI) tube kites employed in the current study.
The virtual centre position of the kite, ${\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}}$ is defined as $${\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}}~=~\frac{1}{2}~({\mathbf{C}} + {\mathbf{D}}) .$$ The origin of the kite reference frame is at ${\mathbf{B}}$. The unit vectors ${{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}, {{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}$ and ${{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}&=~\frac{{\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} - {\mathbf{B}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} - {\mathbf{B}} \parallel} , \label{eq:x_4point} \\
{{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}&=~\frac{{\mathbf{C}} - {\mathbf{D}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{C}} - {\mathbf{D}} \parallel} , \label{eq:y_4point} \\
{{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}&=~{{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}\times {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}. \label{eq:z_4point}\end{aligned}$$ To parametrize the shape of the kite only three values need to be defined: The height of the kite ${h_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ (distance between ${{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$), the height of the bridle ${h_{{\mathrm{b}}}}$ (distance between ${{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}$ and ${{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}$) and the width of the kite ${w_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ (the distance between ${\mathbf{C}}$ and ${\mathbf{D}}$).
### Initial conditions {#initial-conditions .unnumbered}
To calculate the initial positions of the kite particles, the point mass kite model from Sect. \[subsec:point-mass\_model\] is used. The initial unit vectors of the kite reference frame (${{{\mathbf{e}}_{x,0}}}, {{{\mathbf{e}}_{y,0}}}$ and ${{{\mathbf{e}}_{z,0}}}$) are calculated using the kite position, the orientation of the last tether segment and the apparent air velocity (Eqns. (\[eq:z\_vector\]), (\[eq:y\_vector\]) and (\[eq:x\_vector\])).
When these vectors are known, the positions of the kite particles at zero force can be defined by the following equations $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} &= {{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}- {h_{{\mathrm{b}}}}~ {{{\mathbf{e}}_{z,0}}}, \\
{\mathbf{A}} ~&= {\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} + {d_{{\mathrm{n,r}}}}~ {w_{{\mathrm{k}}}}~{w_{{\mathrm{rel}}}}~ {{{\mathbf{e}}_{x,0}}}, \\
{\mathbf{B}} ~&= {\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} - h_{{\mathrm{k}}} ~ {{{\mathbf{e}}_{z,0}}}, \\
{\mathbf{C}} ~&= {\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} + 0.5 ~ {w_{{\mathrm{k}}}}~{w_{{\mathrm{rel}}}}~ {{{\mathbf{e}}_{y,0}}}, \\
{\mathbf{D}} ~&= {\mathbf{{{\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathrm{c}}}}}} - 0.5 ~ {w_{{\mathrm{k}}}}~{w_{{\mathrm{rel}}}}~ {{{\mathbf{e}}_{y,0}}},\end{aligned}$$ where ${d_{{\mathrm{n,r}}}}$ is the relative nose distance, a kite dependant factor in the order of $0.2$. In combination with the nose mass fraction $\gamma$ the factor ${d_{{\mathrm{n,r}}}}$ can be used to tune the rotational inertia and the centre of gravity. The distance from ${\mathbf{C}}$ to ${\mathbf{D}}$ is calculated using the tip-to-tip distance of the kite ${w_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ multiplied with the relative kite width ${w_{{\mathrm{rel}}}}$ which is a factor in the order of $0.9$ and reflects the fact that the aerodynamic steering forces do not act on the tips of the kite, but a little bit further inwards.
During the simulation, the aerodynamic forces are applied to surfaces that are attached to the kite particles. This causes them to change their positions, and from the current positions the unit vectors of the kite reference frame can then be calculated using Eqns. (\[eq:x\_4point\]), (\[eq:y\_4point\]) and (\[eq:z\_4point\]).
### Projected air velocities and angles of attack {#projected-air-velocities-and-angles-of-attack .unnumbered}
The aerodynamic model assumes surfaces attached to the top particle ${\mathbf{B}}$ and to the side particles ${\mathbf{C}}$ and ${\mathbf{D}}$. The sole purpose of particle ${\mathbf{A}}$ is to achieve rotational inertia and to realistically place the centre of gravity, therefore no aerodynamic force is attached to this particle.
The lift forces are determined based on the part of the apparent velocity that is perpendicular to the leading edge as suggested in [@Obert2009]. For the surface attached to the top particle, this is the apparent velocity in the $xz$-plane ${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a}}},xz}}$. For the surfaces attached to the side particles, the apparent velocity in the $xy$-plane ${{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a}}},xy}}$ is needed. These can be calculated as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a}}},xz}}&= {{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}- ({{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\cdot \hspace{2pt} {{{\mathbf{e}}_y}})~{{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}, \\
{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a}}},xy}}&= {{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}- ({{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}\cdot \hspace{2pt} {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}})~{{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the top surface of the kite the angle of attack can be calculated as follows $${\alpha_{{\mathrm{B}}}}= \pi -\arccos ~ \left( \frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,B}}},xz} \cdot {{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,B}}},xz} \parallel} \right)- {\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}+ \alpha_0 .$$ The angle ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ is the change of the angle between the kite and the last tether segment due to the change of the depower settings. The value of ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ is between zero when fully powered and - for the leading edge inflatable tube kites used at Delft University of Technology - about when fully depowered. If the reel-out length of the depower tape, the height of the bridle, the height of the kite and the power-to-steering-line distance are known, ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ can be calculated geometrically; In many cases the linear approximation given by Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_d\]) is sufficient.
For the side surfaces of the kite the angles of attack can be calculated as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\alpha_{{\mathrm{C}}}}= \pi - \arccos \left(\frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,C}}},xy} \cdot {{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,C}}},xy} \parallel} \right)- {\alpha_{{\mathrm{s}}}}+ {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s}}},0}}, \\
{\alpha_{{\mathrm{D}}}}= \pi - \arccos \left(\frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,D}}},xy} \cdot {{{\mathbf{e}}_x}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{{\mathrm{a,D}}},xy} \parallel} \right)+ {\alpha_{{\mathrm{s}}}}+ {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s}}},0}},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ is the change of the angle of attack caused by the steering line difference. For ${\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s}}},0}}$ a value of $10\,^{\circ}$ is assumed. With ${u_{{{\mathrm{s}}},0}}$ a steering offset - which is in practice unavoidable and caused by asymmetries in the steering system - it can be calculated as follows $${\alpha_{{\mathrm{s}}}}= \frac{{u_{{\mathrm{s}}}}- {u_{{{\mathrm{s}}},0}}}{1+{K_{{\mathrm{d,s}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}/ {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}})} ~ {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s, max}}}}}.$$ The value of ${\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s, max}}}}}$ (in the order of must be chosen such that the steering sensitivity of the kite model matches the steering sensitivity of the kite to be simulated. The factor ${K_{{\mathrm{d,s}}}}$ describes the influence of the depower angle ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ on the steering sensitivity: depending on the geometry of the bridle it has a value in the range of $1<{K_{{\mathrm{d,s}}}}<2$. A value of $1.5$ means that the fully depowered kite needs $2.5$ times the steering input as a fully powered kite to achieve the same turn rate (under the condition that the apparent wind speed is the same).
### Aerodynamic forces {#subsec:aero_forces .unnumbered}
Steering is accomplished by changing the angle of attack for the side surfaces differentially. The aerodynamic forces that act on ${\mathbf{B}}$, ${\mathbf{C}}$ and ${\mathbf{D}}$ can be calculated according to Eqns. (\[eq:lp2\]) to (\[eq:dp4\]), where ${A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}/A$ is the relative side area of the kite and $\rho$ the air density.
$$\begin{aligned}
{{{\mathbf{F}}^{{\mathrm{B}}}_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}&= \frac{1}{2}~\rho~{v_{{{\mathrm{a,B,}}}xz}}^2~ A~{{C_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{B}}}})~ \frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,B}}} \times {{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,B}}} \times {{{\mathbf{e}}_y}}\parallel} , \label{eq:lp2}\\
{{{\mathbf{F}}^{{\mathrm{C}}}_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}&= \frac{1}{2}~\rho~ {v_{{{\mathrm{a,C,}}}xy}}^2~ A\frac{{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}{A}~{{C_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{C}}}})~ \frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,C}}} \times {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,C}}} \times {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}\parallel} , \\
{{{\mathbf{F}}^{{\mathrm{D}}}_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}&= \frac{1}{2}~\rho~ {v_{{{\mathrm{a,D,}}}xy}}^2~ A\frac{{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}{A}~{{C_{{\mathrm{L}}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{D}}}})~ \frac{{{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}\times {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,D}}} }{\parallel {{{\mathbf{e}}_z}}\times {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,D}}} \parallel} , \\
{{{\mathbf{F}}^{{\mathrm{B}}}_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}&= \frac{1}{2}~\rho~K_{{\mathrm{D}}}~ {v_{{{\mathrm{a,B}}}}}^2~ A~{{C_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{B}}}})~\frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,B}}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,B}}} \parallel} , \\
{{{\mathbf{F}}^{{\mathrm{C}}}_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}&= \frac{1}{2}~\rho~K_{{\mathrm{D}}}~ {v_{{{\mathrm{a,C}}}}}^2~ A\frac{{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}{A}~{{C_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{C}}}})~\frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,C}}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,C}}} \parallel} , \\
{{{\mathbf{F}}^{{\mathrm{D}}}_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}&= \frac{1}{2}~\rho~K_{{\mathrm{D}}}~ {v_{{{\mathrm{a,D}}}}}^2~ A\frac{{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}{A}~{{C_{{\mathrm{D}}}}}({\alpha_{{\mathrm{D}}}})~\frac{{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,D}}}}{\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathrm{a,D}}} \parallel} .
\label{eq:dp4}\end{aligned}$$
The coefficient $K_{{\mathrm{D}}}$ is required to achieve the same lift-to-drag ratio for the straight flying four point kite as for the one point kite. It can be calculated from $$K_{{\mathrm{D}}} = \left(1 -\frac{{A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}}{A}\right)~\kappa
\label{eq:k}$$ where $\kappa=0.93$ was needed to compensate the higher drag coefficients of the side areas, compared to the top area, caused by ${\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s}}},0}}$.
Winch model {#subsec:winch}
-----------
We view the winch as the assembly of an asynchronous generator, a gearbox and a drum around which the tether is wound. The generator is used as motor during the reel-in phase and the sign of the generator’s torque determines the direction of the energy flow. We modelled the winch by combining the differential equations for the inertial system and an expression for the torque-speed characteristics of the generator.
### Inertial dynamics of the winch {#inertial-dynamics-of-the-winch .unnumbered}
The differential equations for the winch are again defined as an implicit problem $$\begin{aligned}
F(t,{{\mathbf{Y}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}},{\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}})~&=~0 , \label{eq:main_equation_winch}\\
{{\mathbf{Y}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}(t_0)~&=~{{\mathbf{Y}}_{{\mathrm{e,0}}}}, \\
{\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}(t_0)~&=~{\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}}_{{\mathrm{e,0}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The vector ${{\mathbf{Y}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}$ is the extended state vector of the implicit problem and consists of tether length ${l_{{{\mathrm{t}}},i}}$ and the tether velocity ${v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}$ $${{\mathbf{Y}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}~=~ ({l_{{{\mathrm{t}}},i}}, {v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}) .$$
In order to solve this problem the residual ${{\mathbf{R}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}~=~F(t,{{\mathbf{Y}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}, {\dot{{\mathbf{Y}}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}})$ is to be calculated, with ${{\mathbf{r}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}$ defined as
$${{\mathbf{R}}_{{\mathrm{e}}}}=
\begin{bmatrix}
{v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}- {\dot{l}_{{{\mathrm{t}}},i}}\\
a_{t,o} - {\dot{v}_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}\end{bmatrix} .$$
Here, $a_{t,o}$ is the acceleration of the tether at the ground station. Under the assumption of an inelastic interconnection of the generator and drum through the gearbox, the acceleration can be calculated as $${a_{{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}}= \frac{1}{I}~\frac{r}{n}~\left( {\tau_{{\mathrm{g}}}}+ {\tau_{{\mathrm{d}}}}- {\tau_{{\mathrm{f}}}}\right) ,$$ where $I$ is winch inertia as seen from the generator, $r$ the drum radius, $n$ the gearbox ratio, ${\tau_{{\mathrm{g}}}}$ the generator torque, ${\tau_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ torque exerted by the drum on the generator and ${\tau_{{\mathrm{f}}}}$ the friction torque.
The torque exerted by the drum depends on the tether force that is exerted on the drum, which equals the norm of the force on the first tether particle $${\tau_{{\mathrm{d}}}}= \frac{r}{n}~\|~\boldsymbol{f_s}_{,0}~\| .$$ We modelled the friction as the combination of a viscous friction component with friction coefficient ${c_{{\mathrm{f}}}}$ and static friction ${\tau_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ $${\tau_{{\mathrm{f}}}}= {c_{{\mathrm{f}}}}~{v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}+ {\tau_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~{{\mathrm{sign}}}({v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}) .$$
### Torque profile of the asynchronous generator
To determine the torque-speed profile of the asynchronous generator, we used the equivalent circuit representation as in [@Wildi2002 p. 326]. Under the assumption of negligible stator resistance, ${\tau_{{\mathrm{m}}}}$ can be expressed as a function of ${v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}$ and the synchronous generator speed ${v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ as $${\tau_{{\mathrm{g}}}}= \alpha~\frac{{v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}- {v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}}{1 + \beta~({v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}- {v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}})^2} .$$ We assumed that the generator voltage $E$ is increasing linearly with the set speed, up to the nominal voltage ${E_{{\mathrm{n}}}}$ at the nominal synchronous speed ${v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}$ of the generator $$E =
\begin{dcases}
{E_{{\mathrm{n}}}}\frac{{v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}}{{v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}} & \text{if } |~ {v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~| \leq {v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}\\
{E_{{\mathrm{n}}}}& \text{if } |~ {v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~| > {v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}\end{dcases} .$$ As derived in [@Schreuders2013], the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &=
\begin{dcases}
\frac{{E_{{\mathrm{n}}}}^2~r}{{v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}^2~{R_{{\mathrm{r}}}}~n} & \text{if } |~ {v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~| \leq {v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}\\
\frac{{E_{{\mathrm{n}}}}^2~r}{{v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}^2~{R_{{\mathrm{r}}}}~n} & \text{if } |~ {v_{{\mathrm{s}}}}~| > {v_{{\mathrm{s,n}}}}\end{dcases} \\
\beta &= \frac{L^2}{{R_{{\mathrm{r}}}}^2}~\frac{n^2}{r^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${R_{{\mathrm{r}}}}$ is the rotor resistance and $L$ is the generator’s self inductance. These generator parameters could either be measured or estimated based on known torque data.
----------------------------------------------------- -------- ---
**Ground station**
Gearbox ratio $n$ \[-\] 6.2
Drum radius $r$ \[m\] 0.1615
Inertia $I$ \[kg m$^2$\] 0.328
Viscous friction coeff. ${c_{{\mathrm{f}}}}$ \[Ns\] 0.799
Static friction ${\tau_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ \[Nm\] 3.18
Rotor resistance ${R_{{\mathrm{r}}}}$ \[m$\Omega$\] 72.7
Self inductance $L$ \[mH\] 2.97
Nominal synchronous speed $v_{s,n}$ \[m/s\] 4.09
Nominal voltage ${E_{{\mathrm{n}}}}$ \[V\] 231
----------------------------------------------------- -------- ---
: Properties of the ground station of Delft University of Technology[]{data-label="tab:winc_properties"}
Control system
--------------
In this section a brief description of the control system is given. Further details can be found in [@Vlugt2013] and [@Fechner2012].
### Flight path planning and control {#flight-path-planning-and-control .unnumbered}
For the automated power production a simple flight path planner is used: The kite is always steered towards one of three points: During reel-in and parking it is steered towards zenith (directly above the ground station). During reel-out it is steered to a point on either the right or left side of the wind window [@Vlugt2013].
The orientation of the kite (the heading angle) is controlled. Great circle navigation is used to determine the heading needed to steer towards the target point. The difference between the required heading and the actual heading is the error signal that is going into a PI controller that is controlling the steering signal ${i_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ of the kite control unit. In addition the KCU has an input ${i_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ for the depower signal. The set value ${i_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ is low during reel-out and high during reel-in (predefined, fixed values).
The steering signal differentially changes the length of the left and right steering lines, the depower signal changes the length of the steering lines relative to the length of the depower lines. The actuators are modelled such that they have a maximum speed (derivative of the output control signals ${u_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ and ${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$). They use a P-controller to control the output signal. In addition a delay of 150 ms was implemented in the model. The delay is mainly caused by the motor controllers.
### Winch control {#winch-control .unnumbered}
During reel-out the winch is using a set value for the reel-out speed in addition to a maximal value of the tether force. The speed is used as long as the maximum tether force is not exceeding the set value, otherwise the synchronous speed is increased to limit the force. A parameter varying PID controller is used to track the set values.
During reel-in, different values for the set force and set speed are used. Soft transitions are implemented for the set values when switching between reel-in and reel-out.
Implementation and accuracy
---------------------------
The Radau5DAE solver [@Hairer1996] from version 2.4 of the Assimulo suite [@Anderson2013] is used for solving the differential algebraic system, as it offered the best performance.
### Real-time simulation based on the numerical model {#sec:real_time_simulation .unnumbered}
Because for software-in-the-loop testing of kite control components a batch simulation is not sufficient, a soft real time simulator was implemented. The real-time simulation is executed in the following way: After the start of the simulation a new system state is calculated in fixed time intervals of currently 50 ms. The new state is then published and used by the KPS controller to calculate new values for steering and depower settings of the kite and for the set-value of the reel-out speed of the winch. These values are assumed to be constant during the next time interval. Within one simulation time interval, the implicit equation system solver uses as many time-steps as necessary to calculate a solution with the specified precision.
### Model and measurement accuracy {#model-and-measurement-accuracy .unnumbered}
The solver that was used allows it to specify a maximum error. This error was set to 1.8 cm for the position states and to 0.03 cm/s for the velocity states. The tether was discretised with seven particles.
The wind sensor at the ground has an accuracy of 5% plus 0.5 knots. The tether force was measured with an accuracy of 1% $\pm$ 10 N, the reel-out speed with 2% $\pm$ 0.05 m/s.
Model calibration and results {#sec:model_calibration}
=============================
For the calibration of the model the following steps are needed:
1. determine the physical system properties (Table \[tab:kite\_properties\]) and enter them as parameters into the model
2. determine the wind profile;
3. determine the lift-over-drag ratio of the kite as function of the depower settings;
4. determine the steering coefficients of the kite;
5. validate the average and maximum force during reel-out;
6. validate power output over the full cycle.
The one-point model, the four-point model and the HYDRA kite of Delft University of Technology are compared. The models were tuned to match the kite properties as much as possible.
Test flight
-----------
For parameter fitting and validation the measurements of a test flight were chosen, that took place at the Maasvlakte II, The Netherlands on 23 June 2012. The wind was very strong and the wind profile was expected to be similar to offshore conditions. This flight was chosen because it contains different flight manoeuvres, e.g. parking the kite at zenith at different heights and with different depower settings. This allows for a partial validation of the lift-over-drag properties of the kite as function of the depower settings.
![Measured reel-out tether length ${{l_{{\mathrm{t}}}}}$ (solid) and height ${z_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ (dashed) of the kite during a test flight on 23 June 2012 at the Maasvlakte II, The Netherlands.[]{data-label="fig:test_flight"}](./length_height){width="0.9\linewidth"}
---------------------------------------------------- -------- ---
**Kite**
Projected wing surface area $A$ \[m$^2$\] 10.18
Mass including sensors ${m_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ \[kg\] 6.21
Width ${w_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ \[m\] 5.77
Height ${h_{{\mathrm{k}}}}$ \[m\] 2.23
Relative side area ${A_{{\mathrm{side}}}}/A$ \[%\] 30.6
**Bridle**
Height ${h_{{\mathrm{b}}}}$ \[m\] 4.9
Bridle line diameter \[mm\] 2.5
**Kite Control Unit**
Mass ${m_{{\mathrm{KCU}}}}$ \[kg\] 8.4
**Main Tether**
Diameter ${d_{{\mathrm{t}}}}$ \[mm\] 4.0
Mass per m \[kg/m\] 0.013
Unit damping coefficient $c_0$ \[Ns\] 473
Unit spring constant $k_0$ \[N\] 614600
---------------------------------------------------- -------- ---
: Properties of the HYDRA kite, bridle, KCU and tether of Delft University of Technology[]{data-label="tab:kite_properties"}
Parking manoeuvres for aerodynamic measurements {#sub:paramter_identification}
-----------------------------------------------
The lift-over-drag ratio and the wind profile were determined by keeping the kite pointing towards the small-earth zenith without reeling in or out. Subsequently, we waited until a force equilibrium was reached. In this situation the elevation angle of the tether is depending mainly on the lift-over-drag value, and the tether force is mainly depending on the wind speed at the height of the kite.
The measurements of Table \[tab:ForcesAndElevations\] were used to calibrate the L/D of the kite and the sensitivity to changes of ${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ by changing ${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$ and ${\alpha_{{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_d\])).
In addition, this data was used to tune the wind profile coefficients $u_{z,0}$ and $K$ according to Eq. (\[eq:windProfile\]). The parameters $u_{z,0}, {u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}, {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}}, K$ and $c_{d,t}$ were fitted until the force and the elevation angle for all three measurements matched with an error of less than one $\pm \sigma$. The results are shown in Table \[tab:simulation\_parameters\]
[ l r l ]{}\
${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$ \[%\] & 21.3 & depower offset\
$z_0$ \[m\] & 2.0e-4 & surface roughness\
$K$ \[-\] & 1.0& wind profile correction\
${\alpha_{{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}}$ \[$^o$\]& 31.00 & max. depower angle\
${c_{{\mathrm{d,t}}}}$ & 0.96 & tether drag coefficient\
\
${u_{{\mathrm{max}}}}$ \[%\]& 42.47 & max. depower setting\
and the resulting wind profile in Fig. \[fig:wind\_profile\]. The value of ${\alpha_{{{\mathrm{d,max}}}}}$ is very close to the geometrically derived value of about 30$^o$. The tether drag coefficient is very close to the value of about 1.0, that was suggested in [@Fechner2013 p. 253].
Test case **${v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}~[ms^{-1}]$** ${{l_{{\mathrm{t}}}}}~[m]$ **${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$** Force \[N\] ${\sigma_{{\mathrm{f}}}}$ $\beta$ \[$ ^{\circ}$\] $\sigma_{\beta}$
---------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------- ------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------
Parking 392a 10.35 392.0 25.1% 850.5 309.8 65.9 2.0
Parking 392b 9.59 392.0 27.9% 551.3 125.1 60.6 0.9
Parking 947 10.02 947.2 28.0% 552.8 57.2 49.3 0.9
Identifying the steering sensitivity parameters
-----------------------------------------------
According to [@Erhard2013 p. 149] the turn rate of the kite around the straight line between the kite and the tether should depend on the steering input ${\alpha_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$, the apparent air velocity ${{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}$, the elevation angle $\beta$ and the orientation of the kite $\psi$ in following way $$\dot{\psi}~=~c_1~{{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}~({u_{{\mathrm{s}}}}- c_0)~+~\frac{c_2}{{{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}}}~\sin\psi~\cos\beta .
\label{eq:psi}$$ We added the steering offset $c_0$, because it had a relevant effect in our flight tests.
To fit the parameter $c_2$ the relative kite width ${w_{{\mathrm{rel}}}}$ was varied and to fit $c_1$ the maximal steering angle $ {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s, max}}}}}$ until the measured values $c_1$ and $c_2$ matched the simulated values within 1%.
The results of a parameter fit of the first cycle of the above mentioned test flight are shown in Table \[tab:turn\_rate\_law\], where $\rho$ is the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the measured yaw rate and the turn rate estimated by using Eq. (\[eq:psi\]) and $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the estimated turn rate. All data was filtered by calculating a moving average over two seconds before plotting and performing the parameter fitting.
[ l r r r]{}\
$ {\alpha_{{{\mathrm{s, max}}}}}$ \[$^o$\] & 15.9 & maximal steering & \
${w_{{\mathrm{rel}}}}$ \[%\] & 91.0 &\
${c_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ & 2.59 &\
${c_{{\mathrm{2,c}}}}$ & 0.93 &\
& **Measured** & **1p model** & **4p model**\
${u_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ \[%\] & 26.0 & 26.0 & 26.0\
$c_0$ \[ \] & -0.003 & -0.004 & -0.003\
$c_1$ \[rad /$m$\]& 0.261 & 0.264 & 0.262\
$c_2$ \[rad m/$s^2$\]& 6.28 & 6.20 & 6.27\
$\rho~~~(PCC)$ & 0.9933 & 0.9999 & 0.9995\
$\sigma$ \[rad/s\]& 0.002 & 0.0002 & 0.0006\
The diagrams in Fig. \[fig:turn\_rates\] illustrate the measured yaw rate, the turn rate estimated by using Eq. (\[eq:psi\]) and the relationship between the estimated and measured/ simulated yaw/ turn rates. The term *heading rate* is used for the derivative of the heading angle while the term *yaw rate* is used for the value that was measured by the gyroscope of the inertia measurement unit of the kite that was aligned with its $z$-axis. The numerical derivative of the heading angle of the IMU was too noisy to be used.
[.49]{}
[.49]{}
\
[.49]{}
[.49]{}
[.33]{}
[.33]{}
[.33]{}
For the parameter ${K_{{\mathrm{d,s}}}}$, the influence of the depower settings on the steering sensitivity a value of 1.5 was used. This value was estimated based on the geometry of the kite and the bridle. To verify this value, it is suggested to fly figures of eight with a fully depowered kite. This was not done yet in practice. The data measured during the reel-in phase of the kite was not sufficient to validate this parameter because - without flying crosswind - the turn rate of the kite is highly influenced by the turbulence of the wind. The data was too noisy to be useful.
With the point mass model it was difficult to achieve stable parking, using the control parameters of the flight experiment: It was always oscillating around the desired position and therefore flying crosswind even it should not. Therefore the calibration parameters from the four point model had to be used instead.
Model comparison
----------------
A first comparison of four model variations (one point kite and four point kite model combined with either a straight or a segmented tether) can be done by parking the kite (steering it towards zenith) in a quasi-steady wind field.
[[Model]{}]{} [Force \[N\]]{} **$\sigma_f$** **$\beta$ \[$ ^{\circ}$\]** **$\sigma_{\beta}$**
---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------
1p, straight tether 749.7 16.4 74.7 0.05
1p, segmented tether 727.5 9.2 70.7 0.02
4p, straight tether 685.7 5.0 69.0 0.02
4p, segmented tether 670.2 3.2 68.5 0.02
: Comparison of the tether force and the elevation angle of a kite, parking at a line length of 392 m. The simulated results of the one point and the four point model, combined with a straight and a segmented tether are compared.
A ground wind speed of 8 m/s and a turbulence intensity of 1% and an exponential wind profile with $\alpha = 1/7$ were used for these simulations. The difference of the force and of the elevation angle between the most simple and most complex model are about 10%. Much bigger is the difference in the dynamic behaviour: The variance of the tether force of the four-point model with a segmented tether is more than five times smaller than the variance, using the one point model with a straight tether. The reason for this is the damping, that is induced by the segmented tether and four point kite.
A realistic model of the non-linear damping of the system is essential for the design of the force controller of the ground station.
Results: Power production and flight path
-----------------------------------------
When simulating figure of eight flight manoeuvres with the parameters identified in Sect. \[sub:paramter\_identification\] the result as shown in column *Sim. I* in Table \[tab:power\_cycles\] was disappointing: The computed average power was about 50% lower than the measured value. To achieve a better match between simulation and measurements it was necessary to increase ${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$ from 21.3% to 21.4% and to decrease the depower setting during reel-in by 2.1% as shown in column *Sim. II*. This can be justified first with inaccuracies during the parameter identification and second with a shift of ${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$ by different apparent wind velocities and/or material creep of the depower/ steering lines.
The point mass model (Table \[tab:power\_cycles\] column *Sim. III*) was tuned slightly differently to match the measured power output and to achieve a similar flight trajectory. Nevertheless, the errors between the one point kite model and the measurements were higher, for example an error of 3.1% instead of 1.8% for the cycle efficiency ${\eta_{{\mathrm{cyc}}}}$.
**Sim. I** **Sim. II** **Sim. III**
---------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- ----------
${v_{{\mathrm{w,ref}}}}$ \[m/s\] 9.51 9.51 9.51 9.51
$u_{{\mathrm{d,ri}}} [\%] $ 42.2 42.2 40.1 44.1
${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$ \[%\] - 21.30 23.40 20.80
L/D, reel-out - 4.13 4.64 4.53
${F_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}$ \[N\] 2942. 2213. 2876. 2956.
${F_{{\mathrm{t,i}}}}$ \[N\] 653. 379. 600. 570.
${v_{{\mathrm{t,o}}}}$ \[m/s\] 1.99 1.20 1.89 1.88
${v_{{\mathrm{t,i}}}}$ \[m/s\] -7.28 -7.22 -7.69 -7.66
${p_{{\mathrm{av}}}}$ \[W\] 3726.40 1953.10 3681.50 3735.80
${\eta_{{\mathrm{p}}}}$ \[%\] 79.10 83.00 79.70 81.70
duty cycle \[%\] 78.70 85.30 80.30 80.40
${\eta_{{\mathrm{cyc}}}}$ \[%\] 62.20 70.80 64.00 65.70
: Parameters of measured and simulated pumping cycles. The lowest efficiency error is achieved with the four point kite simulation Sim. II. The cycle efficiency ${\eta_{{\mathrm{cyc}}}}$ is the product of the pumping efficiency ${\eta_{{\mathrm{p}}}}$ and the duty cycle [@Fechner2013].[]{data-label="tab:power_cycles"}
(The value ${p_{{\mathrm{av}}}}$ is the average mechanical power over the whole cycle, and ${\eta_{{\mathrm{cyc}}}}$ is the cycle efficiency, the quotient of the mean mechanical power and the average mechanical reel-out power).
A two dimensional projection of flight trajectory, height of the kite vs. the ground distance, is a suitable means for visualisation and comparison of different flights. In Fig. \[fig:flight\_path\] the measured and the simulated flight path of one cycle is shown. The maximum height differs by less then 5%. The minimum height differs by about 45 m. One reason for this are the inaccuracies of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) based height measurement.
Conclusions {#sec:summary_and_conclusion}
===========
The computed dynamic response of the kite to steering inputs compares well to the response measured during test flights. In all situations the estimated turn rate of the wing was within $\pm 14\%$ of the full range of the experimentally measured values while the standard deviation was only $\pm 0.1\%$ of the full range. Similar results, but limited to the steering of a kite on a tether of a fixed length were presented in [@Erhard2013] and [@Fagiano2013].
By modifying empirically the parameters ${c_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ and ${c_{{\mathrm{2,c}}}}$, the proposed point mass model can be adapted to match all parameters of the turn rate law. Compared to the proposed four point model it runs faster but is less accurate and can become dynamically unstable at low tether forces.
In [@Jehle2014] it was assumed that the turn-rate law derived in [@Erhard2013] and [@Fagiano2013] would only be valid for ram-air kites. We found, that it is valid for Leading Edge Inflatable tube kites, too.
The parameters of the mechanistic four point model can be derived from the physical properties of any soft kite and any asynchronous generator. Only small changes are required for other kites and generators. It is well suited for controller development and can be used not only for the pumping cycle operation of the kite, but also for the simulation of launching, landing and airborne parking.
For a full model validation of a specific system, two enhancements of the test design are needed: First, accurate wind measurements at the height of the kite. Second, an accurate measurement of the maximum and minimum L/D of the kite and of the depower offset ${u_{{{\mathrm{d}}},0}}$.
The presented models have shown to be easily adaptable and well suited for flight path optimization and the development of KPS estimators and KPS controllers. While the corrected one-point model with an adapted flight path controller can be sufficient for flight-path optimization, the four point model is better suited for controller validation in a broader range of flight conditions.
Even though the accuracy of the predicted power output is not yet sufficiently validated, the one point model, using the correction according to Eq. \[eq:correction\] is predicting the influence of gravity on the turn rate much better than uncorrected point mass models and the four point model has a much more realistic dynamic response to the steering input then simpler models while still being real-time capable. The source code is published under the GNU LGPL License in the context of the FreeKiteSim [@Fechner2014] project.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[The authors want to thank Filip Saad and Rachel Leudhold for their participation in the development and documentation of a sport kite simulator, which in turn inspired the development of the KPS simulator as described in this paper. In addition they want to thank William Anderson and Axelle Viré for proof reading.]{}
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
C. L. Archer, L. [Delle Monache]{}, D. L. Rife, [Airborne wind energy: Optimal locations and variability]{}, Renewable Energy 64 (2014) 180–186. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.044).
R. [van der Vlugt]{}, J. Peschel, R. Schmehl, [Design and Experimental Characterization of a Pumping Kite Power System]{}, in: U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), Airborne Wind Energy, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, Ch. 23, pp. 403–425. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39965-7_23).
U. Fechner, R. Schmehl, [Model-Based Efficiency Analysis of Wind Power Conversion by a Pumping Kite Power System]{}, in: U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), Airborne Wind Energy, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, Ch. 14, pp. 245–266. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39965-7_14).
M. Diehl, [Real-Time Optimization for Large-Scale Nonlinear Processes]{}, [Ph.D.]{} thesis, University of Heidelberg (2001).
M. Ahmed, A. Hably, S. Bacha, [Power Maximization of a Closed-orbit Kite Generator System]{}, in: Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference (IEEE CDC-ECC 2011), IEEE, Orlando, FL, USA, 2011, pp. 7717–7722. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2011.6160914).
P. Williams, B. Lansdorp, W. J. Ockels, [Modeling and Control of a Kite on a Variable Length Flexible Inelastic Tether]{}, in: Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, SC, USA, 2007. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-6705).
F. Gohl, R. H. Luchsinger, [Simulation Based Wing Design for Kite Power]{}, in: U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), Airborne Wind Energy, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, Ch. 18, pp. 325–338. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39965-7_18).
J. Coleman, H. Ahmad, E. Pican, D. Toal, [Non-Reversing Generators in a Novel Design for Pumping Mode Airborne Wind Energy Farm]{}, in: U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), Airborne Wind Energy, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, Ch. 34, pp. 587–597. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39965-7_34).
A. Viré, [How to float a wind turbine]{}, Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 11 (3) (2012) 223–226. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9292-9).
A. Viré, J. Xiang, F. Milthaler, P. E. Farrell, M. D. Piggott, J.-P. Latham, D. Pavlidis, C. C. Pain, [Modelling of fluid-solid interactions using an adaptive mesh fluid model coupled with a combined finite-discrete element model]{}, Ocean Dynamics 62 (10-12) (2012) 1487–1501. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10236-012-0575-z).
A. Bosch, R. Schmehl, P. Tiso, D. Rixen, [Dynamic nonlinear aeroelastic model of a kite for power generation]{}, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 37 (5) (2014) 1426—1436. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.G000545).
B. Eberhardt, O. Etzmuß, M. Hauth, [Implicit-Explicit Schemes for Fast Animation with Particle Systems]{}, in: N. Magnenat-Thalmann, D. Thalmann, B. Arnaldi (Eds.), Computer Animation and Simulation 2000, Eurographics, Springer, Vienna, 2000, pp. 137–151. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6344-3_11).
R. B. Stull, [Meteorology for Scientists and Engineers]{}, 2nd Edition, Thomson Learning, 2000.
T. Burton, N. Jenkins, D. Sharpe, E. Bossanyi, [Wind Energy Handbook]{}, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2001. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0470846062).
D. A. Spera, Models of lift and drag coefficients of stalled and unstalled airfoils in wind turbines and wind tunnels, Technical Report NASA/CR–2008-215434 (October 2008).
E. Obert, Aerodynamic design of transport aircraft, IOS Press, 2009. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-970-7-i).
T. Wildi, Electrical Machines, Drives, and Power Systems, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2002.
E. N. J. Schreuder, Improving winch control performance in kite power systems using gain scheduling and a compliant element, [MSc]{} thesis, Delft University of Technology (2013).
U. Fechner, R. Schmehl, [Design of a Distributed Kite Power Control System]{}, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2012, pp. 800–805. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCA.2012.6402695).
E. Hairer, G. Wanner, [Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II, Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems]{}, 2nd Edition, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1996. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05221-7).
C. Anderson et al., [[Assimulo, a simulation package for solving ordinary differential equations]{}](http://www.jmodelica.org/assimulo) (2013). <http://www.jmodelica.org/assimulo>
M. Erhard, H. Strauch, [Theory and Experimental Validation of a Simple Comprehensible Model of Tethered Kite Dynamics Used for Controller Design]{}, in: U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), Airborne Wind Energy, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, Ch. 8, pp. 141–165. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39965-7_8).
L. Fagiano, A. U. Zgraggen, M. Morari, M. Khammash, [Automatic Crosswind Flight of Tethered Wings for Airborne Wind Energy: Modeling, Control Design and Experimental Results]{}, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 22 (4) (2014) 1–22. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2013.2279592).
C. Jehle, R. Schmehl, [Tracking Control on the Unit Sphere Applied to Traction Kites for Power Generation]{}, AIAA Journal Guidance, Control and Dynamics 37 (4) (2014) 1211–1222. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.62380).
U. Fechner, et al., [[Free KiteSim]{}](https://bitbucket.org/ufechner/freekitesim) (2014). <https://bitbucket.org/ufechner/freekitesim>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Recently \[quant-ph/0608250\] again created a lot of interest to prove the existence of bound entangled states with negative partial transpose (NPT) in any $d \times d (d \geq 3)$ Hilbert space. However the proof in quant-ph/0608250 is not complete but it shows some interesting properties of the Schmidt rank two states. In this work we are trying to probe the problem in a different angle considering the work by Dür et.al \[Phys. Rev. A, 61, 062313(2000)\]. We have assumed that the Schmidt rank two states should satisfy some bounds. Under some assumptions with these bounds one could prove the existence of NPT bound entangled states. We particularly discuss the case of two copy undistillability of the conjectured family of NPT states. Obviously the class of NPT bound entangled states belong to the class of conjectured to be bound entangled states by Divincenzo et.al \[Phys. Rev. A, 61, 062312(2000)\] and by Dür et.al \[Phys. Rev. A, 61, 062313(2000)\]. However the problem of existence of NPT bound entangled states still remain open.
PACS number(s): 03.67.Hk, 03.65.Ud.
author:
- 'Indrani Chattopadhyay[^1] and Debasis Sarkar [^2]'
title: 'NPT Bound Entanglement- The Problem Revisited'
---
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Calcutta,\
92, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata- 700009, India.
Introduction
============
The basic issue on the classification of mixed state entanglement at least on the level of bipartite systems solely depends upon whether there exist bound entangled states or not. The existence of PPT-bound (PPT means positive partial transpose) entangled states [@horodecki98] and also the existence of NPT $N-$copy undistillable states [@div; @dur] for every positive integer $N$ naturally indicates there may exist NPT-bound entangled states. Recent work [@simon] also indicates positively the existence of NPT- bound entangled states. In this work we consider the problem of the existence of NPT-bound entangled states with some assumptions on Schmidt rank two states. We first briefly describe the issue and the importance of the problem.
In recent years it is found that quantum entanglement is an useful resource in performing several tasks in quantum information theory and quantum communication [@entanglement]. Maximally entangled states shared between two parties are essential ingredients in this respect [@mes]. Now due to the interaction with environment, states are in practice found to be mixed. However there is a process called distillation by which we can distill sometimes maximally entangled states out of certain pair of mixed entangled states using only local operation and classical communications (LOCC) [@locc]. But entanglement of a state is not always sufficient for distillability. The Peres-Horodecki criterion [@peres-hor] namely the partial transpose corresponding to any bipartite system gave us a necessary condition for distillability of any entangled state. If a bipartite density operator have positive partial transpose then it is not distillable. Further any PPT-state may be classified into two classes, separable and PPT-bound entangled states (bound entangled states means no entanglement can be extracted from them by LOCC, i.e., not distillable). There exist PPT-bound entangled states [@horodecki98]. But are all NPT- states which are necessarily entangled, distillable [@lew]? Until this time there is no answer. Independently, Divincenzo et.al [@div] and Dür et.al [@dur] and also Somshubhro et.al [@som] gave some evidence for $N-$copy undistillable states. Watrous [@john] further investigated the problem of distillability with large number of copies of some entangled states. Recently the work by Simon [@simon] indicates there may exist NPT bound entangled states with a large class of state that includes the conjectured family of NPT bound entangled states. Here we show that NPT-bound entangled states exist for any bipartite $d \times d (d \geq 3)$ system if we consider some simple assumptions on Schmidt rank two states. Our approach is based on some bounds of rank two states that are not closed in [@dur]. Obviously they belong to the classes as suggested earlier. Lastly we show a simple property that satisfied by a class of conjectured bound entangled states.
With the existence of NPT-bound entangled state it is also proved that the distillable entanglement is nonadditive and not convex [@shor]. It should be noted that by distillable entanglement [@locc; @dist] of a bipartite state we mean how much pure maximally entangled states we can extract asymptotically by means of LOCC from several copies of that state. Now, by definition of bound entanglement, every bound entangled state, whether NPT or PPT, has zero distillable entanglement. In [@shor], Shor et. al showed that distillable entanglement of tensor product of two states, one PPT-bound entangled state (formed by pyramid UPB) and another conjectured to be NPT-bound entangled state(which we shall prove really NPT-bound entangled) is non-zero. Which proves the nonadditivity and non-convexity of distillable entanglement. Also, it constitutes another example that PPT-bound entangled states can be used in the activation process [@shor; @activ; @activ1].
The conjectured class of NPT bound entangled states
===================================================
Before going to discuss our result, we first mention the notion of distillable states on any bipartite system described by the joint Hilbert space $H_A \otimes H_B$.
[*Definition*]{} [@div; @dur; @shor].– A density matrix $\rho$ is distillable if and only if there exists a positive integer $n$ such that
$$\langle \psi | (\rho^{\otimes n})^{T_A} |\psi \rangle < 0$$
for any Schmidt rank two state $|\psi \rangle \in (H_A \otimes
H_B)^{\otimes n}$, where $T_A$ represents partial transpose with respect to the system $A$.
Now we consider the key state in $d\times d (d\geq 3)$ Werner class that are one copy undistillable [@div; @dur; @shor] and conjectured to be bound entangled.
[*Theorem/Conjecture*]{}.– The state $\rho (\lambda )$ in $d\times d, \ (d\geq 3)$ of Werner class represented by $$\rho (\lambda ) = \frac{1}{d(d+ \lambda (d-1))}[I + \lambda
\sum_{i,j, i<j} P(|ij \rangle - |ji \rangle )],$$ where $\frac{1}{d-1} < \lambda \leq 1$ is NPT- bound entangled, where, $\{|0 \rangle, |1 \rangle, |2 \rangle \cdots \}$ is an orthonormal basis on the Hilbert space $H_A (H_B)$.
For $\lambda =\frac{1}{d-1}$ the state is separable.
The state is one copy undistillable [@div; @dur; @shor]. One has to prove, it is $n$-copy undistillable for any $n$.
Two copy undistillability under some assumptions
------------------------------------------------
To explain the possibility of two copy undistillability of the conjectured class, we consider first the partial transpose of the given state $\rho(\lambda )$. The partial transpose of the state with respect to the system $A$ is,
$$\rho(\lambda )^{T_A} =
\frac{1}{d(d+ \lambda (d-1))}[(1+ \lambda)I - \lambda P(\sum_{i} |ii
\rangle )].$$ In the sequel we write $P^+ = P(\sum_{i} |ii \rangle
).$ Before mentioning our basic assumptions which seems to be correct for any Schmidt rank two states, we first note an observation found for a class of Schmidt rank two states.
[*An Observation*]{}.– Since any Schmidt rank two state $|\psi \rangle$ in $(H_A \otimes H_B)^{\otimes 2}$ has expectation value less than two with the operator $I_{AB} \otimes P^+_{AB} $, therefore the rank two states of the form $ |\chi_A \phi_B \rangle
\otimes |\psi^{\prime} \rangle_{AB}$, where $|\psi^{\prime}\rangle_{AB}$ is any Schmidt rank two state in $(H_A
\otimes H_B)$, has expectation value less than three with the operator $I_{AB} \otimes P^+_{AB} + P^+_{AB} \otimes I_{AB}$.
(in the text we have used multiple copies of operators of system $A,B$ with the same suffix)
With this simple observation on Schmidt rank two states, if someone ask what will be the case for any general Schmidt rank two states in $(H_A \otimes H_B)^{\otimes 2}$? We mention this as our first assumption.
[*Assumption 1*]{}.– For any Schmidt rank two states $|\psi \rangle$ in $(H_A \otimes H_B)^{\otimes 2}$, $$\langle \psi
|(kI_{AB} - P^+_{AB})\otimes P^+_{AB} + P^+_{AB} \otimes (kI_{AB} -
P^+_{AB})|\psi \rangle \leq \max \{2k,~ 3k-4 \},$$ where $k>2$.
Clearly, with this bound it is now easy to check that for any Schmidt rank two state $|\psi \rangle$ in $(H_A \otimes
H_B)^{\otimes 2}$, $$\langle \psi | (\frac{k}{2}I_{AB} - P^+_{AB})^{\otimes 2} |\psi
\rangle \geq \frac{k^2}{4} - \frac{\max \{2k,~ 3k-4 \}}{2}\geq 0,
\verb"if" ~~ k \geq 4$$
Now, putting $k= \frac{2(1+ \lambda )}{\lambda}$, we have, $$\langle \psi | (\rho(\lambda)^{\otimes
2})^{T_A} |\psi \rangle \geq 0, ~~\verb"for" ~~\lambda \leq 1$$ i.e., $\rho(\lambda)$ is two copy undistillable.
n-copy undistillability under some assumptions
----------------------------------------------
Next we consider some assumptions in $(H_A \otimes H_B)^{\otimes
n}$, for any $n \geq 2$. We have assumed a sequence of bounds for any Schmidt rank two state $|\psi \rangle$ in $(H_A \otimes
H_B)^{\otimes n}$ where $n \geq 2$. These bounds are not present in [@dur], however from numerical evidences and also analytically for large classes of Schmidt rank two states we found these are true. Until now we find no exceptional cases that violets these bounds.
$$(i).~~\langle \psi |(I_{AB})^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes
P^+_{AB} + \cdots + P^+_{AB} \otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes (n-1)}|\psi
\rangle \leq 2(C^n_1 -C^{n-1}_1)+ C^{n-1}_1 = n+1,$$
$$(ii).~~\langle \psi |(I_{AB})^{\otimes (n-2)} \otimes
(P^+_{AB})^{\otimes 2} + \cdots + P^+_{AB} \otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes
(n-2)} \otimes P^+_{AB} + \cdots$$
$$+ (P^+_{AB})^{\otimes 2}
\otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes (n-2)}|\psi \rangle \leq 2(C^n_2
-C^{n-1}_2)+ C^{n-1}_2 = 2(C^{n-1}_1)+ C^{n-1}_2,$$
$$(iii).~~\langle \psi |(I_{AB})^{\otimes (n-3)} \otimes
(P^+_{AB})^{\otimes 3} + \cdots + P^+_{AB} \otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes
(n-3)} \otimes (P^+_{AB})^{\otimes 2} + \cdots$$
$$+ (P^+_{AB})^{\otimes 3} \otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes (n-3)}|\psi
\rangle \leq 2(C^n_3 -C^{n-1}_3)+ C^{n-1}_3 = 2(C^{n-1}_2)+
C^{n-1}_3,$$
Proceeding in this way we have for any $m<n+1$, $$(m).~~\langle \psi |(I_{AB})^{\otimes n-m} \otimes
(P^+_{AB})^{\otimes m} + \cdots + P^+_{AB} \otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes
n-m} \otimes (P^+_{AB})^{\otimes m-1} + \cdots$$
$$+ (P^+_{AB})^{\otimes m} \otimes (I_{AB})^{\otimes n-m}|\psi
\rangle \leq 2(C^n_m -C^{n-1}_m)+ C^{n-1}_m = 2(C^{n-1}_{m-1})+
C^{n-1}_m,$$ where $C^n_r =
\frac{n.(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{r.(r-1)....2.1}$, for any $r \leq n$.
Now consider the set of all Schmidt rank two states $|\psi \rangle$ in $(H_A \otimes H_B)^{\otimes n}$ that attains the optimal values for all the above bounds. The set is not empty. For such a rank two state $|\psi \rangle$ we have, $$\langle \psi | (\rho(\lambda)^{\otimes n})^{T_A} |\psi \rangle \geq
0.$$
Now we conjecture that the above result satisfied by any rank two state from the optimal set is also satisfied by any rank two state. In other words we want to say that to prove $\rho(\lambda)$ is $n$-copy undistillable for any $n$, the proof for optimal class of states is sufficient. However one may construct some composite bounds like equation (3) that would directly prove the $n$-copy undistillability of the conjectured class of Werner states represented by $\rho(\lambda)$. We have tested for a large class of rank two states that satisfied by equation(5). Also it is interesting to note that if the conjectured class of states are NPT bound entangled states, then the bounds we have assumed must be satisfied for Schmidt rank two states. Next we consider a simple property satisfied by the conjectured class of bound entangled states.
A simple property
=================
For simplicity we consider the state $\rho(\lambda )$ for $\lambda
=1$. We denote it by $\rho$. First, we consider $\rho^{\otimes 2}$. After rewriting it with first two basis elements for system $A$ then for system $B$, and omitting normalization factor (as it will not alter the trace condition) it looks as follows:
$$\rho^{\otimes 2} = I\otimes I + \sum_{i,j,m,n, i<j}[ P(|minj \rangle - |mjni
\rangle) + P(|imjn \rangle - |jmin \rangle)]$$ $$+\sum_{i,j,k,l, i<j, k<l}P(|ikjl \rangle - |iljk \rangle - |jkil
\rangle + |jlik \rangle)$$ $$= I\otimes I + \sum_{i,j,m, i<j}[ P(|mimj \rangle - |mjmi
\rangle) + P(|imjm \rangle - |jmim \rangle)]$$
$$+ \sum_{i,j,k,l, i<j, k<l}[ P(|ikjl \rangle - |iljk \rangle) +
P(|ikjl \rangle - |jkil \rangle)$$ $+ P(|ikjl \rangle -
|iljk \rangle - |jkil \rangle + |jlik \rangle)],$
where $i,j,k,l,m,n = 0,1,2,....$.
Now it is easy to check that any off-diagonal operator of the form,\
$ |ijkl \rangle \langle mnpq|, ~~ i,j,k,l,m,n,p,q = 0,1,2,...$, occurs maximum once or twice on the above expression. After taking partial transpose say with respect to system $A$ it takes the form $
|mnkl \rangle \langle ijpq|,$ $i,j,k,l,m,n,p,q = 0,1,2,...$. Also if we take the partial transpose of $\rho^{\otimes 2}$ with respect to system $A$, then we find in $(\rho^{\otimes 2})^{T_A}$, $P(|ijpq
\rangle), P(|mnkl \rangle), i,j,k,l,m,n,p,q =0,1,2,...,$ occur same times as $|mnkl \rangle \langle ijpq|$, $i,j,k,l,m,n,p,q =
0,1,2,...$. Therefore, trace with any Schmidt-rank two state $|\psi
\rangle$ in the basis we have represented $(\rho^{\otimes
2})^{T_A}$, would be always non-negative.
Next consider $\rho^{\otimes 3}$. It will take the form, if we write first three basis elements for system $A$ and then for system $B$, as follows:
$$\rho^{\otimes 3} = I\otimes I\otimes I + \sum_{i,j,m,n,p,q, i<j}[ P(|mpinqj \rangle
- |mpjnqi \rangle)$$ $ + P(|mipnjq \rangle - |mjpniq \rangle) +
P(|impjnq \rangle - |jmpinq \rangle)]$ $$+\sum_{i,j,k,l,m,n, i<j, k<l} [P(|miknjl \rangle - |milnjk \rangle
- |mjknil \rangle$$ $$+ |mjlnik \rangle) + P(|imkjnl \rangle -
|imljnk \rangle - |jmkinl \rangle + |jmlink \rangle)$$ $$+
P(|ikmjln \rangle - |ilmjkn \rangle - |jkmiln \rangle + |jlmikn
\rangle)]$$ $$+\sum_{i,j,k,l,m,n, i<j, k<l, m<n}P(|ikmjln \rangle - |iknjlm
\rangle - |ilmjkn \rangle$$ $$+ |ilnjkm \rangle - |jkmiln \rangle +
|jknilm \rangle + |jlmikn \rangle - |jlnikm \rangle)$$
Here again if we consider any off-diagonal operator of the form,\
$|ijklmn \rangle \langle pqrstu|,~~ i,j,k,l,m,n,p,q,r,s,t,u =
0,1,2,...$, occur maximum one or $2^1$ or $2^2$ times on the above expression. Therefore, with the similar argument above, we find trace with any Schmidt-rank two state $|\psi \rangle$ in the basis we have represented $(\rho^{\otimes 3})^{T_A}$, would be always non-negative.
For $\rho^{\otimes N}$, if we write it similarly as above, we find off-diagonal operator of the form $$|ijk \cdots N \ {\rm times} \
lmn \cdots N \ {\rm times} \ \rangle \langle pqr \cdots N \ {\rm
times}~~ stu \cdots N \ {\rm times}\ |,$$ $i,j,k,l,m,n,p,q,r,s,t,u =
0,1,2,...$, will occur maximum one or $2^1$ or $2^2$ $\cdots$ or $2^{N-1}$ times and in the partial transpose $(\rho^{\otimes
N})^{T_A}$,\
$P(|pqr \cdots N \ {\rm times} \ lmn \cdots N \ {\rm times} \
\rangle)$, $P(|ijk \cdots N \ {\rm times} \ stu \cdots N \ {\rm
times}\rangle)$, occur same number of times as the off-diagonal operator, $$|pqr \cdots N \ {\rm times} \ lmn \cdots N \ {\rm
times} \ \rangle \langle ijk \cdots N \ {\rm times}~~ stu \cdots N \
{\rm times}\ |.$$ So the trace with any Schmidt rank two state $|\psi \rangle$ in the basis we have considered $(\rho^{\otimes
N})^{T_A}$, would be always non-negative. However for any Schmidt rank two state (i.e., in any other basis), we are unable to calculate the trace with $(\rho^{\otimes N})^{T_A}$ for any $N$, using the property we have found above. The property we have discussed above for $\rho$, could be easily extended to any $\rho
(\lambda )$.
Conclusion
==========
To summarize our results, we have revisited the problem of existence of NPT-bound entangled states of any bipartite systems $d\times d, d
\geq 3$ with some assumptions made on Schmidt rank two states. The key role plays here the bounds that we have assumed for any rank two states. Their proof would readily solve the problem of classification of states at least at bipartite level, i.e., whether a state is either separable or bound entangled (PPT or NPT) or distillable. There are always some confusion regarding distillability when a bipartite state is NPT. However the problem of existence of NPT bound entangled states remains still open.
We have started the problem since the year, late 2003. Sometimes we felt, we have solved the problem, after that we found the proof is not complete yet. Recently (last 8-10 months) we found some bounds by which the problem can be solved. We found them through some requirements of some operators to maintain positivity. However that proof is not most general one. Then we look upon the problem in reverse order using those bounds and found some assumptions that we have mentioned in our first version. After observing the paper quant-ph/0608250, we put our work into the net also. Since the assumption made in our first version is strong enough and need not to be satisfied for all rank two states, therefore we dropped this assumption in second version, which is not actually needed for our proof. In this version we have tried to be more explanatory and also discusses the problem in different angles.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} The authors thank K.G. Vollbrecht for his valuable comments and suggestions. D.S. thanks G. Kar, R. Simon, S.Ghosh regarding the issue of this problem. I.C. acknowledges CSIR, India for providing fellowship during this work.
[99]{}
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**80**]{}, 5239 (1998); P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**82**]{}, 1056 (1999); C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin and B. Terhal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 5385 (1999). D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. Terhal and A. V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. A, 61, 062312(2000). W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein and D. Bruß, Phys. Rev. A, 61, 062313(2000). R. Simon, quant-ph/0608250. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 3824 (1996); V. Vedral and M. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1619 (1998); A. Peres, [*Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods*]{} (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993). A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev Lett. [**67**]{}, 661 (1991); C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2881 (1992); C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993); C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin and A. V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3081 (1999). C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 722 (1996); D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, A. Peres and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2818 (1996); M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 574 (1997). A. Peres, Phys. Rev Lett. [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996); P. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A [**232**]{}, 333 (1997). M. Lewenstein, D. Bruß, J. I. Cirac, B. Kraus, M. Kus, J. Samsonowicz, A. Sanpera and R. Tarrach, J. Mod. Opt. [**47**]{}, 2481 (2000). Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay, Vwani Roychowdhury, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 022319 (2003). John Watrous, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 010502 (2004). P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin and B. M. Terhal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2681 (2001). E. M. Rains, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 173 (1999); [**63**]{}, 173(E) (1999). Karl Gerd H. Vollbrecht and Michael M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 247901 (2002). P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin and A. V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 107901 (2003).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected], [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Estimating the size of the maximum matching is a canonical problem in graph algorithms, and one that has attracted extensive study over a range of different computational models. We present improved streaming algorithms for approximating the size of maximum matching with sparse (bounded arboricity) graphs.
- [*(Insert-Only Streams)*]{} We present a one-pass algorithm that takes $O(c\log^2 n)$ space and approximates the size of the maximum matching in graphs with arboricity $c$ within a factor of $O(c)$. This improves significantly upon the state-of-the-art $\tilde{O}(cn^{2/3})$-space streaming algorithms.
- [*(Dynamic Streams)*]{} Given a dynamic graph stream (i.e., inserts and deletes) of edges of an underlying $c$-bounded arboricity graph, we present an one-pass algorithm that uses space $\tilde{O}(c^{10/3}n^{2/3})$ and returns an $O(c)$-estimator for the size of the maximum matching. This algorithm improves the state-of-the-art $\tilde{O}(cn^{4/5})$-space algorithms, where the $\tilde{O}(.)$ notation hides logarithmic in $n$ dependencies.
In contrast to the previous works, our results take more advantage of the streaming access to the input and characterize the matching size based on the ordering of the edges in the stream in addition to the degree distributions and structural properties of the sparse graphs.
author:
- 'Graham Cormode[^1]'
- 'Hossein Jowhari[^2]'
- 'Morteza Monemizadeh[^3]'
- 'S. Muthukrishnan [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'matching.bib'
- 'gem.bib'
title: 'The Sparse Awakens: Streaming Algorithms for Matching Size Estimation in Sparse Graphs'
---
.30ex .30ex .30ex .30ex
Introduction
============
Problems related to (maximum) matchings in graph have a long history in Combinatorics and Computer Science. They arise in many contexts, from choosing which advertisements to display to online users, to characterizing properties of chemical compounds. Stable matchings have a suite of applications, from assigning students to universities, to arranging organ donations. These have been addressed in a variety of different computation models, from the traditional RAM model, to more recent sublinear (property testing) and external memory (MapReduce) models. Matching has also been studied for a number of classes of input graph: including general graphs, bipartite graphs, weighted graphs, and those with some sparsity structure.
We focus on the streaming case, where each edge is seen once only, and we are restricted to space sublinear in the size of the graph (ie., no. of its vertices). In this case, the objective is to find (approximately) the size of the matching. Even here, results for general graphs are either weak or make assumptions about the input or the stream order. In this work, we seek to improve the guarantees by restricting to graphs that have some measure of sparsity – bounded arboricity, or bounded degree. This aligns with reality, where most massive graphs have asymptotically fewer than $O(n^2)$ edges.
Recently, Kapralov, Khanna, and Sudan [@KKS14] developed a streaming algorithm which computes an estimate of matching size for general graphs within a factor of $O(\operatorname{poly log}(n))$ in the *random-order* streaming model using $O(\operatorname{poly log}(n))$ space. In the random-order model, the input stream is assumed to be chosen uniformly at random from the set of all possible permutations of the edges. Esfandiari [[*et al.* ]{}]{}[@EsfandiariHLMO15] were the first to study streaming algorithms for estimating the size of matching in bounded arboricity graphs in the *adversarial-order* streaming model, where the algorithm is required to provide a good approximation for any ordering of edges. Graph arboricity is a measure to quantify the density of a given graph. A graph $G(V,E)$ has arboricity $c$ if the set $E$ of its edges can be partitioned into at most $c$ forests. Since a forest on $n$ nodes has at most $n-1$ edges, a graph with arboricity $c$ can have at most $c(n-1)$ edges. Indeed, by a result of Nash-Williams [@NW61; @NW64] this holds for any subgraph of a $c$-bounded arboricity graph $G$. Formally, the Nash-Williams Theorem [@NW61; @NW64] states that $c = \max_{U \subseteq V}\{|E(U)|/(|U| -1)\}$, where $|U|$ and $|E(U)|$ are the number of nodes and edges in the subgraph with nodes $U$, respectively. Several important families of graphs have constant arboricity. Examples include planar graphs (that have arboricity $c=3$), bounded genus graphs, bounded treewidth graphs, and more generally, graphs that exclude a fixed minor.[^5]
The important observation in [@EsfandiariHLMO15] is that the size of matching in bounded arboricity graphs can be approximately characterized by the number of high degree vertices (vertices with degree above a fixed threshold) and the number of so called [*shallow edges*]{} (edges with both low degree endpoints). This characterization allows for estimation of the matching size in sublinear space by taking samples from the vertices and edges of the graph. The work of [@EsfandiariHLMO15] implements the characterization in $\tilde{O}(cn^{2/3})$ space giving a $O(c)$ approximation of the matching size. Subsequent works [@BS15; @MV16] consider alternative characterizations and improve upon the approximation factor however they do not result in major space improvements.
Our Contributions
-----------------
We present major improvements in the space usage of streaming algorithms for sparse graphs ($c$-bounded Arboricity Graphs). Our main result is a polylog space algorithm that beats the $n^{{\varepsilon}}$ space bound of prior algorithms. More precisely, we show:
\[thm:arboricity:logn\] Let $G(V,E)$ be a graph with arboricity bounded by $c$. Let $S$ be an (adversarial order) insertion-only stream of the edges of the underlying graph $G$. Let $M^*$ be the size of the maximum matching of $G$ (or $S$ interchangeably). Then, there is a randomized $1$-pass streaming algorithm that outputs a $(22.5c+6)(1+{\varepsilon})$-approximation to $M^*$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ and takes $O(\frac{c}{{\varepsilon}^2}\log(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}})\log cn\log n)$ space.
For the case of dynamic streams (i.e, streams of inserts and deletes of edges), we design a different algorithm using $\tilde{O}(c^{10/3}n^{2/3})$ space which improves the $\tilde{O}(cn^{4/5})$-space dynamic (insertion/deletion) streaming algorithms of [@BS15; @CCEHMMV16]. The following theorem states this result (proved in Section \[sec:dynamicalg\]).
\[thm:insert:delete\] Let $G(V,E)$ be a graph with the arboricity bounded by $c$. Let $M^*$ be the size of the maximum matching of $G$. Let $S$ be a dynamic stream of edge insertions and deletions of the underlying graph $G$ of length at most $O(cn)$ . Let $\beta=\mu( (2\mu)/(\mu - 2c+1)+1)$ where $\mu > 2c$. Then, there exists a streaming algorithm that takes $O(\frac{\beta^{4/3}(nc)^{2/3}}{{\varepsilon}^{4/3}})$ space in expectation and outputs a $(1+ {\varepsilon})\beta$ approximation of $M^*$ with probability at least $0.86$.
Our algorithms for bounded arboricity graphs are based on two novel [*streaming-friendly*]{} characterizations of the maximum maching size. The first characterization is a modification of the characterization in [@EHLMO15] which approximates the size of the maximum matching by $h_\mu+s_\mu$ where $h_\mu$ is defined as the number of high degree vertices (vertices with degree more than a threshold $\mu$) and $s_\mu$ is the number of shallow edges (edges with low degree endpoints). While $h_\mu$ can be easily approximated by sampling the vertices and checking if they are high degree or not, approximating $s_\mu$ in sublinear space is a challenge because in one pass we cannot determine if a sampled edge is shallow or not. The work of [@EHLMO15] resolves this issue by sampling the edges at a high rate and manages to implement their characterization in $\tilde{O}(cn^{2/3})$ space for adversarial insert-only streams.
To bring the space usage down to $\tilde{O}(c^{2.5}n^{1/2})$ (for insert-only streams), we modify the formulation of the above characterization. We still need to approximate $h_\mu$ but instead of $s_\mu$ we approximate $n_L$ the number of non-isolated vertices in the induced subgraph $G_L$ defined over the low degree vertices. Note that $s_\mu$ is the number of edges in $G_L$. This subtle change of definition turns out to be immensely helpful. Similar to $h_\mu$ we only need to sample the nodes and check if their degrees are below a certain threshold or not, however we carry the additional constraint that we have to avoid counting the nodes in $G_L$ that are isolated (have only high degree nodes as neighbors). To satisfy this additional constraint, our algorithm stores the neighbors of the sampled vertices along with a counter for each that maintains their degree in the rest of the stream. Although we only obtain a lower bound on the degree of the neighbors, as it turns out the lower bound information on the degree is still useful because we can ensure the number of false positives that contribute to our estimate is within a certain limit. As result, we can approximate $h_\mu+n_L$ using $\tilde{O}(cn^{1/2})$ space which gives a $(2c+1)(2c+2)$ approximation of the maximum matching size after choosing appropriate values for $\mu$ and other parameters. This characterization is of particular importances, as it can be adapted to work under edge deletions as well as long as the number of deletions is bounded by $O(cn)$. Details of the characterization and the associated algorithms are given in Lemma \[lem:hc+1\] and Section \[sec:sqrtn.alg\].
To obtain a $\operatorname{poly log}(n)$ space algorithm (and prove the claim of Theorem \[thm:arboricity:logn\]), we give a totally new characterization. This characterization, unlike the previous ones that only depend on the parameters of the graph, also takes the ordering of the edges in the stream into account. Roughly speaking, we characterize the size of a maximum matching by the number of edges in the stream that have few neighbor edges in the rest of the stream. To understand the connection with maximum matching, consider the following simplistic special case. Suppose the input graph $G$ is a forest composed of $k$ disjoint stars. Observe that the maximum matching on this graph is just to pick one edge from each star. We relate this to a combinatorial characterization that arises from the sequence of edges in the stream: no matter how we order the edges of $G$ in the stream, from each star there is exactly one edge that has no neighboring edges in the remainder of the stream (in other words, the last edge of the star in the stream). Our characterization generalizes this idea to graphs with arboricity bounded by $c$ by counting the [*$\alpha$-good edges*]{}, [[[*i.e.* ]{}]{}]{}edges that have at most $\alpha=6c$ neighbors in the remainder of the stream. We prove this characterization gives an $O(c)$ approximation of the maximum matching size. More important, a nice feature of this characterization is that it can be implemented in $\operatorname{poly log}(n)$ space if one allows a $1+{\varepsilon}$ approximation. The implementation adapts an idea from the well-known $L_0$ sampling algorithm. It runs $O(\log n)$ parallel threads each sampling the stream at a different rate. At the end, a thread “wins” that has sampled roughly $\Theta(\log n)$ elements from the $\alpha$-good edges (samples the edges with a rate of $\frac{\log n}{k}$ where $k$ is the number of $\alpha$-good edges). The threads that under-sample will end up with few edges or nothing while the ones that have oversampled will keep too many $\alpha$-good edges and will be terminated as result.
Table \[fig:results\] summarizes the known and new results for estimating the size of a maximum matching.
Reference Graph class Stream Approx. Factor $^*$ Space Bound$^{**}$
--------------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --
[@KKS14] General Random Order $O(\operatorname{poly log}(n))$ $O(\operatorname{poly log}(n))$
[@EHLMO15] Arboricity $\le c$ Insert-Only $5c+9$ $\tilde{O}(cn^{2/3})$
[@MV16] Arboricity $\le c$ Insert-Only $c+2$ $\tilde{O}(cn^{2/3})$
[@BS15; @CCEHMMV16] Arboricity $\le c$ Insert/Delete $O(c)$ $\tilde{O}(cn^{4/5})$
This paper Arboricity $\le c$ Insert-Only $(2c+1)(2c+2)$ $\tilde{O}(c^{2.5}\sqrt{n})$
This paper Arboricity $\le c$ Insert/Delete $(2c+1)(2c+2)$ $\tilde{O}(c^{10/3}n^{2/3})$
This paper Arboricity $\le c$ Insert-Only $22.5c+6$ $\tilde{O}(c\log^2 n)$
Further Related Streaming Work
------------------------------
In the classical offline model, where we assume we have enough space to store all vertices and edges of a graph $G=(V,E)$, the problem of computing the maximum matching of $G$ has been extensively studied. The best result in this model is the $30$-years-old algorithm due to Micali and Vazirani [@MV80] with running time $O(m \sqrt{n})$, where $n=|V|$ and $m=|E|$. A matching of size within $(1-{\varepsilon})$ factor of a maximum cardinality matching can be found in $O(m/{\varepsilon})$ time [@HopcroftK73; @MV80]. Very recently, Duan and Pettie [@DP14] develop a $(1-{\varepsilon})$-approximate maximum weighted matching algorithm in time $O(m/{\varepsilon})$.
The question of approximating the maximum cardinality matching has been extensively studied in the streaming model. An $O(n)$-space greedy algorithm trivially obtains a maximal matching, which is a $2$-approximation for the maximum cardinality matching [@FKMSZ05]. A natural question is whether one can beat the approximation factor of the greedy algorithm with $O(n\operatorname{poly log}(n))$ space. Recently, it was shown that obtaining an approximation factor better than $\frac{e}{e-1}\simeq 1.58$ in one pass requires $n^{1+\Omega(1/\log\log n)}$ space [@GoelKK12; @Kap13], even in bipartite graphs and in the *vertex-arrival* model, where the vertices arrive in the stream together with their incident edges. This setting has also been studied in the context of *online algorithms*, where each arriving vertex has to be either matched or discarded irrevocably upon arrival. Seminal work due to Karp, Vazirani and Vazirani [@KVV90] gives an online algorithm with $\frac{e}{e-1}$ approximation factor in this model.
Closing the gap between the upper bound of $2$ and the lower bound of $\frac{e}{e-1}$ remains one of the most appealing open problems in the graph streaming area (see [@P60]). The factor of 2 can be improved on if one either considers the random-order model or allows for two passes [@KMM12]. By allowing even more passes, the approximation factor can be improved to multiplicative $(1-\epsilon)$-approximation via finding and applying augmenting paths with successive passes [@McGregor:05; @McGregor:09; @EKMS12; @EggertKMS12; @AGM12a].
Another line of research [@FKMSZ05; @McGregor:05; @Zelke12; @EpsteinLMS11] has explored the question of approximating the maximum-weight matching in one pass and $O(n\operatorname{poly log}(n))$ space. Currently, the best known approximation factor equals $4 + {\varepsilon}$ (for any positive constant ${\varepsilon}$) [@CS14].
Preliminaries and Notations
===========================
Let $G(V,E)$ be an undirected unweighted graph with $n=|V|$ vertices and $m=|E|$ edges. For a vertex $v\in V$, let $\deg_G(v)$ denote the degree of vertex $v$ in $G$. A *matching* $M$ of $G$ is a set of pairwise non-adjacent edges, i.e., no two edges share a common edge. Edges in $M$ are called *matched* edges; the other edges are called *unmatched*. A *maximum matching* of graph $G(V,E)$ is a matching of maximum size. Throughout the paper, when we fix a maximum matching of $G(V,E)$, we denote it by $M^*$. A matching $M$ of $G$ is *maximal* if it is not a proper subset of any other matching in graph $G$. Abusing the notation, we sometimes use $M^*$ and $M$ for the size the maximum and maximal matching, respectively. It is well-known (see for example [@LP86]) that the size of a maximal matching is at least half of the size of a maximum matching, i.e., $M \ge M^*/2$. Thus, we say a maximal matching is a $2$-approximation of a maximum matching of $G$. It is known [@LP86] that the simple greedy algorithm, where we include the newly arrived edge if none of its endpoint are already matched, returns a maximal matching.
Algorithms for Bounded Arboricity Graphs
========================================
Throughout this section, $h_\mu$ denotes the number of vertices in graph $G=(V,E)$ that have degree above $\mu$. Let $G_L=(V',E')$ be an induced subgraph of $G$ where $V'=\{v | \deg_G(v) \le \mu \}$ and $(u,v) \in E'$ iff $u$ and $v$ are both in $V'$. Note that $G_L$ might have isolated vertices. In the following we let $M_\mu$ denote the size of maximum matching in $G_L$.
Characterization lemmas
-----------------------
\[[@EHLMO15]\] \[lem:EHL+15\] For a $c$-bounded arboricity graph $G(V,E)$ and $\mu > 2c $, we have $ h_\mu \le \frac{2\mu}{\mu - 2c+1} M^*$.
\[lem:hc+1\] For a $c$-bounded arboricity graph $G(V,E)$ and $\mu > 2c $, we have $$M^* \le h_{\mu}+M_{\mu} \le \left( \frac{2\mu}{\mu - 2c+1}+1\right)M^* \enspace .$$
The lower bound is easy to see: every edge of a maximum matching either has an endpoint with degree more than $\mu$ or both of its endpoints are vertices with degree at most $\mu$. The number of matched edges of the first type are bounded by $h_\mu$ whereas the number of matched edges of the second type are bounded by $M_\mu$.
To prove the upper bound, we use the fact $M_{\mu} \le M^*$ and Lemma \[lem:EHL+15\].
\[alphagood\] Let $S=(e_1,\ldots,e_m)$ be a sequence of edges. We say the edge $e_i=(u,v)$ is [*$\alpha$-good*]{} with respect to $S$ if $\, \max \{d_i(u),d_i(v)\} \le \alpha$ where $d_i(x)$ is defined as the number of the neighbors of $x$ that appear after the $i$-th location in the stream.
\[lem:E\_alpha\] Let $\mu > 2c$ be a (large enough) parameter. Let $E_{\alpha}$ be the set of $\alpha$-good edges in an edge stream for a graph with arboricity at most $c$. We have:
$$\left(\frac12-\frac{c}{\mu+1}\right) M^* \; \le \; |E_{\alpha}| \; \le \; \left(\frac{5}{4}\alpha+2\right) M^* ,$$
where $\alpha =\max\{\mu-1,\frac{4c(\mu+1)}{\mu+1-2c}\}$. In particular for $\mu=6c-1$, we have $$M^* \; \le \; 3|E_{6c}| \; \le \; (22.5c+6)M^*$$
First we prove the lower bound on $|E_\alpha|$. In particular we show a relation involving the number of edges where both endpoints have low degree, $s_\mu = |\{ e = (u,v) | e \in E, \deg(u) \leq \mu, \deg(v) \leq \mu\}|$:
$$\left(\frac12-\frac{c}{\mu+1}\right) h_{\mu} + s_\mu \; \le \; |E_{\alpha}|.$$
The claim in the lemma follows from the relatively loose bound that $M^*\le h_\mu+s_\mu$. Let $H$ be the set of vertices in the graph with degree above $\mu$ and let $L=V \setminus H$. Recall that $h_\mu=|H|$. Let $H_0$ be the vertices in $H$ that have no neighbor in $L$, and let $H_1 = H \setminus H_0$. First we notice that $|H_1| \ge (1-\frac{2c}{\mu})|H|$. To see this, let $E'$ be the edges with at least one endpoint in $H_0$. By definition, every node in $H_0$ has degree at least $\mu+1$, so we have $ |E'| \ge \frac{\mu+1}{2}|H_0|$. At the same time, the total number of edges in the subgraph induced by the nodes $H$ is at most $c(|H|-1)$, using the arboricity assumption. Therefore, $$c(|H|-1) \ge |E'| \ge \frac{\mu+1}{2}|H_0|$$ It follows that $|H_0| \le \frac{2c}{\mu+1}(|H|-1)$ which further implies that $$|H_1| \ge (1-\frac{2c}{\mu+1})|H| = (1-\frac{2c}{\mu+1})h_\mu.
\label{eq:sizeofh1}$$
Now let $d_{H}(v)$ be the degree of $v$ in the induced subgraph $H$. We have $\sum_{v \in H_1} d_H(v) \le 2c|H|$, again using the arboricity bound and the fact that summing over degrees counts each edge at most twice. Therefore, taking the average over nodes in $H_1$, $$\overline{d_H}(v) \le \frac{2c}{1-\frac{2c}{\mu+1}}$$ for $v \in H_1$. Consequently, at least half of the vertices in $H_1$ have their $d_H$ bounded by $\frac{4c(\mu+1)}{\mu+1-2c}$ (via the Markov inequality). Let $H'_1$ be those vertices. For each $v \in H'_1$ we find an $\alpha$-good edge. Let $e^*=(v,u)$ be the last edge in the stream where $u\in L$. Then, there cannot be too many edges that neighbor $(v,u)$ and come after it in the stream: the total number of edges that share an endpoint with $e^*$ in the rest of the stream is bounded by $\max\{\mu-1,\frac{4c(\mu+1)}{\mu+1-2c}\}$. Consequently, for $\alpha = \max\{\mu-1,\frac{4c(\mu+1)}{\mu+1-2c}\}$, we have $|E_\alpha| \ge
(\frac12-\frac{c}{\mu+1})h_{\mu}$, based on the set of $|H_1|/2$ edges in $H_1'$ and using . For $\alpha \ge \mu$, $E_\alpha$ also contains the disjoint set of edges from $L \times L$, which are all guaranteed to be $\alpha$-good since both their endpoints have degree bounded by $\mu$. Therefore $|E_\alpha| \ge s_\mu+(\frac12-\frac{c}{\mu+1})h_{\mu}$ as claimed.
To prove the upper bound on $|E_\alpha|$, we notice that the subgraph containing only the edges in $E_\alpha$ has degree at most $\alpha+1$. Such a graph has a matching size of at least $\frac{4|E_\alpha|}{5(\alpha+1)+3}$ [@Han08]. It follows that $|E_\alpha| \le \frac{5\alpha+8}4M^*$. This finishes the proof of the lemma.
Last, we note that in the special case of trees (or more generally, graph streams which represent forests), a tighter approximation bound follows (for which our algorithms specified below will also apply).
For trees we have $ M^* \le |E_1| \le 2M^*$.
Let $T=(V,E)$ be a tree with maximum matching size $M^*$. The upper bound follows by considering $E_1$: the subgraph of $T$ formed by $E_1$ has degree at most 2, and since we are considering trees, the set $E_1$ can have no cycles and so consists of paths. Hence, $|E_1| \le 2M^*$.
For the lower bound, we use induction on the number of nodes. Suppose the claim $|E_1| \ge M^* $ is true for all trees on $n$ nodes. We want to show that the claim remains true for trees on $n+1$ nodes. The base case $n=2$ is trivially true. Given a tree $T=(V,E)$ with $n+1$ nodes, there is always a leaf $w \in V$, that is connected to a node $u$ where $u$ has at most one non-leaf neighbor. If we remove the edge $(u,w)$ from the tree, we get a tree $T'$ with $n$ nodes and by our induction hypothesis, $|E_1(T')| \ge M^*(T')$ no matter how the stream is ordered. Fix some ordering of the stream for $T'$. We claim after inserting the edge $(u,w)$ in the stream (anywhere) we will have $|E_1(T)| \ge M^*(T)$. Why? We have two cases to consider.
1. $w$ has no sibling in $T$. In this case $E_1(T)=E_1(T')\cup \{(u,w)\}$. This is because $u$ must have been a leaf in $T'$ and as result adding $(u,w)$ does not cause any other edge to lose the $1$-goodness property. If follows that the size of $E_1$ increases by 1 while $M^*$ increases by at most 1.
2. $w$ has a sibling. In this case for sure $M^*$ does not increase. Although there may be a concern that the size of $E_1$ could drop, below we show that adding a leaf to the stream of the edges of a tree does not cause the size of the set $E_1$ to drop. This is enough to show that in this case as well $|E_1(T)| \ge M^*(T)$.
To see why adding a leaf to the stream of edges cannot reduce $|E_1|$, assume we insert an edge $e=(u,w)$ in the stream where $w$ is a newly added leaf. If $u$ has no $1$-good edges incident on it, then $E_1$ remains as it was. If $u$ has one $1$-good edge on it and adding $e=(u,w)$ causes it to be kicked out of $E_1$, it means $e$ is admitted as a new member of $E_1$. So the loss is accounted for. If $u$ has two $1$-good edges on it, say $e_1$ and $e_2$, we show adding $e$ cannot cause them to be ejected from $E_1$. To see this, assume to the contrary that it could, and suppose (without loss of generality) the edges come in the following order in the stream: $\ldots, e_2, \ldots, e_1,\ldots,e,\ldots$. The edge $e_2$ clearly cannot be part of $E_1$. But $e_1$ must have a neighboring edge $e_3$ incident on $u$, that follow it. But that means $e_2$ was already out before adding $e$ to the stream. A contradiction. Finally we note that $u$ cannot have more than two $1$-good edges on it. This finishes the proof.
$\tilde{O}(\sqrt{n})$ space algorithm for insert-only streams {#sec:sqrtn.alg}
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, first we present Algorithm \[alg:Mc\] that estimates $M_{\mu}+h_{\mu}$ and prove the following theorem.
\[thm:matching:root:n\] Let $G(V,E)$ be a graph with the arboricity bounded by $c$. Let $S$ be an (adversarial order) insertion-only stream of the edges of the underlying graph $G$. Let $\beta=\mu( (2\mu)/(\mu - 2c+1)+1)$ where $\mu > 2c$. Then, there exists an insertion-only streaming algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:Mc\]) that takes $O(\frac{\beta\sqrt{cn}}{{\varepsilon}}\log n)$ space in expectation and outputs a $(1+ {\varepsilon})\beta$ approximation of $M^*$ with probability at least $0.86$, where $M^*$ is a maximum matching of $G$.
[**Initialization:**]{} [Each node is sampled to set $S$ with probability $p$ (determined below). ]{}
[**Stream Processing:**]{}
Let $S_1 = \{v \in S | d(v) \leq \mu,
\exists w \in \Gamma(v): d(w) + l(w) \leq \mu\}$
Let $S_2$ be the set of vertices $\{v | v \in S, d(v) > \mu\}$
For each $w$ in $\Gamma(S)$ (the set of neighbors of nodes in $S$), the algorithm maintains $l(w)$, the number of occurrences of $w$ observed since (the first) $v \in S$ such that $w \in \Gamma(\{v\})$ was added. Note that in this algorithm, $l(w)$ is a lower bound on the degree of $w$. For the output, $S_1$ is the subset of nodes in $S$ whose degree is bounded by $\mu$ and additionally there is at least one neighbor of $v$, $w$, whose observed degree ($d(w)$ or $l(w)$) is at most $\mu$. Meanwhile, $S_2$ is the “high degree” nodes in $S$.
\[lem:Mc\] Let ${\varepsilon}\in (0,1)$ and $\beta=\mu( \frac{2\mu}{\mu - 2c+1}+1)$. Algorithm 1 outputs $s$ where $(1-{\varepsilon})M^* \; \le s \le \; (1+{\varepsilon})\beta M^*$ with probability at least $1-e^{\frac{-{\varepsilon}^2M^*p}{4\beta^2}}$.
First we prove the following bounds on ${\mathsf{E}}(s)$. $M_{\mu}+h_{\mu} \le {\mathsf{E}}(s)\le \mu(M_{\mu}+h_{\mu})$. Let $L$ be the set of vertices in $G$ that have degree at most $\mu$ and let $G_{L}$ be the induced graph on $L$. Let $H=V \setminus L$. Note that $G_{L}$ might have isolated vertices. Let $N$ be the non-isolated vertices in $G_{L}$. It is clear that if the algorithm samples $v \in N$, $v$ will be in $S_1$. Likewise, if it samples a vertex $w \in H$, $w$ will be in $S_2$. Given the fact that $|H| = h_\mu$ and $|N| \ge M_{\mu}$, this proves the lower bound on ${\mathsf{E}}(s)$.
The expectation may be above $M_u$, as the algorithm may pick an isolated vertex in $G_{L}$ (a vertex that is [*only*]{} connected to the high-degree vertices) and include it in $S_1$ because one of its high-degree neighbours $w$ was identified as low degree, i.e., $w \in \Gamma(S)$ and $l(w) \leq \mu$ but $w \in H$. Let $u \in H$ and let $U=\{a_1,\ldots,a_\mu\}$ be the last $\mu$ neighbours of $u$ according to the ordering of the edges in the stream. The algorithm can only identify $u$ as low degree when it picks a sample from $U$ and no samples from $\Gamma(u)\setminus U$. This restricts the number of [*unwanted*]{} isolated vertices to at most $\mu h_{\mu}$. Together with the fact that $|N| \le \mu M_{\mu}$, it establishes the upper bound on ${\mathsf{E}}(s)$.
Now using a Chernoff bound, $\Pr[|s -{\mathsf{E}}(s)| \le \lambda {\mathsf{E}}(s)] \le e^{\frac{-\lambda^2(M_{\mu}+h_{\mu})p}{4}} \le e^{\frac{-\lambda^2M^*p}{4}} $. Therefore with probability at least $1-e^{\frac{-\lambda^2M^*p}{4}}$, $$(M_{\mu}+h_{\mu}) -\lambda \mu(h_{\mu}+M_{\mu}) \le s \le \mu(1+\lambda)(M_{\mu}+h_{\mu})$$
Setting $\lambda= \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$ and putting this and Lemma \[lem:hc+1\] together, we derive the statement of the lemma.
[**Initialization:**]{} Let ${\varepsilon}\in (0,1)$ and $t= \lceil \frac{\beta\sqrt{8nc}}{{\varepsilon}}
\rceil$ where $\beta$ is as defined in Lemma \[lem:Mc\].
[**Stream Processing:**]{} Do the following tasks in parallel:
1. Greedily keep a maximal matching of size at most $r\le t$ (and terminate this task if this size bound is exceeded).
2. Run the Estimate-($M_{\mu}+h_{\mu}$) procedure (Algorithm \[alg:Mc\]) with parameter $p \ge \frac{8}{\lambda^2 t}$ where $\lambda = \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$.
[**Post processing**]{}: If $r < t$ then output $2r$ as the estimate for $M^*$, otherwise output the result of the Estimate-($M_{\mu}+h_{\mu}$) procedure.
[Theorem \[thm:matching:root:n\]]{} Suppose $M^* < t$. Clearly the size of the maximal matching $r$ obtained by the first task will be less than $t$. In this case, $M^* \le M' \le 2M^*$. Now suppose $M^* \ge t.$ By Lemma \[lem:hc+1\], we will have $M_{\mu}+h_{\mu} \ge t$ and hence by Lemma \[lem:Mc\], with probability at least $1-e^{-2} \ge 0.86$, the output of the algorithm will be within the promised bounds. The expected space of the algorithm is $O((t+pnc)\log n)$. Setting $t=\beta\sqrt{8nc}/{\varepsilon}$ to balance the space costs, the space complexity of the algorithm will be $O(\frac{\beta\sqrt{cn}}{{\varepsilon}}\log n)$ as claimed.
$O(n^{2/3})$ space algorithm for insertion/deletion streams {#sec:dynamicalg}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Algorithms \[alg:Mc\] and \[alg:Mc2\] form the basis of our solution in the more general case where the stream contains deletions of edges as well. In the case of Algorithm \[alg:Mc\], the algorithm has to maintain the induced subgraph on $S$ and the edges of the cut $(S,\Gamma(S))$. However if we allow arbitrary number of insertions and deletions, the size of the cut $(S,\Gamma(S))$ can grow as large as $O(n)$ even when $|S|=1$. This is because each node at some intermediate point could become high degree and then lose its neighbours because of the subsequent deletion of edges. Therefore here in order to limit the space usage of the algorithm, we make the assumptions that number of deletions is bounded by $O(cn)$. Since the processed graph has arboricity at most $c$ this forces the number of insertions to be $O(cn)$ as well. Under this assumption, if we pick a random vertex, still, in expectation the number of neighbours is bounded by $O(c)$.
Another complication arises from the fact that, with edge deletions, a vertex added to $\Gamma(S)$ might become isolated at some point. In this case, we discard it from $\Gamma(S)$. Additionally for each vertex in $S \cup \Gamma(S)$, the counters $d(v)$ (or $l(v)$ depending on if it belongs to $S$ or $\Gamma(S)$) can be maintained as before. The space complexity of the algorithm remains $O(pnc\log n)$ in expectation as long as the arboricity factor remains within $O(c)$ in the intermediate graphs. In the case of Algorithm \[alg:Mc2\], we need to keep a maximal matching of size $O(t)$. This can be done in $O(t^2)$ space using a randomized algorithm [@CCEHMMV16]. Setting $t$ at $(\frac{8\beta
nc}{{\varepsilon}^2})^{1/3}$ to rebalance the space costs, we obtain the result of Theorem \[thm:insert:delete\].
The $O(\log^2n)$ space algorithm for insert-only streams {#sec:logalg}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present our polylog space algorithm by presenting an algorithm for estimating $|E_\alpha|$ within $(1+{\varepsilon})$ factor. Our algorithm is similar in spirit to the known $L_0$ sampling strategy. It runs $O(\log n)$ parallel threads each sampling the stream at a different rate. At the end, a thread “wins” that has sampled roughly $\Theta(\log n)$ elements from $|E_\alpha|$ (samples the edges with a rate of $\frac{\log n}{|E_\alpha|}$). The threads that under-sample will end up with few edges or nothing while the ones that have oversampled will keep too many elements of $E_\alpha$ and will be aborted as result.
First we give a simple procedure (Algorithm \[alg:ALPHA\]) that is the building block of the algorithm.
[**Initialization**]{}: given the edge $e=(u,v)$ in the stream, let $r(u)=0$ and $r(v)=0$.
Now we present the main algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:ealpha\]) followed by its analysis.
[**Initialization:** ]{} $\forall i. X_i = \emptyset$
()[ let $j$ be the smallest integer such that $X_{j}\le \frac{8\log n(1+{\varepsilon})}{{\varepsilon}^2}$ and the $j$-th level was not terminated ]{}
\[lem:E\_alpha\_alg\] With high probability, Algorithm \[alg:ealpha\] outputs a $1\pm O({\varepsilon})$ approximation of $|E_\alpha|$.
It is clear that if $|X_0| \le \tau$ then $X_0=E_\alpha$ and the algorithm makes no error. In case $|X_0| > \tau$, we claim that $|E_\alpha| > \frac{c}{2\alpha^2} \tau$. To prove this let $t$ be the time step where $|X_0|$ exceeds $\tau$ and let $G_t=(V,E^{(t)})$ be the graph where $E^{(t)}=\{e_1,\ldots,e_t\}$. Clearly $M^*(G) \ge M^*(G_t)$ because the size of matching only increases. Abusing the notation, let $E_\alpha(G_t)$ denote the set of $\alpha$-good edges at time $t$. By Lemma \[lem:E\_alpha\], we have $$\tau < |E_\alpha(G_t)| \le \left(\frac54 \alpha +2\right) M^*(G_t) \le 4\alpha M^*(G) \le \frac {2\mu}{\mu-2c}4\alpha|E_{\alpha}| \le \frac{2\alpha^2}{c} |E_{\alpha}|.$$ This proves the claim.
Therefore in the following we assume that $|E_\alpha| > \frac{c}{2\alpha^2} \tau $. Let $\tau'=\frac{8\log n}{{\varepsilon}^2}$ and let $i^*$ be the integer such that $(1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*-1}\tau' \le |E_\alpha| \le (1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*}\tau'$.
Assuming the ${i^*}$-th level does not terminate before the end, we have $ \frac{\tau'}{(1+{\varepsilon})} \le {\mathsf{E}}[|X_{i^*}|] \le \tau'$. By a Chernoff bound, for each $i$ we have (again assuming we do not terminate the corresponding level) $$\Pr[||X_{i}|-{\mathsf{E}}(|X_i|)| \ge {\varepsilon}{\mathsf{E}}(|X_i|)] \le \exp{\left(-\frac{{\varepsilon}^2p_i|E_{\alpha}|}{4}\right)}.$$ Therefore, $
\Pr[||X_{i^*}|-{\mathsf{E}}(|X_{i^*}|)| \ge {\varepsilon}{\mathsf{E}}(|X_{i^*}|)] \le \exp{ ( -\frac{{\varepsilon}^2|E_\alpha|}{2(1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*}} ) } \le \exp{(\frac{2\log n}{1+{\varepsilon}})} \le O(n^{-1})
$.
As a result, with high probability $|X_{i^*}| \le \frac{8\log n(1+{\varepsilon})}{{\varepsilon}^2}$. Moreover for all $i < i^{*}-1$, the corresponding levels either terminate prematurely or in the end we will have $|X_{i}| > \frac{8\log n(1+{\varepsilon})}{{\varepsilon}^2}$ with high probability. Consequently $j \in \{i^*,i^*-1\}$. It remains to prove that runs corresponding to $i^*$ and $i^*-1$ will survive until the end with high probability. We prove this for $i^*$. The case of $i^*-1$ is similar.
Consider a fixed time $t$ in the stream and let $X_{i^*}^{(t)}$ be the set of sampled $\alpha$-good edges at time $t$ corresponding to the $i^*$-th level. Note that $X_{i^*}^{(t)}$ contains the a subset of $\alpha$-good edges with respect to the stream $S_t =(e_1,\ldots,e_t)$. From the definition of $i^*$ and our earlier observations we have $${\mathsf{E}}[|X_{i^*}^{(t)}|] = \frac{|E_\alpha(G_t)|}{(1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*}} \le \frac{2\alpha^2|E_\alpha|}{c(1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*}} \le \frac{2\alpha^2\tau'}{c}$$ By the Chernoff inequality for $\delta \ge 1$, $$\Pr\left[|X_{i^*}^{(t)}| \ge (1+\delta)E(|X_{i^*}^{(t)}|)=\tau\right]\le \exp{\left( \frac{-\delta}{3} E(|X_{i^*}^{(t)}|)\right)}.$$ From $\delta=\frac{\tau }{E(|X_{i^*}^{(t)}|)}-1 =\frac{\tau (1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*}}{|E_\alpha(G_t)|}-1$, we get
$$\Pr\left[|X_{i^*}^{(t)}| \ge \tau\right]\le \exp{\left( \frac{-\tau}{3} + \frac{|E_\alpha(G_t)|}{(1+{\varepsilon})^{i^*}}\right)} \le \exp{\left( \frac{-\tau}{3} +\frac{2\alpha^2\tau'}{c} \right)}$$
For $\tau \ge \frac{8\alpha^2\tau'}{c}$, the term inside the exponent is smaller than $-2\log n$. It also satisfies $\delta \ge 1$. After applying the union bound, for all $t$ the size of $X_{i^*}^{(t)}$ is bounded by $\tau = \frac{64\alpha^2\log n}{c{\varepsilon}^2}$ with high probability. This finished the proof of the lemma.
Next, putting everything together, we prove Theorem \[thm:arboricity:logn\].
[Theorem \[thm:arboricity:logn\]]{} The theorem follows from Lemmas \[lem:E\_alpha\] and \[lem:E\_alpha\_alg\] and taking $\alpha=\mu+1=6c$. Observe that the space cost of Algorithm \[alg:ealpha\] can be bounded: we have $\log_{1+{\varepsilon}} m$ levels where each level runs at most $\tau$ concurrent $\alpha$-good tests otherwise it will be terminated. Each $\alpha$-good test keeps an edge and two counters and as result it occupies $O(1)$ space. Consequently the space usage of the algorithm is bounded by $O(\tau\log_{1+{\varepsilon}} m)$. The space bound in the theorem follows from the facts that $\tau=O(\frac{c}{{\varepsilon}^2}\log n)$ for $\alpha=6c$ and $m \le cn$.
[^1]: Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, UK. Supported in part by European Research Council grant ERC-2014-CoG 647557 and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. [[email protected]]{}.
[^2]: Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, UK. Supported by European Research Council grant ERC-2014-CoG 647557. [[email protected] ]{}.
[^3]: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA. [[email protected]]{}.
[^4]: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA. [[email protected]]{}.
[^5]: It can be shown that for an $H$-minor-free graph, the arboricity number is $O(h\sqrt{h})$ where $h$ is the number of vertices of $H$. [@Kost84]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[99]{} N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B435**]{} (1995) 129; N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B426**]{} (1994) 19, hep-th/9407087, Erratum-ibid. [**B430**]{} (1994) 485; Nucl. Phys. [**B431**]{} (1994) 484, hep-th/9408099;\
P. C. Argyres, M. R. Plesser and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B471**]{} (1996) 159, hep-th/9603042.
A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge Fields and Strings”, Harwood Academic Publishers (1987).
S. Coleman, “Aspects of Symmetry”, Cambridge University Press (1985).
E. Abdalla, M. C. B. Abdalla and K. D. Rothe, “Non-perturbative Methods in 2-Dimensional Quantum Field Theory”, World Scientific (1991).
K. Higashijima, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**104**]{} (1991) 1.
A. D’adda, M. Lüscher and P. Di Vecchia, Nucl. Phys. [**B146**]{} (1978) 63.
E. Witten, Phys. Rev. [**D16**]{} (1977) 2991; O. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. [**D17**]{} (1978) 1123.
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B149**]{} (1979) 285.
A. D’adda, P. Di Vecchia and M. Lüscher, Nucl. Phys. [**B152**]{} (1979) 125.
S. Aoyama, Nuovo Cim. [**57A**]{} (1980) 176.
B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. [**87B**]{} (1979) 203.
K. Higashijima and M. Nitta, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**103**]{} (2000) 635, hep-th/9911139.
K. Higashijima and M. Nitta, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**103**]{} (2000) 833, hep-th/9911225.
K. Higashijima and M. Nitta, “Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Models”, hep-th/0006025, to appear in Proceedings of Confinement 2000 held at Osaka, Japan, March, 2000;\
“Auxiliary Field Formulation of Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Models”, hep-th/0008240, to appear in Proceedings of ICHEP 2000 held at Osaka, Japan, July, 2000.
K. Itoh, T. Kugo and H. Kunitomo, Nucl. Phys. [**B263**]{} (1986) 295.
M. Nitta, “Kähler Potential for Global Symmetry Breaking in Supersymmetric Theories”, hep-th/9903174.
S. Coleman, Comm. Math. Phys. [**31**]{} (1973) 259.
S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu, “Foundations of Differential Geometry Volume II”, Wiley Interscience (1996).
F. Delduc and G. Valent, Nucl. Phys. [**B253**]{} (1985) 494.
J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**125**]{} (1962) 397, [**130**]{} (1962) 2425.
T. Inami, Y. Saito and M. Yamamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**103**]{} (2000) 1283, hep-th/0003013;\
Phys. Lett. [**B495**]{} (2000) 245, hep-th/0008195.
J. Wess and J. Bagger, “Supersymmetry and Supergravity (2nd ed.)”, Princeton University Press (1992).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[**]{}\
The ability to make electrical contact to single molecules creates opportunities to examine fundamental processes governing electron flow on the smallest possible length scales. We report experiments in which we controllably stretch individual cobalt complexes having spin $S$ = 1, while simultaneously measuring current flow through the molecule. The molecule’s spin states and magnetic anisotropy were manipulated in the absence of a magnetic field by modification of the molecular symmetry. This control enabled quantitative studies of the underscreened Kondo effect, in which conduction electrons only partially compensate the molecular spin. Our findings demonstrate a mechanism of spin control in single-molecule devices and establish that they can serve as model systems for making precision tests of correlated-electron theories.
author:
- 'J. J. Parks'
- 'A. R. Champagne'
- 'T. A. Costi'
- 'W. W. Shum'
- 'A. N. Pasupathy'
- 'E. Neuscamman'
- |
\
S. Flores-Torres
- 'P. S. Cornaglia'
- 'A. A. Aligia'
- 'C. A. Balseiro'
- 'G. K.-L. Chan'
- 'H. D. Abruña'
- 'D. C. Ralph'
title: |
Mechanical Control of Spin States in Spin-1 Molecules\
and the Underscreened Kondo Effect[^1]
---
The electronic states of atoms and molecules depend on the symmetry imposed by their local environment. A simple manifestation occurs in the attachment of ligands to a transition-metal ion to form a coordination complex, which breaks spherical symmetry and causes splittings within the ion’s initially degenerate $d$-orbitals. For a complex having spin $S$ $\geq$ 1, additional distortions of the ligands combined with spin-orbit coupling can cause splittings within the initially (2$S$ + 1)-degenerate spin states, giving rise to magnetic anisotropy [@1; @2]. To study the effects of symmetry-breaking distortions, we stretched individual $S$ = 1 molecules within mechanically controllable devices [@3]. Simultaneous electron transport measurements showed that stretching lifts the degeneracy of the $S$ = 1 ground state and enables control of the magnetic anisotropy. The same devices also enabled tests of predictions [@4] for the temperature dependence of the underscreened $S$ = 1 Kondo effect [@5; @6; @7].
\[Figure1\] {width="8.6cm"}
We studied the Co(tpy-SH)$_2$ complex (Fig. 1A), in which a Co ion resides in an environment of approximately octahedral symmetry, through its coordination to six N atoms on two terpyridine ligands. When attached to gold electrodes and cooled to low temperature, this molecule exhibits the Kondo effect [@8]; the spin of the molecule is screened by electron spins in the electrodes, leading to a peak in the electrical conductance at zero bias voltage, $V$ [@9]. We used the Kondo effect as a spectroscopic probe to interrogate the molecular spin [@10]. Previous electron-transport studies of individual metal complexes have probed rich behavior including not only Kondo physics [@8; @11; @12; @13], but also vibrational excitations [@13; @14; @15] and molecular magnetism [@16; @17].
We used mechanically controllable break-junction devices (Fig. 1B) to stretch individual molecules while measuring their conductance. The devices were made by fabricating a Au wire suspended above a thin Si substrate (Fig. 1C), depositing molecules, and then using electromigration [@18] to create a molecular-scale break in the wires before beginning studies in which we tuned the distance between electrodes by bending the substrate. Details, statistics, and discussion of control experiments are provided in the Supporting Online Material, section S1 [@19]. We have also measured the same Co(tpy-SH)$_2$ complex using fixed Au electrodes [@8; @11; @13; @15; @16; @17].
\[t\] \[Figure2\] {width="9.0cm"}
Measurements of differential conductance ($dI/dV$) as a function of increasing electrode spacing at a temperature $T$ = 1.6 K are shown in Fig. 2. At the initial position of the electrodes, the $dI/dV$ spectra exhibited a single peak centered at $V$ = 0 with amplitude of order (but less than) 2$e^2/h$, a signature of Kondo-assisted tunneling through the molecule. As we stretched each molecule, the single conductance peak split into two beyond a value for the change in electrode spacing that varied from device to device. For the two devices displayed in Fig. 2 and for two others (see section S2 [@19]), we could reproducibly cross this transition back and forth between one peak and two. For the stretched molecules (Fig. 2E), the temperature dependence of $dI/dV$ at $V$ = 0 showed a nonmonotonic dependence similar to the $V$-dependence upon increasing $|V|$ from 0.
The observed splitting of the Kondo peak as a function of stretching is in striking contrast to a previous study of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Kondo effect in C$_{60}$ molecules [@20], in which varying the electrode spacing modified the height and width of the Kondo resonance but did not split the peak. We show that the peak splitting for the Co(tpy-SH)$_2$ complex is caused by a higher-spin $S$ = 1 Kondo effect, together with the breaking of degeneracy within the $S$ = 1 triplet ground state caused by molecular distortion [@2]. For an unstretched $S$ = 1 ion in a ligand field with octahedral symmetry, the triplet states are strictly degenerate according to group theory. However, if the molecule is stretched axially (the $z$-axis), the $S_z$ = 0 state will be lowered by a zero-field splitting energy $D$ below the $S_z$ = $\pm$1 states, corresponding to a uniaxial spin anisotropy (Fig. 2F). This broken degeneracy quenches the Kondo resonance near $V$ = 0 and causes conductance peaks at $V$ = $\pm$$D/e$ due to inelastic tunneling. The distortion-induced breaking of the ground-state degeneracy for an $S$ = 1 molecule is in contrast to the physics of half-integer spins [@21] for which time-reversal symmetry mandates that the ground state remains a degenerate Kramers doublet. To establish this picture of stretching-induced control of spin states, we show that the spin of our molecules is indeed $S$ = 1, based on temperature and magnetic-field studies, and we verify that stretching produces spin anisotropy by measuring how the level splitting depends on the direction of an applied magnetic field.
The temperature dependence of the Kondo conductance is predicted to depend on the molecular spin $S$ and the number of screening channels in the electrodes. To be fully screened at zero temperature, a molecule with spin $S$ requires coupling to 2$S$ screening channels [@5]. In our experimental geometry, there are two screening channels consisting of linear combinations of states from the two electrodes with different couplings to the impurity $J_{1}$ and $J_{2}$ that result in two Kondo temperature scales $T_{K1}$ and $T_{K2}$ [@22] (we assume $T_{K1}$ $<$ $T_{K2}$). The Kondo temperatures depend exponentially on the couplings, so in the typical case $T_{K1}$ $<<$ $T_{K2}$. If $S$ $>$ $\frac{1}{2}$, the result is that over the range $T_{K1}$ $<<$ $T$ $<$ $T_{K2}$ the original spin is only partially screened, to a value $S - \frac{1}{2}$. Relative to the fully screened $S$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ Kondo effect, this underscreened effect should produce a much slower rise in the conductance as $T$ decreases below $T_{K2}$ [@4; @6; @7]. Henceforth we denote $T_{K2}$ as simply $T_{K}$.
\[Figure3\] {width="8.6cm"}
Figures 3A and 3B show the measured zero-bias conductance $G(T)$ for the unstretched configuration of devices A and B with fits to numerical renormalization group (NRG) predictions for the fully screened $S$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ Kondo model [@23; @24] and the underscreened $S$ = 1 and $\frac{3}{2}$ models [@4] (for fitting details, see section S3 [@19]). Each fit has two adjustable parameters, $T_K$ and the zero-temperature conductance $G(0)$. We find that $G(T)$ deviates strongly from the form for the $S$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ Kondo effect, and instead agrees quantitatively with the prediction for the $S$ = 1 underscreened case. We performed the same analysis for 10 unstretched Co(tpy-SH)$_2$ devices (section S4 [@19]). Seven showed similarly unambiguous agreement with underscreened Kondo scaling, and all of these gave superior fits to the $S$ = 1 prediction than to $S$ = $\frac{3}{2}$. Discussion of the other 3 samples is provided in section S4.
In Figure 3C, for the 7 devices with underscreened characteristics, we plot $G(T)/G(0)$ versus $T/T_K$ using the parameters $G(0)$ and $T_K$ obtained from separate fits to the $S$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, 1, and $\frac{3}{2}$ models. This allows us to test how well the data can all be described by the predicted scaling curves. We used the root mean square deviation of the data from each theory curve normalized to the average of the scaled data as a goodness-of-fit metric. The $S$ = 1 fit is best: the deviation of points for the $S$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ ansatz is greater by 320%, for $S$ = $\frac{3}{2}$ by 44%, and for larger $S$ by more than 80%. Additional confirmation that $S$ = 1 is discussed below based on magnetic field studies. An independent [@25] observation of the temperature scaling predicted for the underscreened Kondo effect has also been reported recently for a single $S$ = 1 C$_{60}$ device [@26].
Our interpretation that the stretching-induced Kondo splitting is caused by the breaking of spin degeneracy is confirmed by the presence of spin anisotropy in the stretched state – the magnetic field ($B$) dependence of the Kondo splitting differs depending on the angle at which $B$ is applied relative to the stretching axis. Figure 4A shows the expected $B$-dependences of the energy levels in an $S$ = 1 multiplet for $D$ $>$ 0, for several field angles, and Fig. 4B displays the energy differences between the first excited state and the ground state, which determine the Kondo peak positions. For a field orientation approximately perpendicular to the anisotropy axis ($\theta$ = 90$^{\circ}$), when $g\mu_{B}B$ $<<$ $D$ the $B$-dependence of the peak position should be very weak, while when $g\mu_{B}B$ grows large enough to be comparable to $D$, the peak should shift gradually to larger values of $|V|$ with positive curvature. For $B$ parallel to the anisotropy axis ($\theta$ = 0$^{\circ}$), the $B$-dependence of the peak position should be linear and much stronger. Our measurements show a dependence on the orientation of $B$ just as expected within this model. Figures 4C and D show the $B$-dependence for different degrees of stretching for device A, with $\theta$ $\approx$ 90$^{\circ}$. At a relatively large degree of stretching (Fig. 4C), $D$ = 3.45 meV was larger than $g\mu_{B}B$ at our largest field ($\sim$1.5 meV), and the Kondo peak positions were almost independent of $B$. The slightly negative slope $d|V|/dB$ (corresponding to an effective $g$-factor of 0.21 $\pm$ 0.01) suggests that the stretching axis is not exactly perpendicular to $B$. For a smaller degree of stretching (Fig. 4D), $g\mu_{B}B$ was comparable to $D$ at large fields, and the Kondo peaks shifted weakly to larger $|V|$ as a function of $B$ with positive curvature. Figures 4E and F show data for $B$ approximately parallel to the molecular axis for fixed-electrode devices, which exhibit zero-field splitting without intentional mechanical stretching (among devices that had Kondo features, $\sim$10% of the fixed-electrode devices and $\sim$20% of the adjustable devices exhibited a split Kondo peak at the initial electrode spacing, suggesting that these molecules happened to be strained initially). In Figures 4E and F, the Kondo peaks shift linearly with $B$, with much larger slopes $d|V|/dB$ than for $\theta$ $\approx$ 90$^{\circ}$, corresponding to $g$-factors of 2.6-2.7 ($\pm$ 0.3). In device D, the peaks shift initially to smaller $|V|$, pass through zero, and then move to larger $|V|$ (Fig. 4F). From the negative slopes of $d|V|/dB$ in Figures 4C and 4F, we can confirm that $D$ $>$ 0. The scale of splittings we measure, $\sim$0-5 meV, agrees with our simulations (section S6 [@19]) and is typical of zero-field splittings in distorted coordination complexes [@2].
\[Figure4\] {width="12.4cm"}
These magnetic field data provide further evidence that the spin state of the molecule is $S$ = 1, rather than $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$, or any half-integer. For half-integer spins with $D$ $>$ 0, the ground state for $B$ = 0 is the degenerate Kramers doublet $S_z$ = $\pm$$\frac{1}{2}$. Regardless of the direction of $B$ or the degree of stretching, this doublet will give rise to a Kondo peak that shifts approximately linearly with $B$ and extrapolates to zero splitting at $B$ = 0 [@21], in contradiction to the data (section S7 [@19]). Integer values of $S$ = 2 can be ruled out based on the temperature scaling described above and because previous studies of six-fold coordinated Co complexes have found almost exclusively $S$ $\leq$ $\frac{3}{2}$, with exceptions only for fluoride ligands [@1; @2]. We conclude that only $S$ = 1 can explain the measurements, and from this we identify the charge state of the metal center to be Co$^{1+}$ (section S8 [@19]).
In coordination chemistry, the existence of zero-field splittings induced by molecular distortion is well-established, but the ability we demonstrate to continuously distort an individual molecule while simultaneously measuring its zero-field splitting opens the possibility for dramatically more detailed and precise comparisons with theory. For correlated-electron physics, our results demonstrate that single-molecule electrical devices can provide well-controlled model systems for studying $S$ = 1 underscreened Kondo effects not previously realizable in experiment. Our work further demonstrates that mechanical control can be a realistic strategy for manipulating molecular spin states, to supplement or replace the use of magnetic fields in proposed applications such as quantum manipulation or information storage [@27; @28].
[10]{} bibnamefont, \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}
A. Abragam, B. Bleaney, [*Electron paramagnetic resonance of transition ions.*]{} (Dover Publications, New York, 1986).
R. Boca, [*Coord. Chem. Rev.*]{} [**248**]{}, 757 (2004).
N. Agraït, A. L. Yeyati, J. M. van Ruitenbeek, [*Phys. Rep. *]{}[**377**]{}, 81 (2003).
F. Mallet [*et al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**97**]{}, 226804 (2006).
P. Nozières, A. Blandin, [*J. Phys. (Paris)*]{} [**41**]{}, 193 (1980).
A. Posazhennikova, P. Coleman, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**94**]{}, 036802 (2005).
P. Mehta, N. Andrei, P. Coleman, L. Borda, G. Zarand, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**72**]{}, 014430 (2005).
J. Park [*et al*]{}., [*Nature* ]{} [**417**]{}, 722 (2002).
M. Grobis, I. G. Rau, R. M. Potok, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, in [*Handbook of magnetism and advanced magnetic materials*]{}, H. Kronmüller, S. S. P. Parkin, Eds. (Wiley, Hoboken, 2007).
C. Romeike, M. R. Wegewijs, W. Hofstetter, H. Schoeller, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**97**]{}, 206601 (2006).
W. Liang, M. P. Shores, M. Bockrath, J. R. Long, H. Park, [*Nature*]{} [**417**]{}, 725 (2002).
A. Zhao [*et al*]{}., [*Science*]{} [**309**]{}, 1542 (2005).
L. H. Yu [*et al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**93**]{}, 266802 (2004).
X. H. Qiu, G. V. Nazin, W. Ho, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**92**]{}, 206102 (2004).
D.-H. Chae [*et al*]{}., [*Nano Lett. *]{}[**6**]{}, 165 (2006).
H. B. Heersche [*et al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**96**]{}, 206801 (2006).
M.-H. Jo [*et al*]{}., [*Nano Lett. *]{}[**6**]{}, 2014 (2006).
H. Park, A. K. L. Lim, A. P. Alivisatos, J. Park, P. L. McEuen, [*Appl. Phys. Lett. *]{}[**75**]{}, 301 (1999).
Supporting material is available on [*Science*]{} Online.
J. J. Parks [*et al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**99**]{}, 026601 (2007).
A. F. Otte [*et al*]{}., [*Nature Physics*]{} [**4**]{}, 847 (2008).
M. Pustilnik, L. I. Glazman, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**87**]{}, 216601 (2001).
T. A. Costi, A. C. Hewson, V. Zlatic, [*J. Phys. Condens. Matter*]{} [**6**]{}, 2519 (1994).
D. Goldhaber-Gordon [*et al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**81**]{}, 5225 (1998).
J. J. Parks, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University (Aug. 2009).
N. Roch, S. Florens, T. A. Costi, W. Wernsdorfer, F. Balestro, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**103**]{}, 197202 (2009).
G. Christou, D. Gatteschi, D. N. Hendrickson, R. Sessoli, [*MRS Bull. *]{}[**25**]{}, 66 (2000).
L. Bogani, W. Wernsdorfer, [*Nature Materials*]{} [**7**]{}, 179 (2008).
We thank I. Cohen, M. Grobis, G. Hutchison, and P. McEuen for discussions, and K. Bolotin, J. Grose, F. Kuemmeth, and E. Tam for technical help. Research at Cornell was supported by the NSF through the Cornell Center for Materials Research, DMR-0605742, CHE-0403806, and use of the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility/NNIN. TAC acknowledges supercomputer support by the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (Jülich). PC, AAA, and CA were supported by PIP 11220080101821 of CONICET.
[^1]: This manuscript has been accepted for publication in [*Science*]{}. This version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete version of record at http://www.sciencemag.org/. The manuscript may not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written permission of AAAS.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The E$''$ center is a paradigmatic radiation-induced defect in SiO$_2$ whose peculiar EPR and hyperfine activity has been known since over 40 years. This center has been traditionally identified with a distorted, positively-charged oxygen vacancy V$_{\rm O}^+$. However, no direct proof of the stability of this defect has ever been provided, so that its identification is still strongly incomplete. Here we prove directly that distorted V$_{\rm O}^+$ is metastable and that it satisfies the key requirements for its identification as E$''$, such as thermal and optical response, and activation-deactivation mechanisms.'
address: 'INFM and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, I-09042 Monserrato (CA), Italy'
author:
- 'Carlo Maria Carbonaro, Vincenzo Fiorentini, and Fabio Bernardini'
title: 'Proof of the thermodynamical stability of the E$''$ center in SiO$_2$'
---
[2]{} Understanding defects in solids is a key factor in improving device performance and materials quality. Defect identification combines experimental observation and theoretical predictions, and a major ingredient in this process is the theoretical justification of the thermodynamical stability of the defect. If this information is missing, the identification is arguably incomplete or uncertain. Surprisingly, this is the case for the E$'$ center [@1; @2], a radiation-induced defect first observed experimentally as early as 45 years ago [@1] in SiO$_2$, a material of prime current importance in microelectronics and fiber optics [@3]. E$'$ is traditionally identified with a positively-charged distorted oxygen vacancy V$_{\rm O}^+$ [@4], with important support from calculations of hyperfine couplings [@5] and optical activity [@6]; its thermodynamical stability, however, was never theoretically proven, and the mechanisms involved in its activation and deactivation are still debated. Here, using the ab initio theory of defect formation in solids [@7], we show that the conditions for E$'$ stability are naturally realized in stoichiometric or neutron-irradiated SiO$_2$, and conclusively put on firm ground the identification of the E$'$ center.
Our model of the stability of E$'$ is based on two native defects: the oxygen vacancy V$_{\rm O}$ and the oxygen interstitial O$_i$. The motivation is that E$'$ is observed chiefly (though not only) in neutron-irradiated material [@1; @2; @3], where V$_{\rm O}$ and O$_i$ are both abundant. Indeed, we find that it is their concurrent presence that produces the conditions for the existence of E$'$, in neutron-irradiated as well as non-neutron-irradiated material. In the former, vacancies V$_{\rm O}$ and interstitials O$_i$ are essentially produced in pairs by knock-on, kick-out events; in the latter, they form in thermal equilibrium and, as it turns out, in similar concentrations. As will become apparent below, our argument on E$'$ applies to both cases without modifications, except for the fact that neutron-produced defects appear in concentrations determined by the irradiation dose, whereas the concentration of thermally formed defects depends on formation energies, which can be directly predicted.
At a growth temperature T$_{\rm g}$ and with N$_s$ available sites, the equilibrium concentration of a defect is D$= {\rm N}_s \exp
(-{\rm F}_{\rm form}/{\rm k}_{\rm B} {\rm T}_{\rm g})$. The formation free energy F$_{\rm form}$ = E$_{\rm form}$ – T S$_{\rm
form}$ depends [@7] on the chemical potentials of atoms added or removed, on the defect charge state, i.e. the charge released to or captured from the thermodynamic reservor constituted by the surrounding crystal, and on the electronic chemical potential $\mu_e$ of the latter. Once the formation energies of the all relevant defects (vacancy and interstitial in our case) are known, the defect concentrations and the chemical potential $\mu_e$ are determined self-consistently, subject to charge neutrality, as detailed in [@7]. A specific defect configuration or charge state is predicted to exist if its formation energy is lower than that of all other defect states for some value of $\mu_e$. Also, the defect is metastable if a non-zero energetic barrier prevents its deactivation or disappearance into other lower-energy configurations of the same defect, or recombination with other defects. The formation energy for our defects in charge state $Q$ reads $${\rm E}_{\rm form} (Q) = {\rm E}_{\rm tot}^{\rm def} (Q) -
{\rm E}_{\rm tot}^{\rm undef} + Q \mu_e + {\rm M} (Q) + {\rm P}$$ where E$_{\rm tot}^{\rm def}$ and E$_{\rm tot}^{\rm undef}$ are the total energies of the defected and undefected system, respectively, $\mu_e$ is the electron chemical potential (equaling the Fermi level E$_{\rm F}$ in our T=0 calculations), M$ (Q)$ is the defect-dependent multipole correction for charge state $Q$ of Ref. [@8], P = $\mu_{\rm O}$ for V$_{\rm O}$ and P = –$\mu_{\rm O}$ for O$_i$, and $\mu_{\rm O}$ is the oxygen chemical potential. The latter is fixed to stoichiometric conditions, i.e. at the center of its variation range $\mu_{\rm mol}/2 +
\Delta {\rm H}/2 < \mu_{\rm O} < \mu_{\rm mol}/2$ determined by the total energy $\mu_{\rm mol}$ of the O$_2$ molecule, and the calculated formation enthalpy $\Delta {\rm H}$ of SiO$_2$. Ionization energies, i.e. the energy needed to promote (say) an electron from the valence band to an empty acceptor level, are defined via total energy differences of different charge states. Formation entropies are beyond the scope of the method used here; plausible estimates are used when needed.
Energies and forces are accurately calculated from first-principles within density-functional theory in the local approximation, using the ultrasoft pseudopotential plane-wave method as implemented in VASP [@9]. An isolated defect is simulated in periodic boundary conditions via the repeated supercell approach. We use crystalline $\alpha$-quartz SiO$_2$ supercells of tetragonal symmetry, comprising 71 to 73 atoms and of linear dimensions 18.49, 16.02, and 20.44 atomic units (theoretical lattice parameters [@10], matching experiment to about 0.5%). Atomic geometries of the defects are optimized for each $Q$ (obtained by removing or adding electrons as appropriate) until all residual force components in the system are below 0.02 eV/Å. No symmetry restriction is imposed on geometry optimization. Improving slightly on the setting of Ref.[@5], a (222) mesh is used [@9] for k-space summation (4 special points in the supercell Brillouin zone). Our use of a crystalline SiO$_2$-based model of the E$'$ defect, which is observed both in amorphous and crystalline phases, is justified by the closely similar behavior of several E$'$ variants in crystalline and amorphous SiO$_2$ in experiment [@2; @11] as well as theory [@4; @5]. In addition, the simulated structure of amorphous silica [@new] deviates moderately from that of crystalline a-quartz SiO$_2$.
Fig.\[figura.1\] shows the ground state formation energies of the interstitial O$_i$ and the vacancy V$_{\rm O}$. The vacancy acts as a double acceptor (double donor) in extreme $n$ ($p$) doping conditions, but it is in fact neutral for most of the Fermi level range. As to the interstitial, we find that an oxygen atom initially placed near the center of the hexagonal channels of quartz, relaxes sideways towards the helical chains and, after overcoming a small ($\simeq$ 0.2 eV) barrier, it stabilizes into a split-interstitial (s-O$_i$) configuration with the nearest bridging oxygen in the helical tetrahedra chain, with $\simeq$ 1 eV of energy gain with respect to the starting site. Details will be discussed elsewhere: here we note the main consequences of this result: [*a)*]{} the stabilization in the s-O$_i$ configuration (which is found to be quite close to that suggested in Ref.[@12]) prevents O$_i$ from easily recombining with vacancies, because the detachment from the split-interstitial configuration costs about 1.2 eV; [*b)*]{} as seen in Fig.\[figura.1\], s-O$_i$ is a (negative-$U$) deep double acceptor with second ionization energy at 3.3 eV above the valence band top Ev. The Fermi level, calculated as in [@7], is pinned at E$_{\rm F}$ = E$_v$ + 3.3 eV (vertical solid line in Fig.\[figura.1\]). Thus a consequence of vacancy-interstitial pair formation, is that moderately $p$-type conditions are achieved; this is indeed often observed in irradiated samples [@2; @11]. In the absence of s-O$_i$, the Fermi level would be at midgap, E$_v$ + 4.4 eV. From the formation energies one can estimate the chemical concentrations of s-O$_i$ and V$_{\rm O}$: for a typical T$_{\rm g}$ of 1500 K, and assuming a reasonable formation entropy S$_{\rm form}$= 5 k$_{\rm B}$, the concentration of both defects is $\sim$10$^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$. This figure matches well E$'$ concentrations measured [@11] in non-neutron irradiated samples after UV, $\gamma$, or X illumination fall, and therefore supports the hypothesis that the vacancy is the parent defect of E$'$. Neutron irradiation of course produces dose-dependent [@2], typically much higher concentrations ($>10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$). The key point is that, since the concentrations of vacancies and interstitial are essentially the same in both cases, and because only the interstitial has electrical activity (via its double acceptor level), the Fermi level is pinned at the same value in both cases, so that the theory of E$'$ stability and activation discussed below applies identically to both cases.
It appears from Fig.\[figura.1\] that the +1 charge state of the vacancy, V$_{\rm O}^+$, is not among the thermodynamically stable ground states of the defect. Therefore, if this state of V$_{\rm O}$ is to be identified with E$'$, it must at least be proven metastable; if it is metastable, a mechanism for its creation starting from the ground state (the neutral vacancy) must be identified. As to the first point, since the +1 vacancy has a formation energy that increases linearly with the Fermi level while the neutral one remains constant, V$_{\rm O}^+$ or a distorted variant thereof, may only be metastable in a limited range of that variable: we show below that the Fermi level pinning due to split-O$_i$ produces naturally the conditions for the metastable existence of E$'$. As to the second point, experiments indicate that E$'$ is activated by ionizing radiation [@2; @3; @11] such as $\gamma$, X, or UV photons shone onto vacancy-containing samples, or concurrently with neutron irradiation (causing knock-on vacancy creation). Indeed, since the vacancy ground state is the neutral undistorted configuration, the distorted +1 state (alias E$'$) can only be accessed by ionization of V$_{\rm
O}^0$: our picture provides consistently such activation mechanism.
We proceed to study the behavior of the vacancy when subjected to the undistorted-to-puckered transition as proposed in earlier studies [@4; @5; @6]. In accord with the results discussed above, we fix the Fermi level at E$_v$ + 3.3 eV. The creation of a vacancy starting from the perfect lattice results in moderate local distortions in both the neutral and +1 charge states. The puckered configuration is obtained by moving one of the two vacancy-adjacent Si$_1$ and Si$_2$ atoms (specifically the “long-bond [@4; @5] Si$_2$) away from the vacant site, and pushing it across the basal plane of the incomplete tetrahedron centered on Si2 itself. When Si$_2$ pokes through this triangular constriction, it gets strongly and suddenly bound to a [*backbonding*]{} oxygen, O$_b$. Upon completion of the distortion, Si$_2$ regains 4-fold coordination, and backbonding O$_b$ becomes 3-fold coordinated (see also [@4; @5; @6]), while it was originally 2-fold coordinated as all tetrahedron-bridging oxygens in SiO$_2$. Si$_1$ remains instead 3-fold coordinated: in the +1 charge state, its dangling bond is half-filled, and causes the observed [@1; @2] and predicted [@5] EPR signature which identifies E$'$ [@2].
It may appear at first sight that the puckering distortion should be symmetric in Si$_1$ and Si$_2$. This is not the case, however, because of the intrinsic asymmetry of the quartz structure. As already noted earlier on [@4], only Si$_2$ finds the backbonding oxygen O$_b$ in the correct position. This applies largely also to amorphous silica, whose structure is moderately different at the local level from that of quartz [@new]. The backbonding oxygen is therefore the main stabilizing agent of the E$'$ defect.
The total energy of the system in charge state $Q$ is calculated as a function of the separation between Si$_1$ and Si$_2$. Only the modulus d$_{\rm
Si-Si}$ of the Si$_1$-Si$_2$ connecting vector is constrained, and all other degrees of freedom are fully relaxed: the minimum energy path is thus mapped out for the undistorted-puckered transformation in the constrained-d$_{\rm
Si-Si}$ configurational subspace. In Fig.\[figura.2\] we display the full level diagram for the neutral, +1, and +2 charge states of the vacancy as a function of the puckering distortion, quantified by d$_{\rm Si-Si}$. All energy curves depend on the Fermi level through Eq.1; they can be directly compared on the same energy scale because E$_{\rm F}$ is fixed at the natural value of E$_v$ + 3.3 eV determined above.
The outstanding feature of Fig.\[figura.2\] is that for the natural Fermi level of stoichiometric or neutron-irradiated silica, the candidate E$'$, i.e. distorted V$_{\rm O}^+$, is indeed the stable defect state for the distorted geometry. We stress that the Fermi level position is essential here: if E$_{\rm F}$ were at midgap, the +1 curve would be 1.1 eV above its position in Fig.\[figura.2\]. Then E$'$ would be unstable towards magnetically-inactive V$_{\rm O}^0$. Globally, E$'$ is metastable with a confining barrier of 0.8 eV. The barrier to enter the metastable state is 1.1 eV, and the undistorted state is lower than the distorted by 0.3 eV \[this difference to Ref. [@5], where the distorted state was lower by the same amount, is possibly due to our improved k-sampling\]. Clearly, in the absence of excitation, V$_{\rm O}^+$ will remain trapped in the metastable E$'$ state and will show EPR activity. When thermally activated to overcome the barrier, the puckered center will transform into undistorted, and by electron capture it will become neutral. Therewith, E$'$ disappears permanently, and so does its magnetic activity, because Si1 and Si2 combine their dangling bonds to bind into a dimer [@4; @5; @6; @10]. (The same deactivation route is not readily available for the level ordering of Ref. [@5], which implies that [*i)*]{} E$'$ remains activated at equilibrium, and that [*ii)*]{} concurrent barrier jump and electron capture are required to quench it.)
\[figura.2\]
The calculated puckered-to-undistorted barrier is now compared with an estimate extracted from the measured relative drop in E$'$ population upon isocronal thermal annealing [@11] in irradiated silica. In the simplest model, the distorted-state population N$_0$ diminishes by a factor of N/N$_0$ = exp (–R(T) $\tau$) upon annealing over a time $\tau$ at temperature T, with escape rate R = $\nu$ exp (-$\Delta$F/k$_{\rm B}$T), with $\Delta$F the free energy barrier for escape from the puckered state, and $\nu$ an average vibrational frequency in that state. Using the data [@11] for E$'_{\gamma}$ and assuming $\nu
\sim 50$ THz, we obtain an experimental $\Delta$F$\sim$1.1 eV, in reasonable agreement with our calculated $\Delta$F$\sim\Delta$E=0.8 eV; account for the transition entropy, which we neglect, should further improve agreement since the transition state (through the tetrahedron basal plane) is severely constrained geometrically, and has a higher average vibrational frequency.
Let us now come to E$'$ activation. In the present picture, E$'$ is created transforming undistorted V$_{\rm O}^0$ into distorted V$_{\rm O}^+$ via two routes. The first proceeds on path A in Fig.\[figura.2\] with two successive one-photon ionizations of V$_{\rm O}^0$ into V$_{\rm O}^{+2}$, followed by non-radiative decay into E$'$. This path is efficient since the +1 undistorted state is kept populated by sustained illumination (a much less efficient double-photon excitation of V$_{\rm O}^0$ into V$_{\rm O}^{+2}$ may also occur). The excitation energies for path A are both near 4–4.5 eV if the ionized electron is transfered to the Fermi level, i.e. to the E$_{\rm F}$-pinning impurity; if it is promoted to the conduction band, the energies are instead about 7 eV. Both processes are possible with X or $\gamma$ radiation, whose energy vastly exceeds that needed in the transition. In UV irradiation, the center is often activated by pumping at 5 eV, and clearly only Fermi-level capture matches this figure. (There are, however, qualitative indications that the 5 eV excitation may activate E$'$ via alternate routes involving other pre-existing defects.)
The second excitation route, path B, involves an optical excitation of V$_{\rm O}^0$ into undistorted V$_{\rm O}^+$, and a thermal excitation of the latter into the puckered state. The energy difference (0.3 eV) between the two V$_{\rm O}^+$ states implies that only a fraction of 10$^{-5}$ of the vacancies gets promoted into the distorted state in equilibrium at room temperature, on sustained illumination. Therefore, though admissible, this path is preempted by path A. With the level ordering of Ref. [@5], also path B competes with path A. (Our ordering, however, matches better the thermal behavior, as discussed above.)
Other calculated observables of our E$'$ model are consistent with previous studies [@4; @5; @6; @13]. For instance, the optical absorption of the neutral undistorted state at 6.9 eV correlates well with the 7.6 eV absorption band usually attributed to the neutral vacancy [@6]. For E$'$ (metastable puckered V$_{\rm O}^+$) we find an absorption at 4.7 eV (defect-to-conduction promotion) followed by slow non-radiative decay back into E$'$. Since it is not followed by any emission or E$'$ deactivation, this absorption correlates with the broad 5.8-eV band typical of E$'$ [@11; @13], which exhibits the same behavior in experiment.
In summary, we conclusively put on firm ground the identification of the singly positive O vacancy in SiO$_2$ with the E$'$ center proving its thermodynamical stability via first principles calculations. Our picture provides naturally activation and deactivation mechanisms, and other optical signatures, in agreement with known experimental observations. In addition, our picture naturally explains the moderate $p$ conditions produced by irradiation in SiO$_2$.
We acknowledge support from Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica della Materia under “Iniziativa Trasversale Calcolo Parallelo”.
[99]{} R. A. Weeks, J. Appl. Phys.[**27**]{}, 1376 (1956). R. A. Weeks, J. Non-Cyst. Solids [**179**]{}, 1 (1994). , edited by J. Arndt, R. Devine, and A. Revesz (Plenum, New York, 1988). J. K. Rudra and W. Beall Fowler, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 8223 (1987); K. C. Snyder and W. Beall Fowler, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 13238 (1993). M. Boero, A. Pasquarello, J. Sarnthein. and R. Car, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 887 (1997). G. Pacchioni, G. Ieranò, and A. M. Marquez, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 377 (1998). C. G. van de Walle, D. B. Laks, G. F. Neumark, and S. T. Pantelides, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 9425 (1993). M. Leslie and M. G. Gillan, J. Phys. C [**18**]{}, 973 (1985); G. Makov and M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 4014 (1995); see also Ref.[@9]. G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, R558 (1993); G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Comput. Mater. Sci. [**6**]{}, 15 (1996); G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 11169 (1996); see also the VASP web site http://cms.mpi.univie.ac.at/vasp/. C. M. Carbonaro, V. Fiorentini, and S. Massidda, J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**221**]{}, 89 (1997). D. L. Griscom, Nucl. Instr. Meth. B [**1**]{}, 481 (1984). J. Sarnthein, A. Pasquarello, and R. Car, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4682 (1995). G. Pacchioni and G. Ieranò, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 818 (1998). G. Pacchioni and G. Ieranò, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 753 (1997).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present optical and near-IR Integral Field Unit (IFU) and ALMA band 6 observations of the nearby dual Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) Mrk463. At a distance of 210 Mpc, and a nuclear separation of $\sim$4 kpc, Mrk463 is an excellent laboratory to study the gas dynamics, star formation processes and supermassive black hole (SMBH) accretion in a late-stage gas-rich major galaxy merger. The IFU observations reveal a complex morphology, including tidal tails, star-forming clumps, and emission line regions. The optical data, which map the full extent of the merger, show evidence for a biconical outflow and material outflowing at $>$600 km s$^{-1}$, both associated with the Mrk463E nucleus, together with large scale gradients likely related to the ongoing galaxy merger. We further find an emission line region $\sim$11 kpc south of Mrk463E that is consistent with being photoionized by an AGN. Compared to the current AGN luminosity, the energy budget of the cloud implies a luminosity drop in Mrk463E by a factor 3–20 over the last 40,000 years. The ALMA observations of $^{12}$CO(2-1) and adjacent 1mm continuum reveal the presence of $\sim$10$^{9}$M$_\sun$ in molecular gas in the system. The molecular gas shows velocity gradients of $\sim$800 km/s and $\sim$400 km/s around the Mrk463E and 463W nuclei, respectively. We conclude that in this system the infall of $\sim$100s $M_\odot$/yr of molecular gas is in rough balance with the removal of ionized gas by a biconical outflow being fueled by a relatively small, $<$0.01% of accretion onto each SMBH.'
author:
- Ezequiel Treister
- 'George C. Privon'
- 'Lia F. Sartori'
- Neil Nagar
- 'Franz E. Bauer'
- Kevin Schawinski
- Hugo Messias
- Claudio Ricci
- Vivian U
- Caitlin Casey
- 'Julia M. Comerford'
- 'Francisco Muller-Sanchez'
- 'Aaron S. Evans'
- Carolina Finlez
- Michael Koss
- 'David B. Sanders'
- 'C. Megan Urry'
title: 'Optical, near-IR and sub-mm IFU Observations of the nearby dual AGN Mrk463'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
For the last $\sim$30 years there has been growing evidence for a strong connection between major, $<$3:1 mass ratio, galaxy mergers and simultaneous episodes of strong star formation and significant central supermassive black hole (SMBH) growth [e.g., @sanders88; @barnes91; @di-matteo05]. Early observations of nearby galaxies carried out with the [*Infrared Astronomical Satellite*]{} ([*IRAS*]{}) have shown that the most luminous IR sources appear to be associated with interacting galaxies, as evidenced by the presence of tidal tails, disrupted morphologies and other features [@soifer84]. Theoretical models and computational simulations [e.g., @barnes91; @mihos96; @springel05] have shown that a major galaxy merger provides a very efficient mechanism to drive gas to the nuclear regions of the resulting system, which can in turn fuel the observed star formation bursts and SMBH growth. As a consequence, it is natural to expect that major mergers can play a fundamental role in galaxy evolution [e.g., @hopkins06].
Major galaxy mergers can also explain the observed correlations between the mass of the central SMBH and physical properties of its host galaxy [e.g., @di-matteo05; @di-matteo08]. However, a key element in setting up this physical connection are so-called feedback effects. Such effects are regularly invoked by semi-analytical models in order to reproduce even basic galaxy properties, such as the luminosity function [e.g., @kauffmann98 and many others since], as they provide additional sources of energy required to prevent runaway star formation episodes [@benson03; @croton06; @schawinski06]. In particular, nuclear activity can play a critical role in the regulation of star formation, as observed in some nearby galaxies [e.g., @alatalo15].
@treister12 found that while most AGN activity is triggered by internal, secular processes and minor galaxy mergers, major mergers are directly linked to the most luminous AGN, quasars, and therefore are responsible for most ($\sim$60%) of the SMBH accretion across the cosmic history. A natural consequence of this scenario is that dual AGN — i.e., systems in which the two nuclear SMBHs are growing simultaneously at separations of $<$10 kpc — should be relatively common [e.g., @volonteri03; @fu11a; @van-wassenhove12]. This particular stage in a major galaxy merger, albeit short — $\sim$hundreds Myears — [@van-wassenhove12; @blecha13], is very relevant for galaxy evolution. As shown by @koss12, both the fraction of dual AGN and their individual X-ray luminosities peak at nuclear separations $<$10 kpc. This implies that significant and rapid SMBH growth can be directly associated with the dual AGN phase, which in turn might be associated with strong feedback effects on the interstellar medium [e.g., @rupke11; @veilleux13].
Furthermore, the relative frequency of dual systems can be used to constrain the AGN duty cycle in merger-triggered events. In a rather extreme scenario, if the lifetime of the AGN/quasar phase is similar to the merger timescale, we should expect every merger-triggered system to host a dual AGN. However, the observed fraction of dual AGN is significantly lower, $\sim$2% [@liu11; @shen11]. This can be explained at least in part by the difficulty in detecting and confirming observationally these dual AGN. Confirming the dual AGN nature even for nearby sources often requires high spatial resolution radio, near-IR and/or X-ray observations [e.g. @fu11; @koss12; @muller-sanchez16; @mcgurk15]. Furthermore, in many cases the nuclear regions in these systems are subject to large amounts of obscuration [@hopkins05; @scoville17; @ricci17], making their detections even more challenging. Nonetheless, many merger systems lack dual nuclei despite adequate data. This suggests the AGN duty cycle is shorter than the merger time scale.
In order to study the physical properties of the ionized, atomic and molecular gas and the dust in confirmed dual AGN in the local Universe, $z$$<0.1$, we started the Multiwavelength Observations of Dual AGN (MODA) program[^1]. The aim of MODA is to study the growth and co-evolution of galaxies and their SMBHs during merger events, particularly at the later merger stages when feedback and nuclear activity likely peak. MODA currently focuses on 17 confirmed dual AGN distributed across the sky. Our program combines: ([*i*]{}) Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) observations of molecular gas tracers and dust continuum mm/sub-mm emission, ([*ii*]{}) Very Large Telescope (VLT)/ Spectrograph for INtegral Field Observations in the Near Infrared (SINFONI) and Keck/OSIRIS (OH- Suppressing Infra-Red Imaging Spectrograph) maps of $H_2$, Pa$\alpha$, Br$\gamma$, \[Si VI\], and other near-IR emission lines, and ([*iii*]{}) VLT Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) optical Integral Field Unit (IFU) spectroscopic observations, aimed primarily to map the atomic emission lines of H$_\alpha$, $H_\beta$, \[O[iii]{}\] and other atomic species, together with Na D in absorption, in order to measure gas and stellar kinematics, and constrain stellar populations and star formation histories. In addition, we are now in the process of adding mid-IR observations from the VLT spectrometer and imager for the mid-infrared (VISIR) and SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) to study the properties of the hot, $\sim$300-1,000K, dust in these systems, compute accurate nuclear mid-IR to X-ray flux ratios and obtain accurate estimates of the bolometric luminosities of each AGN.
Here, we focus on one of the sources in the MODA sample, Mrk463, for which we recently finished obtaining multi-wavelength IFU observations. Mrk463 is a nearby, $z$=0.0504 [@falco99] or $d$$\simeq$210Mpc, Ultra-Luminous Infrared Galaxy (ULIRG; [@sanders96]). It was classified as a dual AGN based on [*Chandra*]{} X-ray observations reported by @bianchi08. The two nuclei are separated by 3.8$\pm$0.01$''$, which roughly corresponds to 3.8 kpc. The [*Chandra*]{} observations reveal that both nuclei, Mrk463E and Mrk463W, respectively, have relatively low X-ray luminosities of $L_{\rm X}$=1.5$\times$10$^{43}$ erg/s and 3.8$\times$10$^{42}$ erg/s in the 2-10 keV band and are heavily obscured with $N_{\rm H}$=7.1$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ and 3.2$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. The AGN nature of the eastern nucleus was independently established by Spitzer spectroscopic observations, as presented by @farrah07. Given its distance, nuclear separation, infrared luminosity and existing multi-wavelength observations, Mrk463 joins NGC6240 [@komossa03], Mrk 739 [@koss11a] and Mrk 266 [@mazzarella12] as prime targets for understanding how SMBHs gain mass and how black hole growth can impact their host galaxies in the dual AGN phase of a major galaxy merger.
In this paper we present optical and near-IR IFU observations of the nearby dual AGN Mrk463, obtained with the VLT MUSE and SINFONI, and ALMA Cycle 2 observations of $^{12}$CO(2-1) and adjacent sub-mm continuum in this system. The main goal is to study the morphology and kinematics of the gas in all its phases using atomic and molecular emission lines as tracers, in order to understand the behavior of the gas that is simultaneously feeding the SMBH and fueling star formation during a major galaxy merger. In §2, we describe all the different datasets and data reduction strategies used. In §3, we describe the multi-wavelength morphological properties of this system, while in §4 we focus on the kinematics. The discussion and conclusions are presented in §5 and §6, respectively. Throughout this paper, we assume a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $h_0$=0.7, $\Omega_m$=0.27 and $\Omega_\Lambda$=0.73 [@hinshaw09].
Data {#sec:data}
====
MUSE {#sec:muse}
----
MUSE is a state-of-the-art second generation VLT IFU instrument [@bacon10]. Its relatively large field of view, $\sim$1 arcmin$^2$, and broad wavelength coverage, $\sim$4800-9300Å, are particularly well suited for observing the entire physical extents of low redshift systems (e.g., physical sizes of tens of kpc in a single pointing) across a large spectral range (simultaneous coverage of the $H_\beta$, $H_\alpha$ and \[O[iii]{}\] lines, among others). The resolving power of MUSE ranges from 1770 at 4800Å to 3590 at 9300Å, which corresponds to velocity resolutions of $\sim$80 to $\sim$170 km/s.
Mrk463 was observed by the VLT/MUSE as part of program 095.B-0482 (PI: E. Treister). Four other nearby dual AGN were also observed as part of this program and will be presented on subsequent papers. Mrk463 was observed on July 18, 2015 in two 58 min observation blocks (OBs), IDs 1182834 and 1182837, each comprised of three on-target integrations of 976 s plus overheads. Sky conditions were clear, with $<$50% lunar illumination, and a reported ambient seeing $<$0.8$''$. The final combined, processed and calibrated VLT/MUSE data cube for Mrk463 has an effective exposure time of 5856 seconds ($\sim$1.6 hours), an average airmass of $\sim$1.5 and an average FWHM of $\sim$0.7$''$ based on measurements of stars in the field on the reconstructed white filter image.
Data reduction was carried out using the ESO MUSE pipeline version 1.6.2[^2] [@weilbacher14], in the ESO [*Reflex*]{} graphical environment [@freudling13]. The data reduction stages are standard and include bias and dark current subtraction, flat fielding, wavelength and flux calibration, and astrometric correction. Sky background was subtracted using emission-free regions of the resulting data cube. The process is however complicated by the large data volume. The MUSE 1$'$$\times$1$'$ field of view has 300$\times$300 spatial bins (spaxels) and 4000 spectral bins, such that an individual MUSE frame is a few Gbytes in size and data reduction requires several Gbytes for intermediate products and multiple CPU cores to run. First-look visualizations of the resulting combined data cube were done using the QFitsview[^3] software, but not used in our subsequent work. Further analysis, including emission line fitting, velocity maps, etc. of well-isolated narrow emission lines was carried out using IDL [*Fluxer*]{}[^4] tool version 2.7. More complex line fits, including several overlapping components were carried out using the Pyspeckit Python package [@ginsburg11], as Fluxer only allowed a maximum of two simultaneous gaussian fits.
SINFONI {#sec:sinfoni}
-------
We obtained near-IR IFU observations of Mrk463 using the Spectrograph for INtegral Field Observations in the Near Infrared (SINFONI; [@eisenhauer03]) camera mounted at the VLT, as part of program 093.B-0513 (PI: S. Cales). This program aimed to observe four confirmed $z$$<$0.1 dual AGN that are visible from the southern hemisphere, one of which was Mrk463. SINFONI has a much smaller field of view, 8$''$$\times$8$''$, hence these observations only cover the central region around the dual nuclei.
The observations were carried out using the 125$\times$250 mas spatial scale in seeing-limited mode (i.e., no adaptive optics), together with the $K$-band grating, which provides coverage from 1.95 to 2.45 $\mu$m and a spectral resolution of $\sim$4000. The observations were carried out in service mode and spread over 4 OBs: IDs 1053697 (April 17, 2014), 1053700 (May 17, 2014), 1053702 (June 18, 2014) and 1053704 (July 21, 2014). The requested weather conditions were ambient seeing better than 0.8$''$, clear skies and airmass $<$1.5. However, only OBs 1053697 and 1053700 met such conditions; the remaining ones were either taken in worse seeing and/or in the presence of thin clouds. Therefore, for this analysis we mostly focus on the first 2 OBs in order to achieve the highest possible image quality.
The reduction of the SINFONI data was carried out using the dedicated ESO pipeline version 2.9.0 [@modigliani07] in [*Reflex*]{}. The following steps were performed: ([*i*]{}) creation of a map of non-linear pixels from flat-field frames obtained with increasing exposure times; ([*ii*]{}) creation of a combined dark frame and hot pixel map; ([*iii*]{}) creation of a master flat field from individual flat-field images; ([*iv*]{}) determination of the optical distortion coefficients and computation of the slitlets’ distance table; ([*v*]{}) creation of a wavelength map from a set of arc lamp observations in order to carry out the wavelength calibration; ([*vi*]{}) stacking of individual science and telluric star frames. The flux calibration of the science frames was performed using the Fitting Utility for SINFONI ([*FUS*]{}) package developed by Dr. Krispian Lowe as part of his PhD thesis[^5], based on observations of standard stars taken less than 2 hours away and with a difference in airmass $<$0.2 from the science data. As in the case of the VLT/MUSE data, the final combined data cubes were analyzed using the QFitsview tool for a first look visualization and Fluxer for the Gaussian fitting of each isolated emission lines.
ALMA {#sec:alma}
----
During ALMA Cycle 2, we were granted 5.1 hours of priority B time to observe a sample of four nearby dual AGN, including Mrk463, in band 6 as part of program 2013.1.00525.S (PI: E. Treister). Four separate spectral windows were defined: one covering the $^{12}$CO(2-1) molecular transition, providing a 10.7 km/s spectral resolution and a 2560 km/s bandwidth and the remaining three covering the mm continuum at $\sim$220-235 GHz. The observations of Mrk463 were taken on August 16, 2015 between 22:27 and 23:27 UT (uid://A002/Xa830fc/X4abc) and on September 16, 2015 between 21:01 and 22:01 UT (uid://A002/Xaa305c/X129). For the August 16th observations, 34 antennae were used with baselines ranging from 43 m to 1.57 km, while on September 16th the same number of antennae were used distributed between 41 m and 4.5 km baselines. The total on-target time in each observation was 25.7 minutes. Data reduction and analysis were carried out using the Common Astronomy Software Applications (CASA) version 4.5.0.
The requested 3-$\sigma$ sensitivity of the observations was 0.58 mJy/beam per $\sim$10.7 km/s channel. This requirement was not quite met, as the early processing carried out by the North America ALMA Science Center yielded a sensitivity of 0.78 mJy/beam on the $^{12}$CO(2-1) spectral window, 34% higher than the goal value. This value was obtained using a Brigg Robust image weighting [@briggs95] with a robust parameter of 0.5, that provides a balance between a smaller beam but with a lower sensitivity. Instead, we decided to re-process the ALMA data using a natural weighting scheme, which delivers a higher sensitivity at the expense of a slightly worse spatial resolution. Using this method, we achieved a sensitivity of $\sim$0.6 mJy/beam at 3-$\sigma$ in the $^{12}$CO(2-1) line, thus much closer to our goal flux limit. The resulting beam size is 0.3$''$$\times$0.17$''$.
Astrometric Calibration {#sec:astrometry}
-----------------------
In order to be able to compare emission at different wavelengths from the instruments described above it is critical to ensure that all the datasets share the same astrometric reference point. This is potentially difficult given the relatively small overlap in structures at different wavelengths. The ALMA absolute astrometric calibration is better than $\sim$0.1$''$ as reported by @gonzalez-lopez17.
Using the [*Chandra*]{} X-ray data for this system, @bianchi08 located the position of the two AGN to within 0.5$''$. In particular, we derived the exact position using the hard X-ray band, 2–8 keV, as in this case most of the emission can be attributed to the AGN.
Morphologies {#sec:morph}
============
Mrk463 was morphologically classified as a peculiar/interacting galaxy based on early optical imaging [@adams77; @petrosian78]. Deeper CCD imaging by @hutchings89, which included a narrow-band filter covering the redshifted \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å emission lines, revealed extended emission in the Mrk463E nucleus and a bright knot $\sim$10$''$ south of the nucleus that are not visible in the optical continuum. Radio continuum observations at 6 and 20 cm performed by @mazzarella91 show that the radio emission is aligned with the bi-polar \[O[iii]{}\] conical flows and the southern knot, strongly suggesting that they are connected to the Mrk463E nuclear region.
Taking advantage of the MUSE IFU data, in Fig. \[MUSE\_cont\] we present a reconstructed optical continuum image of the Mrk463 system, ranging from $\sim$4800 to $\sim$9300Å. This image covers the entire MUSE $\sim$1$\times$1 arcmin$^2$ field of view, roughly an order of magnitude larger than previous IFU observations of this source [e.g., @chatzichristou95]. Both nuclei, Mrk463E and Mrk463W, are clearly visible on the image, together with the southern knot, which is almost exclusively seen in \[O[iii]{}\] emission, as discussed in §\[sec:morph\_optlines\]. Additionally, we can see relatively bright emission clumps, most prominently to the north-east of the Mrk463E galaxy, which we will later, in the following subsection, associate with off-nuclear star-forming regions.
-0.2cm[{width="7in"}]{}
Optical Atomic Transitions {#sec:morph_optlines}
--------------------------
In order to obtain line flux maps from the MUSE data cubes we perform Gaussian fits to the He II 4685Å, $H\beta$ 4861Å, \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å, $H\alpha$ 6563Å, \[N[ii]{}\] 6548,6583Å and \[S[ii]{}\] 6717,6731Å features. The line fitting procedure is as follows: First, the continuum emission in each pixel is subtracted by performing a fit using a second order polynomial function between 5000Å and 8000Å. Using this broad wavelength range and a relatively small polynomial order allows to obtain a good fit for the spectral continuum in the region of interest while remaining unaffected by the presence of even prominent emission or absorption features. Then, we performed a Voronoi tesselation of the cube by demanding a minimal signal-to-noise ratio of 10 in the $H\alpha$/\[N[ii]{}\] complex in each bin. While this choice has no impact on the central regions of the system, where this condition is met basically on every pixel, it is important in the outskirts. We then assume Gaussian profiles for all emission lines. Given that it is a strong and well-isolated feature, we use the \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å line as a template in order to define the widths and relative wavelength offsets for all the subsequent narrow components. We further allow for a secondary line component at a different velocity, also using the \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å line as template and adding extra Gaussians with both the line centers and widths as free parameters to account for the possible presence of broad $H\alpha$ and $H\beta$ emission. In each case, a component is only considered if the peak is detected at a signal-to-noise greater than 3.
The resulting images are presented in Figs. \[img\_Hbeta\_OIII\] and \[img\_Halpha\_NII\]. In all of these cases, the total flux for all the line components is shown. Some of the same key features seen in Fig. \[MUSE\_cont\] and discussed in the previous section are clearly visible in these images as well. However, other remarkable components are now detected as well. Particularly important are the detections of extended $H\alpha$ gas to the northwest of the system and the “stream” of $H\alpha$ blobs to the southwest, seen in Fig. \[img\_Halpha\_NII\]. Additionally, in the $H\beta$ 4861Å map we can identify an absorption region to the west of the Mrk 463W nucleus.
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
The flux ratios of these emission lines can be used in order to determine the nature of the ionization source [e.g., @baldwin81; @veilleux87; @kewley06]. Figures \[img\_line\_ratios\] and \[img\_SII\_Halpha\] show the maps for the \[O[iii]{}\]/$H\beta$, \[SII\]/$H\alpha$, and \[NII\]/$H\alpha$ ratios, computed using the sum of the flux in the narrow components for each emission line. According to @kewley06, any source/region with \[O[iii]{}\]/$H\beta$$>$10 is nearly guaranteed to be dominated by AGN ionization, independent of the value of \[NII\]/$H\alpha$ or \[SII\]/$H\alpha$. While shocks appear to be widespread in major galaxy mergers, they typically have lower \[O[iii]{}\]/$H\beta$ ratios, $\sim$1-5, compared to active nuclei [@rich11; @rich15]. Hence, just from examination of Fig. \[img\_line\_ratios\] we can see several potential AGN-dominated regions. In order to investigate the nature of the ionization energy source(s), we selected five outstanding zones in the system, highlighted in Figures \[img\_line\_ratios\] and \[img\_SII\_Halpha\]: the two nuclear regions, the southern emission line region, the northern clump, and a representative $H\alpha$ emitting region in the northwest. The location of these five regions on the \[O[iii]{}\]/$H\beta$ versus \[NII\]/$H\alpha$ and \[SII\]/$H\alpha$ diagnostic diagrams is shown in Figure \[bpt\]. As can be clearly seen, both nuclei, the southern emission line region and the northern clump are consistent with being dominated by the AGN energy output. In contrast, region \#5 appears to fall on the star-forming locus. These diagrams indicate that the influence of the AGN on the surrounding material is widespread and can be detected at large distances, even $\sim$10 kpc away from the nuclei.
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
-0.0cm[![\[SII\] to $H\alpha$ flux ratio for the Mrk 463 system. Contours and symbols are the same as in Fig. \[img\_line\_ratios\].[]{data-label="img_SII_Halpha"}](Mrk463-SII_Halpha_v1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}]{}
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
Further hints about the nature of the ionization sources in this system can be obtained by exploring emission lines with higher ionization energies. To this end, Fig. \[img\_HeII\_SII\] shows the emission maps for the He II 4685Å and the \[SII\] 6717/31Å lines, which have ionization energies of 54.4 eV and 23.3 eV respectively. As can be seen in the figure, highly ionized lines, in particular He II, are much more concentrated, mostly on the Mrk463E nucleus and the emission line regions, while Mrk463W is barely detected. As presented by @shirazi12 and later by @bar16, the He II 4685Å emission and the He II/H$\beta$ ratio, can be used to identify AGN even in sources missed by classification methods based on emission lines at lower ionization energies [@sartori15]. According to @shirazi12, sources or regions with $\log$(He II/$H\beta$)$>$-1 can be classified as AGN dominated. This is the case for the Mrk463E nucleus and its surrounding ionization cone, for the southwest emission line region but not for the Mrk463W nucleus. This suggests that the AGN in Mrk463E is energetically more important for the system than the one in Mrk463W.
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
Near-IR maps {#sec:morph_near-IR}
------------
Although the VLT/SINFONI near-IR IFU data only cover a smaller $\sim$8$''$$\times$8$''$ region at the center of the Mrk463 system, as shown in Fig. \[MUSE\_cont\], they are an important complement to the MUSE optical maps. Figure \[img\_kband\_paalpha\] shows the near-IR continuum between 2.1 and 2.4 $\mu$m and the continuum-subtracted integrated Pa$\alpha$ hydrogen emission line at 1.8751 $\mu$m in the rest frame. For this and all near-IR emission lines, the continuum subtraction was carried out by performing a simple first order polynomial fit to the adjacent spectral regions on each side of the line. The line fitting was carried out assuming a single Gaussian functional form, which was visually deemed appropriate and reasonable considering that the SINFONI data only cover the central region of the system. No cut in signal to noise ratio of the resulting line was used in constructing the map. Both nuclei are clearly detected on the continuum map, showing a very similar morphology to the optical continuum image presented in Fig. \[MUSE\_cont\]. The Pa$\alpha$ map, in contrast, reveals new components. In particular, we can marginally detect an emission blob between the two nuclei and another emitting region to the west of the Mrk463W nucleus. While both of these regions are also visible in the H$\alpha$ map, they are not detected in \[O[iii]{}\], suggesting that they are star-forming regions. However, as it will be later shown in section \[sec:opt\_ext\], the region between the nuclei is subject to moderate extinction, $A_{H\alpha}$$\sim$2, and therefore it is possible that the lack of detection of \[O[iii]{}\] in this area is due to obscuration.
The Pa$\alpha$ emission line provides a measurement of the star formation rate. Using the SINFONI cube together with the conversion from Pa$\alpha$ luminosity to star formation rate provided by @rieke08, we derive values of 26.5 M$_\odot$/yr for the East nucleus and 0.75 M$_\odot$/yr for the West one. These star formation rates derived from the Pa$\alpha$ line are fully consistent with those of 30 M$_\odot$/yr for Mrk 463E and $<$10 M$_\odot$/yr for Mrk 463W reported by @evans02. However, it is important to point out that as shown in Fig. \[bpt\], both nuclei appear to be dominated by the AGN emission, at least for the optical lines, and thus these SFR estimates can be considered as upper limits.
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
The near-IR data also map other emission lines such as \[Si VI\] and Hydrogen Br$\gamma$ at rest-frame wavelengths of 1.962 and 2.1655 $\mu$m, respectively; these are both presented in Figure \[img\_siVI\_brgamma\]. Emission from \[Si VI\] is detected at high significance from Mrk 463E and weakly from Mrk 463W, thus further confirming the AGN nature of both nuclei. However, Br$\gamma$ is in contrast only weakly detected from Mrk 463E.
-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}-0.0cm[{width="3.4in"}]{}
CO and dust continuum {#sec:morph_co}
---------------------
With our ALMA Cycle 2 data we detect both $^{12}$CO(2-1) and the mm continuum in the central region of the Mrk463 system. Fig. \[img\_co21\_mom0\] shows the velocity-integrated continuum-subtracted $^{12}$CO(2-1) emission map together with contours for the rest-frame 232 GHz continuum. As can be seen, the strongest CO(2-1) emission is found in a region to the Northeast of the Mrk463E nucleus, although significant emission is also located around each nucleus and in between them. Interestingly, only a small fraction of the CO(2-1) emission overlaps with the AGN location.
-0.0cm[![Mrk463 ALMA $^{12}$CO(2-1) emission integrated map. The [*black contours*]{} show the mm-continuum emission surrounding the $^{12}$CO(2-1) line, while the [*red contours*]{} present the [*Chandra*]{} hard X-ray, 2–8 keV, emission and the [*white contours*]{} present the background-subtracted $H\alpha$ flux obtained from MUSE. The ellipse in the bottom left shows the beam size for the $^{12}$CO(2-1) ALMA map. \[img\_co21\_mom0\]](mrk463_co21_mom0_v6.jpg "fig:"){width="3.5in"}]{}
Defining a $\sim$4$''$$\times$3$''$ region centered on the Mrk463E nucleus that encloses the majority of the flux, we obtain a total flux density of 11.4$\pm$0.12 Jy km/s. In this case the error bars were estimated by measuring the RMS in nearby source-free regions of the same area. Previous observations of this source at lower resolution, $\sim$2$''$, yielded total unresolved fluxes of 7.2$\pm$0.8 Jy km/s [@alloin92] and 6.8$\pm$0.9 Jy km/s [@evans02] for the $^{12}$CO(1-0) transition. Following @solomon05, we assume that the CO emission is thermalized and optically thick so that the intrinsic line luminosity is independent of $J$ and hence we expect the $^{12}$CO(2-1) flux density to be 4$\times$ higher than $^{12}$CO(1-0). Therefore, our high-resolution ALMA observations resolve out $\sim$50% of the CO emission for the Mrk463E nucleus extended over scales of $\sim$4$''$. Using a region of the same area centered on the Mrk463W nucleus, we derive a line flux density of 4.5$\pm$0.12 Jy km/s. This is consistent with the estimates of @evans02, who also found a flux ratio of $\sim$3:1 between the Mrk463E and Mrk463W nuclei, thus suggesting that the extended component encompasses both nuclei, expected given the observed nuclear separation.
Following the prescription described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of @solomon05, and in particular their equation 3: $$L'_{CO}=3.25\times 10^7 S_{CO}\Delta v \nu_{obs}^{-2}D_L^2 (1+z)^3,$$ we calculate a CO(2-1) luminosity for the emission surrounding the Mrk463E nucleus of $L'_{CO}$(2-1)=3.173$\times$10$^{8}$ K km s$^{-1}$pc$^2$. Then, using the relation $M_{gas}$=M($H_2$)=$\alpha$$L'_{CO}$, and $\alpha$=4.3M$_\sun$(K km s$^{-1}$pc$^2$)$^{-1}$ [@bolatto13], we obtain a total gas mass in this region of 1.36$\times$10$^9$M$_\sun$. Similarly, for the material surrounding the Mrk463W nucleus we obtain $L'_{CO}$(2-1)=1.253$\times$10$^{8}$ K km s $^{-1}$pc$^2$ and $M_{gas}$=5.39$\times$10$^8$M$_\sun$. These differ from the gas masses derived by @evans02 primarily due to the different values of $\alpha$ assumed. Indeed, @evans02 used a value of $\alpha$=1.5M$_\sun$(K km s$^{-1}$pc$^2$)$^{-1}$ for this source and reported a total molecular gas mass of 10$^9$M$_\sun$, while assuming their $\alpha$ value we obtain $\sim$7$\times$10$^8$M$_\sun$.
Kinematics {#sec:kine}
==========
The multi-wavelength IFU data for Mrk463 can be used to trace both absorption and emission lines and measure the kinematics of the system.
Optical Emission Lines {#sec:kine_opt_lines}
----------------------
Using the VLT/MUSE data, we analyze the kinematics from two strong and well-isolated emission lines: $H\beta$ 4861Å and \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å. Figure \[Mrk463\_OIII\_pv\] shows the position-velocity (p-v) diagram centered on the Mrk463-E nucleus with position angles (PAs) of 0$^\circ$ (i.e., north-south) and 75$^\circ$ using the \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å line. In this case we assume a reference velocity of 15226 km/s, which is 130 km/s higher than the systemic heliocentric velocity of 15096 km/s corresponding to the redshift of 0.050355 reported by @falco99 which we used for the rest of the analysis. This was done to match the center of the potential additional stellar disk to the west of Mrk 463W discussed in §4.2. A clear velocity gradient can be seen on the north-south slit, as discussed below. This structure is highly localized spatially, as it is not present on the PA=75$^\circ$ diagram. Visible on the PA=0$^\circ$ slit is the southern emission line region at $\sim$10$''$. As can be seen, this region is roughly at the systemic velocity. Similarly, part of the emission associated with the Mrk463W nucleus can be seen on the PA=75$^\circ$ diagram, at $\sim$4$''$ away from the eastern one.
Figure \[img\_OIII\_velmap\] shows the velocity and velocity dispersion maps for the \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å emission line. The velocity gradient associated with the eastern nucleus that was visible on the p-v diagram presented in Fig. \[Mrk463\_OIII\_pv\] is present here as well. As first suggested by @hutchings89 and later discussed by @chatzichristou95, this structure is consistent with the presence of a two-sided ionization cone, which also aligns with the extended radio emission detected from this nucleus. While a detailed modeling of this biconical outflow is beyond the scope of this paper, we can use the observed emission line features in this region to derive physical properties of the ionized gas outflow. As presented by @muller-sanchez11, the mass outflow rate is given by
$$\dot{M}_{\textnormal{out}}=2m_p n_ev_{max}A f,$$ where $m_p$ is the proton mass, $n_e$ is the density of the ionized gas, $A$ is the lateral surface area of one cone of the outflowing region, and $f$ is the filling factor of the ionized gas. The factor of 2 accounts for the two sides of the ionized cone. The value of $n_e$ can be estimated from the observed ratio of the \[SII\] 6716/6731Å emission lines, as described by @osterbrock06. We find that on average the \[SII\] ratio in the region of the biconical outflow has values $\sim$0.7. According to the prescription of @osterbrock06 and assuming a temperature of $\sim$10,000K, we estimate that $n_e$ should be in the range from 1000 to 5000 cm$^{-3}$ and adopt a value of 3000 cm$^{-3}$. For the filling factor, $f$, which cannot be derived directly from observations, a range of 0.01$<$$f$$<$0.1 is commonly assumed [e.g., @storchi-bergmann10]. However, our assumed $n_e$ value is much higher than in those cases, and considering the $n_e$$\propto$$f^{-0.5}$ relation proposed by @oliva97 we assume a value of $f$=0.001, which is 10 times larger than the value used by @nevin18. We consider a maximal velocity of $v_{max}=$350km/s, as measured on the \[O[iii]{}\] velocity map. The value of $A$ is obtained considering that the physical distance from the nucleus to the location of the maximal velocity is $\simeq$3.3 kpc and that the cone radius at that position is $\simeq$0.9 kpc thus yielding A=9.62$\times$10$^6$pc$^2$. Then, using the expression described above we obtain that $\dot{M}_{\textnormal{out}}$=512($f$/0.001) $M_\odot$/yr. This value is on the high side of the range of mass outflow rates found previously in systems hosting biconical outflows [@muller-sanchez11; @muller-sanchez16; @nevin18] in moderate-luminosity AGN and similar to those found in high redshift quasars [@brusa15] and ULIRGs [e.g. @veilleux05].
In addition, we also detect a rapidly outflowing region to the north-west of the Mrk 463E nucleus, reaching speeds of up to $\sim$-600 km/s. This region was already identified as \#4 in Figure \[img\_line\_ratios\]. As shown in Figure \[bpt\], this region has the highest value of the \[O[iii]{}\]/H$\beta$ ratio and is clearly located in the AGN region, which confirms that this outflowing material is being ionized by the AGN, most likely in Mrk463E given its spatial location and the luminosity of its nucleus. Furthermore, this outflowing region appears to be spatially connected to the biconical outflow. The velocity dispersion map for the \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å line shows a broad emission line component in the central region of Mrk 463E. Both the north and south edges of the biconical outflows also show relatively high velocity dispersions, reaching up to $\sim$600 km/s, and hence suggest the presence of shocks in the boundary of the outflowing regions. The remaining regions are characterized by relatively low velocity dispersions, up to $\sim$200 km/s, close to the spectral resolution of VLT/MUSE.
The velocity and velocity dispersion maps, as measured from the $H\beta$ 4861Å emission line, are shown in Figure \[img\_Hbeta\_velmap\]. As for the \[O[iii]{}\] 5007Å line, a very clear gradient, ranging from -350 km/s in the north to $\sim$150 km/s to the south, centered on the Mrk463E nucleus is clearly visible. This gradient is also associated with the biconical outflow presented above. This map does not include the absorption line region located to the west of the Mrk463W nucleus, which will be studied in detail in the following subsection. Both nuclei appear to be consistent with the systemic velocity, or with very small offsets. Similarly, the southern emission line region is at the systemic velocity and has no discernible structure. However, there is a clear tail of atomic gas emission traced by the $H\beta$ 4861Å transition, which includes the southern emission line region visible in the \[O[iii]{}\] map, presenting a velocity gradient ranging from $\sim$100 km/s to $>$200 km/s. This appears to reflect the velocity gradient along a tidal tail from the ongoing dynamical interaction and is consistent with the velocity gradient seen in HI observations of other systems [e.g., @hibbard96].
The velocity dispersion profile for the $H\beta$ 4861Å line reveals the presence of a relatively broad component with a FWHM of up to $\sim$700 km/s in the nuclear region Mrk463E, consistent with the location of the hard X-ray emission reported by @bianchi08. The arc-like structure to the north-east of the Mrk463E, which also shows high velocity dispersion values, is explained by the presence of two superimposing velocity components, one associated to the edge of the biconical outflow reaching velocities of $\sim$400 km/s and the underlying galaxy at the systemic velocity. The rest of the system presents only narrow components with a width of $\sim$200 km/s or less, consistent being unresolved at the MUSE spectral resolution.
Stellar kinematics {#sec:kine_stellar}
------------------
We can further use the VLT/MUSE data cube to measure the kinematic properties of the stars in the Mrk463 system. In order to achieve this, we performed a new Voronoi tessellation [@cappellari03], this time aimed to reach a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 30 per bin in the optical continuum near the Mg b feature at $\sim$5200Å in the rest frame. The resulting bin map is shown in Figure \[stellar\_bins\_chi2\]. Then, for each bin, we simultaneously masked the most prominent emission lines and fitted the optical continuum and absorption lines using the Penalized Pixel-Fitting (pPXF) method presented by @cappellari04. The optical spectrum at each Voronoi bin was fitted using stellar templates from the MILES library [@falcon-barroso11] which were then used to derive properties such as the stellar velocity and velocity dispersion, $h_3$ and $h_4$ Hermite polynomial coefficients, etc. A more detailed description of this procedure is given by @cappellari17. In Figure \[stellar\_bins\_chi2\] we show the reduced $\chi^2$ for each Voronoi bin. Fits were not obtained for the central regions of each galaxy, as the optical spectra in these are dominated by AGN light.
By performing this spectral fitting, in Figure \[stellar\_vel\] we present the stellar velocity and velocity dispersion maps. While the stellar velocity map appears rather flat, some structures are visible. In particular, there is a clear region to the northwest of the Mrk463W nucleus presenting a relative line-of-sight velocity of $\sim$200 km/s. In addition, a negative velocity region can be observed to the south of the Mrk463W nucleus. These features could potentially be related to the ongoing major merger, such as tidal plumes from a second (or latter) close pass of the nuclei. Interestingly, this structure overlaps spatially with a region dominated by H$\beta$ in absorption, as can be seen in Figure \[img\_Hbeta\_OIII\]. This, together with the fact that this region does not have a counterpart on the emission line velocity maps presented in Figures \[img\_Hbeta\_velmap\] and \[img\_OIII\_velmap\], strongly suggests that this region is mostly devoid of ionized gas. While very faint, this structure can be seen as an extra component in the optical continuum, as shown in Figure \[MUSE\_cont\].
The stellar population fit simultaneously constrains the line-of-sight stellar velocity dispersion, which is presented on the right panel of Figure \[stellar\_vel\]. As for the velocity map, the velocity dispersion in the Mrk463 system appears to be rather flat and featureless. Again, the region to the northwest of the Mrk463W nucleus presents an elevated value for the stellar velocity dispersion of $\sim$400 km s$^{-1}$ while the average for the system is $\sim$100 km s$^{-1}$. This broadening in the line-of-sight velocity dispersion may be evidence of multiple velocity components at this location, perhaps due to the superposition of a secondary tidal tail against a potential stellar disk.
In order to explore the existence of potential disk(s) revealed by kinematical structures, we attempt to fit the stellar kinematics with disk models. Specifically, we use the Keplerian disk models presented by @bertola98. We use two disks, one centered on the Mrk463E nucleus and the second one at the center of the velocity gradient found to the west of Mrk463W. Spatial profiles of the two models are presented in Figure \[stellar\_disk\]. The models fit the data reasonably well, leaving only small velocity residuals. Hence, it is possible to explain the Mrk 463 system as a combination of a bulge and a faint extended disk associated with Mrk463E, together with a bulge centered on Mrk463W and a gas-stripped stellar disk to the west of Mrk463W. There does not seem to be any connection between the ionized gas outflows discussed in section \[sec:kine\_opt\_lines\] and the potential stellar disks presented here. As discussed in §\[sec:kine\_opt\_lines\], the outflows in this system appear to be mostly located in the north-south direction and originate from the Mrk 463E nucleus. In contrast, the Mrk 463E stellar disk is oriented with a PA of 75 degrees, i.e., mostly east-west. Similarly, the presumed stellar disk to the west of Mrk 463W does not appear to be connected in any obvious way with any ionized gas outflow.
As described above, we would like to further emphasize that it is also possible to understand the observed structures in the stellar kinematics maps by the dynamical effects of the ongoing major galaxy mergers, which is also more natural as it does not require to assume an ad-hoc stellar disk offset by $\sim$3 kpc from the nucleus of the galaxy. Unfortunately, separating these two scenarios requires observations at higher spectral resolutions than those that can be provided by VLT/MUSE over relatively large angular scales in order to cover the whole system.
CO and dust continuum {#sec:kine_co}
---------------------
Thanks to the ALMA data, we can analyze the molecular gas kinematics in the nuclear regions of the Mrk463 system. Figure \[img\_co21\_velmap\] shows the $^{12}$CO(2-1) velocity map. Interestingly, the molecular gas regions around each nucleus show very clear velocity gradients, with a range of $\sim$800 km/s in the case of the east region and $\sim$400 km/s next to the west region. Smaller gradients can be seen in a few other locations, including the one in between the two nuclei.
The eastern emission region presents an incomplete ring-like or infalling spiral structure, possibly centered on the AGN, based on the X-ray position. While there is relatively little CO(2-1) emission detected directly on top of the nucleus, we can use the gas mass and velocity in the immediate vicinity of Mrk463E to obtain an estimate of the gas infall rate on scales of $\sim$300 pc around the SMBH. Considering only the material in the central ALMA beam, corresponding to $\sim$0.3$''$ or 300 pc or a 150 pc radius, we obtain a total CO mass of $\sim$3.8$\times$10$^7$M$_\sun$. Now, assuming that this gas is falling at $\sim$200 km/s based on the CO(2-1) velocity measured on the nuclear ALMA beam and that it is at an average distance of 75 pc, this yields an influx rate of $\sim$104 M$_\sun$/yr. While just an approximation, this value is $>$3 orders of magnitudes larger than the accretion rate of $\sim$0.017 M$_\sun$/yr inferred from the X-ray luminosity of the Mrk463E nucleus reported by @bianchi08. This situation is very similar to what was found in the local AGN NGC1068 by @muller-sanchez09 and later confirmed by @garcia-burillo14 using high-resolution ALMA data, thus strongly suggesting that SMBH accretion is a highly inefficient process that requires the infalling material to lose most of its angular momentum.
Discussion
==========
Optical Extinction {#sec:opt_ext}
------------------
Major galaxy mergers are known for potentially being subject to significant extinction, particularly at optical and UV wavelengths [e.g. @trentham99; @bekki00]. Spectroscopically, the traditional way to estimate the amount of optical extinction is based on the observed ratio between the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines [e.g. @caplan86; @maiz-apellaniz04]. Taking advantage of the VLT/MUSE observations of the Mrk 463 system we can then produce a A$_{H\alpha}$ map. Following the prescription of @lee09, we assume case B recombination with an intrinsic $H\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio of 2.86, a Milky Way extinction curve and $R_V$=3.1 so that A$_{H\alpha}$ is given by: $$A_{H\alpha}=5.91\log\left(\frac{f_{H\alpha}}{f_{H\beta}}\right)-2.70,$$ where $f_{H\alpha}$ and $f_{H\beta}$ are the total emission line fluxes on the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines derived following the procedure described in section \[sec:morph\_optlines\]. The resulting map is shown in Figure \[img\_AHalpha\]. As can be seen, most of the system is only affected by relatively low extinction levels, $A_{H\alpha}$$<$1. However, there are specific areas which appear subject to higher optical obscuration. These include some of the regions where we previously identified high levels of star formation to the east of the Mrk 463E nucleus, and the area between the two nuclei, where we can see values of $A_{H\alpha}$$\sim$1.5-2. While locally important, these relatively modest obscuration levels do not affect significantly the conclusions about the morphologies and kinematics derived from the optical VLT/MUSE IFU maps presented here and are even less important for the near-IR analysis shown in section \[sec:morph\_near-IR\].
-0.0cm[![Optical extinction map for the Mrk 463 system derived from the $H\alpha$/H$\beta$ flux ratio, as described in the text. [*Black contours*]{} show the optical continuum flux, while the [*red crosses*]{} mark the location of the hard X-ray sources detected by Chandra. The map shows that while most of the system is characterized by relatively low extinction levels, $A_{H\alpha}$$<$1, some specific regions, most notably in between the two nuclei, can reach moderate absorption levels up to $A_{H\alpha}$$\sim$2.[]{data-label="img_AHalpha"}](Mrk463-AHalpha.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}]{}
Energetics of the Emission Line Region
--------------------------------------
As described in Section \[sec:morph\_optlines\], we identify an emission line region to the south of the system, consistent with AGN powering. This region closely resembles the “Hanny’s Voorwerp” structure associated with IC 2497 [@lintott09], which was found serendipitously by visual inspection of the galaxy optical images carried out as part of the Galaxy Zoo project [@lintott08]. Hanny’s Voorwerp appears to be ionized by the nearby AGN in IC 2497, which must have been at least 100 times more luminous $\sim100,000$ years earlier [@schawinski10a; @keel12; @sartori16]. For Mrk463, the southern region is $\sim$11 kpc away from the Mrk463E nucleus, which corresponds to $\sim$40,000 light years. Based on the evident alignment between this emission line region and the ionization cone arising from the Mrk463E core, we can safely neglect the contribution from the Mrk463W AGN. Then, we can estimate the luminosity necessary in order to supply the ionizing flux required to explain the observed spectrum of the southern region.
In order to carry out this computation we selected a region in the center of the emission region enclosing most of its flux. We used as constraints the observed luminosities and their errors in the $H\alpha$, $H\beta$, \[HeII\]4686Å, \[O[iii]{}\]5007Å, \[NII\]6583Å, \[SII\]6717Å and \[SII\]6731Å lines, all measured from the VLT/MUSE optical IFU observations. We then performed radiative transfer simulations using the plasma ionization code CLOUDY version 13.04 [@ferland13]. We considered two different cases: (1) a matter-bounded scenario in which the main parameters are U, the dimensionless ionization parameter, n$_H$, the hydrogen volume density and N$_H$, the hydrogen column density, and (2) a radiation-bounded case, whose only parameters are U and n$_H$. In both cases we assumed that the input AGN spectrum was given by a broken power law of the form $L_\nu\propto$$\nu^\alpha$ with $\alpha$=-0.5 for E$<$13.6 eV, $\alpha$=-1.5 in the range 13.6$<$E$<$0.5 keV and $\alpha$=-0.8 at E$>$0.5 keV, consistent with the observed spectrum of local AGN [e.g., @elvis94; @kraemer09].
For each resolution element in the southern emission region we used the grid of simulations carried out using CLOUDY in order to find the best fit to the intrinsic emission line ratios, all computed with respect to the $H\beta$ line. From this solution we can obtain the corresponding value of Q, the number of ionizing photons emitted per unit of time, which is defined by
$$U=\frac{Q(H)}{4\pi r_0^2n(H)c},
\label{eq:lum}$$
where $r_0$ is the distance between the AGN and the cloud. Then, we use this value to obtain the corresponding intrinsic bolometric luminosity by assuming an intrinsic AGN spectral shape such as the one given by, e.g., [@elvis94]. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure \[cloudy\_res\]. The best-fitting value for $\log$U can be found between -2.9 and -2.6, with a mean value of -2.7.
As can be seen in Figure \[cloudy\_res\], the resulting fits are not very sensitive to the value of n$_H$. Indeed, models with the same U and $N_H$ but different values of n$_H$ yield very similar reduced $\chi^2$. This is critical in our calculation, as the required intrinsic AGN bolometric luminosity is proportional to U$\times$$n_H$, as can be seen in equation \[eq:lum\]. For the $n_H$ calculation we assume a fully-ionized gas, as was done for the Voorwerpjes [@keel12a]. Hence, the atomic hydrogen column density is the same as the electron density, $n_H$=$n_e$, which can be estimated from the ratio of the two \[SII\] lines. Furthermore, we can neglect the contribution from molecular hydrogen, given that no molecular gas was detected at the position of the southern ionized cloud. From the observed values of the \[SII\] 6716/6731 ratio we estimate an allowed average $n_H$ range in the southern emission region of 10-100 atoms cm$^{-3}$. In turn, this implies bolometric AGN luminosities in the range of 2.7$\times$10$^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ to 1.8$\times$10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We compare this value with the current AGN luminosity, as observed in X-rays. From [*Chandra*]{} observations, @bianchi08 reported a 2-10 keV luminosity of 1.5$\times$10$^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Using their reported $N_H$ value of 7.1$\times$10$^{23}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$, we can estimate an intrinsic 2-10 keV luminosity of 9.9$\times$10$^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Assuming a bolometric correction from 2-10 keV of 10 [e.g., @marconi04], this implies that the intrinsic AGN luminosity was a factor of $\sim$3-20 times higher $\sim$40,000 years ago, when the light that photo-ionized the southern region was emitted. This is similar to the sample of Hanny’s Voorwerp-like objects studied by @keel17.
Short term (up to tens of years) AGN variability by factors of $\sim$5 has been observed in the hard X-ray luminosity before [e.g., @ulrich97 and references therein]. Hence, our results imply that the AGN activity in Mrk463E could have changed by up to an order of magnitude for the last $\sim$40,000. This is consistent with so-called “standard” variability and thus consistent with the AGN lifetime of $\sim$100,000 years suggested by @schawinski15.
Feeding the SMBHs
-----------------
The [*Chandra*]{} X-ray data show that the SMBH in the Mrk463E nucleus is accreting at a $\sim$5$\times$ higher rate, and is more obscured than the one in Mrk463W. In turn, most of the larger scale structures detected by the VLT/MUSE observations both in continuum and emission lines, appear to be associated preferentially with the Mrk463E nucleus. Similarly, both the southern emission line region and the outflowing cloud in the north appear to be well aligned with the apparent biconical gradient, which in turn is also linked to the Mrk463E AGN. This could be interpreted as the AGN in Mrk463E being older and more evolved than the one in Mrk463W, which is then most likely just starting its activity. Additional evidence pointing in that direction was presented on the previous section, where a lifetime greater than 40,000 years was estimated for the Mrk463E AGN.
Based on the ALMA $^{12}$CO(2-1) observations presented on Section \[sec:morph\_co\] we see that both nuclei contain significant molecular gas reservoirs, $\sim$10$^9$M$_\sun$ around Mrk463E and $\sim$5$\times$10$^8$M$\sun$ surrounding Mrk463W. We further find $\sim$3$\times$10$^7$ M$\sun$ in molecular gas in clouds in between the two nuclei. This amount of material, albeit small, could be readily available to feed both SMBHs in the near future. Indeed, as presented in Section \[sec:kine\_co\], we estimate that the gas infalling rate onto the Mrk463E nucleus is $>$3 orders of magnitude larger than the SMBH accretion rate inferred from the X-ray luminosity. Hence, we can conclude that both nuclei have the potential fuel to feed quasar-like luminosity systems and increase their SMBH masses significantly, by adding $>$10$^8$ M$\sun$. However, and as presented in §4.1, the outflow rate of the ionized gas is similar to the infall rate of the molecular gas onto the central regions of the system. Therefore, while the accretion rate onto the SMBHs is relatively small, there appears to be a rough balance between the material infalling (as molecular gas) and outflowing (as ionized gas). This outflowing material does not appear to affect however the star formation processes, as it is highly anisotropic and not aligned with the stellar disks.
Possible Evolution
------------------
Currently the two nuclei in Mrk463 are both active, perhaps at a relatively low level, heavily obscured at $N_H$$\sim$10$^{23}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$ and separated by $\sim$4 kpc. As the merger continues, it is expected that the two nuclei will get closer over timescales of 10$^8$ years. The molecular gas that is now surrounding each nucleus will likely tend to concentrate such that a fraction of it will likely be available for accretion onto the SMBHs, while at the same time increasing the nuclear obscuration. Depending on the exact and yet unknown dynamics of the nuclei, the system may pass through a stage analogous to that which the nearby dual AGN NGC6240 is experiencing now, in which both nuclei are separated by $\sim$1 kpc and are heavily obscured [@komossa03], while most of the gas is concentrated in between the two nuclei [@tacconi99; @iono07 Privon et al. in prep.]. Alternatively, the gas could remain concentrated on each nucleus as they approach each other, thus creating a configuration similar to what it is observed now in the central region of Arp 220 [e.g., @manohar17 and references therein]. While the amount of ongoing SMBH accretion in Arp 220 is still uncertain [e.g., @barcos-munoz15], [*Chandra*]{} [@iwasawa05] and NuSTAR observations [@teng15] suggest that there is at least one heavily obscured, Compton thick, AGN associated with the system, on the western nucleus. In any case, following the scenario suggested by @treister10, we can expect that after $\sim$1-2$\times$10$^8$ years the collapsed nuclear region will start to become unobscured due to the effects of radiation pressure, thus revealing an unobscured quasar, perhaps similar to the one observed in Mrk 231, with strong ionized winds and ultrafast outflows [@feruglio15], as those already observed in this system, associated with the Mrk 463E nucleus.
We note that the case of Mrk463 highlights the difficulty of using the instantaneous AGN luminosity in placing objects within evolutionary sequences. At least one nucleus show evidence for changing luminosities on timescales of $10^{4-5}$ years, which is significantly shorter than those expected for dynamical evolution of the system [e.g., @lamassa15; @parker16; @gezari17]. This suggests it is likely problematic to use AGN luminosity even as a broad indicator of evolutionary stage, as at any point one or both nuclei can rapidly rise or drop in luminosity. This further highlights the need for multi-wavelength spatially-resolved spectroscopy over large spatial scales, as presented here, in order to fully understand the evolutionary stage of these complex merging galaxies.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented optical and near-IR seeing-limited IFU data for the nearby dual AGN Mrk463, complemented by relatively high resolution band 6 ALMA data covering both the $^{12}$CO(2-1) transition and the surrounding $\sim$220 GHz continuum. The multiwavelength spatially-resolved spectroscopy reveal a very complex system in which the gas morphology is highly distorted, both due to the ongoing major merger and the SMBH accretion activity. Optical emission lines such as \[O[iii]{}\] and H$\beta$ reveal the presence of AGN-ionized emission line regions extending beyond 10 kpc away from the nuclear regions, while the H$
\alpha$ and Pa$\alpha$ emission lines trace star forming regions up to even larger distances. The HeII 4686 line traces the influence of the AGN both in the nuclei and the extended regions. We find in general relatively low optical extinction in this system, $A_{H\alpha}$$<$1, although moderate values are found toward specific isolated regions. Kinematically, the \[O[iii]{}\] and H$\beta$ maps show evidence for a clear biconical outflow in the central region of the Mrk463E galaxy in which we infer mass outflow rates of $\sim$512 $M_\odot$/s. We further detected an outflowing region at $>$600 km s$^{-1}$, about 15 kpc to the north of the Mrk463E nucleus. Velocity gradients in these emission lines could also be detected in the tidal tails, most likely associated with the dynamics of the galaxy merger. From an energetics analysis of the southern emission line region, which according to the observed line ratios is consistent with being photo-ionized by the AGN emission, we conclude that the AGN luminosity, and thus SMBH accretion rate, on the Mrk463E nucleus changed by a factor 3-20 in the last 40,000 years, much like the handful of known Hanny’s Voorwerp-like objects. The structure of the stellar kinematics reveals the presence of a strong velocity gradient to the west of the Mrk463W nucleus. While this gradient can be fitted by a Keplerian disk, it can also be associated to the tidal plumes originating from the ongoing major merger, thus suggesting that the system is undergoing a second or later close pass of the nuclei. Indeed, the rather smooth optical continuum spatial profile of that region, and the spatial separation of $\sim$3-4 kpc between the presumed stellar disk and the Mrk463W nucleus strongly supports the latter interpretation.
From the ALMA data we can see significant molecular gas reservoirs, $\sim$10$^9$M$_\sun$ in Mrk463E and $\sim$5$\times$10$^8$M$_\sun$ on the western nucleus, surrounding each nuclei, closer than $\sim$1 kpc but not directly on the AGN locations. The molecular gas around each nuclei present significant velocity gradients, thus suggesting a ring-like structure. While it is expected that a significant fraction of this molecular gas should be available for the SMBH to accrete, by comparing the molecular gas directly overlapping with the AGN with the accretion rate inferred from the AGN luminosity we conclude that only a very small fraction, $<$0.01%, of the surrounding material is actively feeding the SMBH. Considering the observed properties of the gas in this system, we conclude that in this system molecular gas is infalling onto the central regions at a rate of $\sim$100s M$_\odot$/yr. Of this, a relatively small fraction, $\sim$0.0017 M$_\odot$/yr, is accreted onto the SMBH. This small amount of accreted material is able to generate an outflow of ionized gas that pushes $\sim$500 M$_\odot$/yr away from the nucleus. Hence, we can consider this major galaxy merger as a machine that receives large amounts of molecular gas and in return expels that material in the form of collimated ionized winds, being fueled by only a very small fraction, 10$^{-5}$, of that material being accreted by the SMBH.
We can speculate that in the future, as the two nuclei get closer to each other, the surrounding molecular gas will concentrate on the coalescent nucleus increasing both the SMBH accretion and nuclear obscuration. After $\sim$100 million years, the radiation pressure should be strong enough to evaporate most of the surrounding material revealing an unobscured high-luminosity AGN, i.e., quasars, characterized by strong winds and outflows as those already observed in nearby galaxies such as Mrk 231. High resolution dynamical modeling of this system would allow us to better predict the future of gas-rich major galaxy mergers.
While these multiwavelength observations have been critical to increase our understanding of the gas in the dual AGN Mrk463, it is clear that higher resolution data are necessary in order to understand for example the behavior of the gas actively feeding the SMBHs now and its connection to the merger dynamics. It is possible now to obtain these data thanks to the long baseline, $>$10 km, modes available with ALMA, which would yield spatial resolutions of tens of parsec for the molecular gas observations. Similarly, observations of higher-J CO transitions would allow to measure physical parameters such as temperature and study the denser material, which might be located closer to the SMBHs.
We thank the anonymous referee for a very positive and constructive report that helped improving this paper. We acknowledge support from: CONICYT-Chile grants Basal-CATA PFB-06/2007 (FEB, ET,CR), FONDECYT Regular 1141218 (FEB,CR) and 1160999 (ET), FONDECYT Postdoctorado 3150361 (GCP), EMBIGGEN Anillo ACT1101 (FEB, ET, GCP,CR); the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism’s Millennium Science Initiative through grant IC120009, awarded to The Millennium Institute of Astrophysics, MAS (FEB); Swiss National Science Foundation Grants PP00P2 138979 and PP00P2 166159 (KS, LS), and the China-CONICYT fund (CR). VU acknowledges funding support from the University of California Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship.This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2013.1.00525.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This work is partly sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), through a grant to the CAS South America Center for Astronomy (CASSACA) in Santiago, Chile.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, T. F. 1977, , 33, 19
, K., [Lacy]{}, M., [Lanz]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2015, , 798, 31
, D., [Barvainis]{}, R., [Gordon]{}, M. A., & [Antonucci]{}, R. R. J. 1992, , 265, 429
, R., [Accardo]{}, M., [Adjali]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2010, in , Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, 773508
, J. A., [Phillips]{}, M. M., & [Terlevich]{}, R. 1981, , 93, 5
, R., [Weigel]{}, A. K., [Sartori]{}, L. F., [et al.]{} 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.04815
, L., [Leroy]{}, A. K., [Evans]{}, A. S., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, 10
, J. E., & [Hernquist]{}, L. E. 1991, , 370, L65
, K., & [Shioya]{}, Y. 2000, , 362, 97
, A. J., [Bower]{}, R. G., [Frenk]{}, C. S., [et al.]{} 2003, , 599, 38
, F., [Cappellari]{}, M., [Funes]{}, Jos[é]{} G., S. J., [et al.]{} 1998, , 509, L93
, S., [Chiaberge]{}, M., [Piconcelli]{}, E., [Guainazzi]{}, M., & [Matt]{}, G. 2008, , 386, 105
, L., [Loeb]{}, A., & [Narayan]{}, R. 2013, , 429, 2594
, A. D., [Wolfire]{}, M., & [Leroy]{}, A. K. 2013, , 51, 207
, D. S. 1995, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 27, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 1444
, M., [Bongiorno]{}, A., [Cresci]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2015, , 446, 2394
, J., & [Deharveng]{}, L. 1986, , 155, 297
, M. 2017, , 466, 798
, M., & [Copin]{}, Y. 2003, , 342, 345
, M., & [Emsellem]{}, E. 2004, , 116, 138
, E. T., & [Vanderriest]{}, C. 1995, , 298, 343
, D. J., [Springel]{}, V., [White]{}, S. D. M., [et al.]{} 2006, , 365, 11
, T., [Colberg]{}, J., [Springel]{}, V., [Hernquist]{}, L., & [Sijacki]{}, D. 2008, , 676, 33
, T., [Springel]{}, V., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 2005, , 433, 604
, F., [Abuter]{}, R., [Bickert]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2003, in , Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. [Iye]{} & A. F. M. [Moorwood]{}, 1548–1561
, M., [Wilkes]{}, B. J., [McDowell]{}, J. C., [et al.]{} 1994, , 95, 1
, A. S., [Mazzarella]{}, J. M., [Surace]{}, J. A., & [Sanders]{}, D. B. 2002, , 580, 749
, E. E., [Kurtz]{}, M. J., [Geller]{}, M. J., [et al.]{} 1999, , 111, 438
, J., [S[á]{}nchez-Bl[á]{}zquez]{}, P., [Vazdekis]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 532, A95
, D., [Bernard-Salas]{}, J., [Spoon]{}, H. W. W., [et al.]{} 2007, , 667, 149
, G. J., [Porter]{}, R. L., [van Hoof]{}, P. A. M., [et al.]{} 2013, , 49, 137
, C., [Fiore]{}, F., [Carniani]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2015, , 583, A99
, W., [Romaniello]{}, M., [Bramich]{}, D. M., [et al.]{} 2013, , 559, A96
, H., [Myers]{}, A. D., [Djorgovski]{}, S. G., & [Yan]{}, L. 2011, , 733, 103
, H., [Zhang]{}, Z.-Y., [Assef]{}, R. J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 740, L44
, S., [Combes]{}, F., [Usero]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2014, , 567, A125
, S., [Hung]{}, T., [Cenko]{}, S. B., [et al.]{} 2017, , 835, 144
, A., & [Mirocha]{}, J. 2011, [PySpecKit: Python Spectroscopic Toolkit]{}, Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1109.001
, J., [Bauer]{}, F. E., [Romero-Ca[ñ]{}izales]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2017, , 597, A41
, J. E., & [van Gorkom]{}, J. H. 1996, , 111, 655
, G., [et al.]{} 2009, , 180, 225
, P. F., [Hernquist]{}, L., [Cox]{}, T. J., [et al.]{} 2006, , 163, 1
, P. F., [Hernquist]{}, L., [Martini]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2005, , 625, L71
, J. B., & [Neff]{}, S. G. 1989, , 97, 1306
, D., [Wilson]{}, C. D., [Takakuwa]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2007, , 659, 283
, K., [Sanders]{}, D. B., [Evans]{}, A. S., [et al.]{} 2005, , 357, 565
, G., & [Charlot]{}, S. 1998, , 297, L23+
, G., [Heckman]{}, T. M., [Tremonti]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2003, , 346, 1055
, W. C., [Chojnowski]{}, S. D., [Bennert]{}, V. N., [et al.]{} 2012, , 420, 878
, W. C., [Lintott]{}, C. J., [Schawinski]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2012, , 144, 66
, W. C., [Lintott]{}, C. J., [Maksym]{}, W. P., [et al.]{} 2017, , 835, 256
, L. J., [Dopita]{}, M. A., [Sutherland]{}, R. S., [Heisler]{}, C. A., & [Trevena]{}, J. 2001, , 556, 121
, L. J., [Groves]{}, B., [Kauffmann]{}, G., & [Heckman]{}, T. 2006, , 372, 961
, S., [Burwitz]{}, V., [Hasinger]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2003, , 582, L15
, M., [Mushotzky]{}, R., [Treister]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2012, , 746, L22
—. 2011, , 735, L42
, S. B., [Trippe]{}, M. L., [Crenshaw]{}, D. M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 698, 106
, S. M., [Cales]{}, S., [Moran]{}, E. C., [et al.]{} 2015, , 800, 144
, J. C., [Gil de Paz]{}, A., [Tremonti]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2009, , 706, 599
, C. J., [Schawinski]{}, K., [Slosar]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2008, , 389, 1179
, C. J., [et al.]{} 2009, , 399, 129
, X., [Shen]{}, Y., [Strauss]{}, M. A., & [Hao]{}, L. 2011, , 737, 101
, J., [P[é]{}rez]{}, E., & [Mas-Hesse]{}, J. M. 2004, , 128, 1196
, S., & [Scoville]{}, N. 2017, , 835, 127
, A., [Risaliti]{}, G., [Gilli]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2004, , 351, 169
, J. M., [Soifer]{}, B. T., [Graham]{}, J. R., [et al.]{} 1991, , 102, 1241
, J. M., [Iwasawa]{}, K., [Vavilkin]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2012, , 144, 125
, R. C., [Max]{}, C. E., [Medling]{}, A. M., [Shields]{}, G. A., & [Comerford]{}, J. M. 2015, , 811, 14
, J. C., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 1996, , 464, 641
, A., [Hummel]{}, W., [Abuter]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0701297
, F., [Comerford]{}, J., [Stern]{}, D., & [Harrison]{}, F. A. 2016, , 830, 50
, F., [Davies]{}, R. I., [Genzel]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2009, , 691, 749
, F., [Prieto]{}, M. A., [Hicks]{}, E. K. S., [et al.]{} 2011, , 739, 69
, R., [Comerford]{}, J. M., [M[ü]{}ller-S[á]{}nchez]{}, F., [Barrows]{}, R., & [Cooper]{}, M. C. 2018, , 473, 2160
, E. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 113, IAU Colloq. 159: Emission Lines in Active Galaxies: New Methods and Techniques, ed. B. M. [Peterson]{}, F.-Z. [Cheng]{}, & A. S. [Wilson]{}, 288
, D. E., & [Ferland]{}, G. J. 2006, [Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei]{}
, M. L., [Komossa]{}, S., [Kollatschny]{}, W., [et al.]{} 2016, , 461, 1927
, A. R., [Saakian]{}, K. A., & [Khachikian]{}, E. E. 1978, Astrofizika, 14, 69
, C., [Bauer]{}, F. E., [Treister]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2017, , 468, 1273
, J. A., [Kewley]{}, L. J., & [Dopita]{}, M. A. 2011, , 734, 87
—. 2015, , 221, 28
, G. H., [Blaylock]{}, M., [Decin]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2008, , 135, 2245
, D. S. N., & [Veilleux]{}, S. 2011, , 729, L27
, D. B., & [Mirabel]{}, I. F. 1996, , 34, 749
, D. B., [Soifer]{}, B. T., [Elias]{}, J. H., [et al.]{} 1988, , 325, 74
, L. F., [Schawinski]{}, K., [Treister]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2015, , 454, 3722
, L. F., [Schawinski]{}, K., [Koss]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2016, , 457, 3629
, K., [Koss]{}, M., [Berney]{}, S., & [Sartori]{}, L. F. 2015, , 451, 2517
, K., [Thomas]{}, D., [Sarzi]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2007, , 382, 1415
, K., [et al.]{} 2006, , 442, 888
, K., [Evans]{}, D. A., [Virani]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2010, , 724, L30
, N., [Murchikova]{}, L., [Walter]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2017, , 836, 66
, Y., [Liu]{}, X., [Greene]{}, J. E., & [Strauss]{}, M. A. 2011, , 735, 48
, M., & [Brinchmann]{}, J. 2012, , 421, 1043
, B. T., [Rowan-Robinson]{}, M., [Houck]{}, J. R., [et al.]{} 1984, , 278, L71
, P. M., & [Vanden Bout]{}, P. A. 2005, , 43, 677
, V., [Di Matteo]{}, T., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 2005, , 361, 776
, T., [Lopes]{}, R. D. S., [McGregor]{}, P. J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 402, 819
, L. J., [Genzel]{}, R., [Tecza]{}, M., [et al.]{} 1999, , 524, 732
, S. H., [Rigby]{}, J. R., [Stern]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2015, , 814, 56
, E., [Natarajan]{}, P., [Sanders]{}, D. B., [et al.]{} 2010, Science, 328, 600
, E., [Schawinski]{}, K., [Urry]{}, C. M., & [Simmons]{}, B. D. 2012, , 758, L39
, N., [Kormendy]{}, J., & [Sanders]{}, D. B. 1999, , 117, 2152
, M.-H., [Maraschi]{}, L., & [Urry]{}, C. M. 1997, , 35, 445
, S., [Volonteri]{}, M., [Mayer]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2012, , 748, L7
, S., [Cecil]{}, G., & [Bland-Hawthorn]{}, J. 2005, , 43, 769
, S., & [Osterbrock]{}, D. E. 1987, , 63, 295
, S., [Mel[é]{}ndez]{}, M., [Sturm]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2013, , 776, 27
, M., [Haardt]{}, F., & [Madau]{}, P. 2003, , 582, 559
, P. M., [Streicher]{}, O., [Urrutia]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. [Manset]{} & P. [Forshay]{}, 451
[^1]: <http://moda.astro.puc.cl/>
[^2]: Available at <https://www.eso.org/sci/software/pipelines/muse/>
[^3]: <http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~ott/QFitsView/>
[^4]: <http://www.ciserlohe.de/fluxer/fluxer.html>
[^5]: Available at <http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/2449/Krispian%20Lowe.pdf>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This work presents a comprehensive and extensive study to illustrate how the geometrical configurations of low angular momentum axially symmetric general relativistic matter flow in Schwarzschild metric may influence the formation of energy preserving shocks for adiabatic/polytropic accretion as well as of temperature preserving dissipative shocks for for the isothermal accretion onto non-rotating astrophysical black holes. The dynamical and thermodynamic states of post shock polytropic and isothermal flow have been studied extensively for three possible matter geometries, and it has been thoroughly discussed about how such states depend on the flow structure, even when the self gravity and the back reaction on the metric are not taken into account. Main purpose of this paper is thus to mathematically demonstrate that for non-self gravitating accretion, various matter geometry, in addition to the corresponding space-time geometry, controls the shock induced phenomena as observed within the black hole accretion discs. This work is expected to reveal how the shock generated phenomena (emergence of the outflows/flare or the behaviour of QPO of the associated light curves) observed at the close proximity of the horizon depends on the physical environment of the source harbouring a supermassive black hole.'
address:
- 'S. N. Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Block-JD, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, India.'
- 'Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad, India.'
author:
- Pratik Tarafdar
- 'Tapas K. Das'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: 'Influence of matter geometry on shocked flows-I: Accretion in the Schwarzschild metric'
---
Accretion, accretion discs ,Black hole physics ,Hydrodynamics
Introduction
============
Low angular momentum accretion flow onto astrophysical black holes exhibit multi-transonic features ([@lt80apj; @az81apj; @mp82aa; @fukue83pasj; @lu85aa; @lu86grg; @mc86aa; @blaes87mnras; @chakrabarti89apj; @ak89apj; @das02apj; @fukue04pasj; @fukue04pasja; @mdc06mnras; @dc12na]). That stationary shock may form for such flow configuration, was first ever discussed by Fukue ([@fukue87pasj]) for general relativistic flow in the Kerr metric. Following Fukue’s prescription, several authors made contribution to study the shocked block hole accretion for Newtonian, post-Newtonian and general relativistic flow onto rotating and non-rotating astrophysical black holes ([@chakrabarti89apj; @nf89pasj; @ac90apj; @trft92apj; @ky94mnras; @sm94mnras; @yk95aa; @pariev96mnras; @nayakama96mnras; @pa97mnras; @btb97prl; @tkb98aa; @das02apj; @dpm03apj; @ft04apj; @ottm04pasj; @tgfrt06apj; @ny08apj; @ny09apj; @dc12na]). Aforementioned works have been performed to study the shocked flow in individual flow geometries and no comprehensive study has been carried out to understand the role of geometric configuration of accretion flow in influencing the shock related phenomena.\
Non spherical accretion process onto astrophysical black holes are usually studied for three different geometric configurations of axially symmetric flow. In simplest possible set up, the thickness of the disc is assumed to be space invariant (constant for all radial distance) for stationary state. All planes are thus considered to be equatorial plane since a symmetry about two axes exists in such model. The flow structure can thus be mapped with a right circular cone with constant half thickness. In next variant, the flow is considered to be quasi-spherical in shape where the ratio of the radial distance at a point and the local half thickness at that particular point remains invariant for all $r$. All directions are equivalent to the radial direction for this model. Quasi-spherical flow, or the conical flow, as is it mentioned in the literature (see, e.g. section 4.1 of [@cd01mnras; @nard12na; @bcdn14cqg]), is considered to be idealmost to model low angular momentum inviscid accretion since weakly rotating advection dominated accretion is best described by such geometric structure. A rather non-trivial axially symmetric accretion configuration requires the matter to be in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction. The local flow thickness becomes non linear function of radial distance, as well as of the local radial sound speed. We believe that it is instructive to investigate the properties of the shocked accretion flow for aforementioned flow configurations in a unified manner so that the influence of the geometric configuration of matter on the general relativistic accretion dynamics can be understood. This is precisely the main objective of our work. In the present work, which is the first paper of our series, we study the shock formation phenomenona for general relativistic accretion in the Schwarzschild metric for three different flow structures, and will investigate how the flow structure affects the properties of the post shock flow. In our next work, we intend to continue such approach for flows in the Kerr space-time in order to incorporate the role of the black hole spin in governing the shocked accretion flow for all three different flow configurations. The corresponding expressions for the flow thickness in all the configurations in the existing literature, however, are derived from a set of idealised assumptions. In reality, the rigorous derivation of the flow thickness may be accomplished by using the framework of non-LTE radiative transfer (e.g. [@hh98apj; @dh06apjs]) or, by using the Grad-Shafranov equations for the MHD-related aspects of the flow (e.g., [@beskin97pu; @bt05aa; @beskin09]). For all three flow geometries, we will consider the flow along the equatorial plane only. Low angular momentum inviscid flow will be assumed to have considerable radial advective velocity to begin with. For low angular momentum advective accretion flow, large radial velocity close to the black holes implies $\tau_{inf}<<\tau_{visc}$, where $\tau_{inf}$ and $\tau_{visc}$ are the infall and the viscous time scales, respectively. Large values for radial components of the velocities even at large distances are due to low angular momentum content of the flow ([@bi91mnras; @ib97mnras; @pb03apj]). The concept of low angular momentum flow (capable of providing the favourable configuration of the formation of standing shock) is not a theoretical abstraction. Sub-Keplerian flows are observed in accreting detached binaries fed by OB stellar winds ([@is75aa; @ln84ssr]), semi-detached low-mass non-magnetic binaries ([@bbck98mnras]), and super-massive black holes accreting from stellar clusters rotating with relatively low angular velocities near the galactic centre ([@illarionov88sa; @ho99] and reference therein). Moreover, even turbulence may lead to low angular momentum flow for a standard Keplerian disc (see [@ia99mnras] e.g., and references therein). In what follows, we will derive the fluid dynamic equations (general relativistic Euler and continuity equations) from the stress energy tensor of an ideal fluid, and will argue how such equations govern the accretion flow. We will then provide the stationary integral transonic solutions of such equations and discuss how one obtains the multi-transonic flow profile by incorporating an energy preserving Rankine Hugoniot type standing shock for the adiabatic flow and a temperature preserving standing shock for isothermal flow, for three different flow geometries. The properties and structure of the post shock flow will be described to demonstrate how the matter geometry determines the flow profile in general.
Configuration of the background fluid flow
==========================================
A (3+1) stationary axisymmetric space-time is considered with two commuting Killing fields. The local timelike Killing field $\xi^{\mu}\equiv\left(\partial{/\partial{t}}\right)^\mu$ generates stationarity and $\phi^{\mu}\equiv\left(\partial{/\partial{\phi}}\right)^\mu$ generates axial symmetry. All distances and velocities are scaled in units of $GM_{BH}/c^2$ and $c$ respectively, where $M_{BH}$ is the black hole mass.
To describe the flow structure, the energy momentum tensor of an ideal fluid of the form $$T^{\mu\nu}= (\epsilon+p)u^{\mu}u^{\nu}+pg^{\mu\nu}
\label{Tmunu}$$ is considered in a Boyer-Lindquist ([@bl67jmp]) line element normalized for $G=c=M_{BH}=1$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ (equatorial plane) as defined below ([@nt73]) $$ds^2=g_{{\mu}{\nu}}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}=-\frac{r^2{\Delta}}{A}dt^2
+\frac{A}{r^2}\left(d\phi-\omega{dt}\right)^2
+\frac{r^2}{\Delta}dr^2+dz^2\,
\label{ds2}$$ where $$\Delta=r^2-2r+a^2, A=r^4+r^2a^2+2ra^2,\omega=2ar/A\,
\label{Delta}$$ $a$ being the Kerr parameter. Hence, for a non-rotating black hole where $a=0$ the required metric elements are: $$g_{rr}=\frac{r^2}{\Delta},~g_{tt}=-\frac{r^2{\Delta}}{A},~
g_{\phi\phi}=\frac{A}{r^2},~ g_{t\phi}=g_{\phi{t}}=0,.
\label{gmunu}$$ The specific angular momentum $\lambda$ (angular momentum per unit mass) and the angular velocity $\Omega$ can thus be expressed as $$\lambda=-\frac{u_\phi}{u_t}, \;\;\;\;\;
\Omega=\frac{u^\phi}{u^t}
=-\frac{g_{t\phi}+\lambda{g}_{tt}}{{g_{\phi{\phi}}+\lambda{g}_{t{\phi}}}}\, .
\label{Omega1}$$
The equation of state, $$p=K\rho^{\gamma}
\label{eqnofstatepoly}$$ describes polytropic accretion, where the polytropic index $\gamma$ is assumed to be constant for the steady state flow. The calculations have been performed over a wide range of $\gamma$. Thus, all polytropic indices of astrophysical relevance have been covered. The proportionality constant $K$ in eq. (\[eqnofstatepoly\]) measures the specific entropy of the accreting fluid when additional entropy is not generated. The specific enthalpy $h$ is formulated as $$h=\frac{p+\epsilon}{\rho},
\label{enthalpy1}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the energy density (including rest mass density) and the internal energy is given by $$\epsilon=\rho +\frac{p}{\gamma-1}
\label{epsilon}$$ The adiabatic sound speed $c_s$ is defined by $$c_s^2=\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \epsilon}\right)_{\rm constant~enthalpy}
\label{csq1}$$ The enthalpy at constant entropy is given by $$h = \frac{\gamma - 1}{\gamma - \left(1 +c_{s}^2\right)}
\label{enthalpy3}$$
We have also investigated the isothermal accretion flow, where the equation of state is given by $$p=\rho{c_s^2}=\frac{\cal R}{\mu}\rho{T}=\frac{\rho{\kappa_B}T}{{\mu}m_H}
\label{eqnofstateiso}$$ ${\cal R}$ is the universal gas constant, $K$ is the specific entropy, $\kappa_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the flow temperature, $\mu$ is the mean molecular mass of fully ionized hydrogen, $m_H$ is Hydrogen atom mass and $c_s$ is the position independent sound speed, respectively.
The first integrals of motion
=============================
The general relativistic Euler equations for polytropic flow are obtained from $$T^{\mu\nu}_{;\nu}=0.
\label{Euler1}$$ and the continuity equation is given by $$\left(\rho u^{\mu}\right)=0.
\label{continuity}$$
Integral solution of the linear momentum conservation equation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contracting eq. (\[Euler1\]) with $\phi^{\mu}$ one obtains the angular momentum per baryon, $hu_{\phi}$, which is conserved. Contraction of eq. (\[Euler1\]) with $\xi^{\mu}$ gives $hu_t$, which is the relativistic Bernoulli’s constant and is conserved ([@anderson89mnras]). It can be identified with ${\cal E}$, the total specific energy of the ideal GR fluid (see, e.g., [@dc12na] and references therein) scaled in units of the rest mass energy.
The specific angular momentum is defined as $$\lambda = -\frac{u_{\phi}}{u_{t}}
\label{lambda1}$$ The angular velocity $\Omega$ is expressed in terms of $\lambda$ as $$\Omega=\frac{u^{\phi}}{u^t}=-\frac{g_{t\phi}+g_{tt}\lambda}{g_{\phi\phi}+g_{t\phi}\lambda}
\label{Omega2}$$ From the normalization condition $u^{\mu}u_{\mu}=-1$ one obtains $$u_t=\sqrt{\frac{g_{t\phi}^2-g_{tt}g_{\phi\phi}}{(1-\lambda\Omega)(1-u^2)(g_{\phi\phi}+\lambda g_{t\phi})}}
\label{ut1}
$$
The corresponding expression for conserved energy ${\cal E}$ is therefore given by $${\cal E} = \frac{\gamma - 1}{\gamma - \left(1 +c_{s}^2\right)}
\sqrt{\frac{g_{t\phi}^2-g_{tt}g_{\phi\phi}}{(1-\lambda\Omega)(1-u^2)(g_{\phi\phi}+\lambda g_{t\phi})}}
\label{E2}$$ It is clear that the expression for ${\cal E}$ depends on space-time geometry. It does not depend on matter geometry. Since the flow has been assumed to be non self-gravitating, hence the accreting fluid does not backreact on the space-time metric itself. In case of isothermal flow, energy gets dissipated in order to maintain a constant temperature. Thus, the total specific energy is not conserved. Integration of the relativistic Euler equation leads to an entirely different algebraic form for the first integral of motion, which cannot be identified with the total energy of the system.
The isotropic pressure, which is proportional to the energy density, is given by $$p = c_s^2 {\epsilon}
\label{eqnofstateiso1}$$ (see, e.g., [@ydl96ap] and references therein) From the time part of eq. (\[Euler1\]), we obtain $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}u_t}{u_t}=-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}p}{p+\epsilon}
\label{anal32}$$ $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}u_t}{u_t}=-\frac{1}{h}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}p}{{\mathrm{d}}\rho}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\rho}{\rho}
\label{anal33}$$ Since, $$c_s=\sqrt{\frac{1}{h}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}p}{{\mathrm{d}}\rho}}
\label{anal34}$$ one obtains $$\ln u_t=-c_s^2\ln \rho + A, \textrm{ where $A$ is a constant}
\label{anal35}$$ $${u_t}{\rho^{c_s^2}} = {\rm C_{\rm iso}}
\label{anal36}$$ ${\rm C_{\rm iso}}$ is the first integral of motion in this case. It must not be confused with the total conserved specific energy ${\cal E}$.
Integral solution of the mass conservation equation
---------------------------------------------------
The mass conservation equation (\[continuity\]) gives $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}(\sqrt{-g}\rho u^{\mu})_{,\mu}=0,
\label{anal37}$$ where $g\equiv \det(g_{\mu\nu})$. This implies $$\left[(\sqrt{-g}\rho u^\mu)_{,\mu}d^4 x=0\right]
\label{anal38}$$ where $\sqrt{-g}d^4 x$ is the covariant volume element. We assume that $u^{\theta}$ (in spherical polar co-ordinates)/ $u^z$ (in cylindrical co-ordinates) are relatively negligible when compared to the transformed radial component $u^r$. Using this assumption we get $$\partial_r(\sqrt{-g}\rho u^r){\mathrm{d}}r {\mathrm{d}}\theta{\mathrm{d}}\phi = 0,
\label{anal39}$$ for stationary flow in spherical polar co-ordinates and $$\partial_r(\sqrt{-g}\rho u^r){\mathrm{d}}r {\mathrm{d}}z{\mathrm{d}}\phi = 0,
\label{anal40}$$ in cylindrical co-ordinates.
Eq. (\[anal39\]) is integrated for $\phi$ ranging from $0$ to $2\pi$ and $\theta$ ranging from $-H_{\theta}$ to $H_{\theta}$, where $\pm H_{\theta}$ are corresponding values of the co-ordinates above and below the equatorial plane respectively, for local half thickness $H$, to obtain the conserved quantity $\dot{M}$ which represents the mass accretion rate when $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ (i.e. on the equatorial plane).\
The expression for $\dot{M}$ is different for different matter geometry configurations. A generalized expression for $\dot{M}$ may be written as $$\dot{M} = \rho u^r\mathcal{A}(r)
\label{anal41}$$ where $\mathcal{A}(r)$ represents the 2D surface area through which the steady state inbound mass flux is calculated.
Stationary transonic solutions for axisymmetric background flow
===============================================================
polytropic accretion
--------------------
The explicit expression of specific energy for polytropic accretion in the Schwarzschild metric, is of the following form $${\cal E} = -\frac{\gamma -1}
{(\gamma -(1+c_s{}^2))}\sqrt{\frac{(1-\frac{2}{r})}{(1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^2}(1-\frac{2}{r}))(1-u^2)}}
\label{anal42}$$
### Flow with constant thickness
For an accretion disc with a constant height $H$, the mass accretion rate is given by $$\dot{M}=2 \pi \rho \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} r H
\label{anal43}$$
Equations (\[anal42\] - \[anal43\]) contain three unknowns $u,c_s$ and $\rho$, which are functions of $r$. Hence, one of the three has to be eliminated by expressing it in terms of the other two. Here, we are interested in studying the profile for the radial Mach number $M=\frac{u}{c_s}$ to locate the acoustic horizons (i.e. $r$ at which $M$ is unity). Therefore, we need to substitute $\rho$ in terms of the other related quantities. For this purpose, we make use the following transformation-\
${\dot \Xi}={\dot M}K^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}{\gamma^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}}$.\
Applying the definition $c_s^2=\left(\frac{\partial{p}}{\partial{\epsilon}}\right)_{\rm Constant~Entropy}$ and equation of state for the given flow, this transformation leads to $$\dot{\Xi}=2{\pi} \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} rc_s^{\frac{2}{\gamma -1}}(\frac{\gamma -1}{\gamma - (1+c_s^2)})^\frac{1}{\gamma -1}H
\label{anal44}$$ Now, it is known that $\sigma$, which is the entropy per particle can be expresed in terms of $K$ and $\gamma$ by ([@landauPK]) $$\sigma=\frac{1}{\gamma -1}\log K+
\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}+{\rm constant}
\label{anal45}$$ where, chemical composition of the fluid determines the value of the constant. Using the above expression, one can imply that $K$ measures, in this case, the specific entropy of the accreting matter. Hence, ${\dot {\Xi}}$ may be interpreted as a measure of the total inbound entropy flux of the fluid and can thus be defined as the stationary entropy accretion rate.\
This entropy accretion rate was proposed for the first time in [@az81apj; @blaes87mnras]. It was used to formulate the transonic solutions for stationary, non-relativistic, low angular momentum, axisymmetric accretion in the Paczyński - Wiita ([@pw80aa]) pseudo-Newtonian potential onto a Schwarzschild black hole.\
Differentiating eq. (\[anal44\]), space gradient of the acoustic velocity can be related to that of the advective velocity by $$\frac{dc_s}{dr}= -\frac{\gamma -1}{2}\frac{\left\{\frac{1}{u}+
\frac{u}{1-u^2}\right\}\frac{du}{dr}+\left\{\frac{1}{r}+
\frac{1}{r^2(1-\frac{2}{r})}\right\}}{\frac{1}{c_s}+\frac{c_s}{\gamma -(1+c_s)}}
\label{anal46}$$ Differentiating eq. (\[anal42\]) w.r.t. $r$ we get one more equation connecting $dc_s/dr$ with $du/dr$. $dc_s/dr$ obtained from eq. (\[anal46\]) is then substituted into the second relation and thus, expression for $\frac{du}{dr}$, i.e. space gradient of the advective velocity is found to be $$\frac{du}{dr} =
\frac{c_s{}^2\left\{\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r^2(1-\frac{2}{r})}\right\}-f_2(r,\lambda )}{(1-c_s{}^2)\frac{u}{1-u^2}-\frac{c_s{}^2}{u}}
= \frac{\it N_1}{\it D_1}
\label{anal47}$$ where,
$$\begin{aligned}
f_2(r,\lambda) = -\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^3}\left\{\frac{1-\frac{3}{r}}{1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^2}(1-\frac{2}{r})}\right\}+\frac{1}{r^2(1-\frac{2}{r})} \label{anal48b} \\
\nonumber \\
\text{Another quantity $f_1(r,\lambda)$ is defined to be used later,} \nonumber \\
f_1(r,\lambda)=\frac{3}{r}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^3}\left\{\frac{1-\frac{3}{r}}{1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^2}(1-\frac{2}{r})}\right\}
\label{anal48a}\\
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Eqs. (\[anal46\] – \[anal47\]) are observed to be an autonomous dynamical system modelled by a set of non-linear first order differential equations, whose integral solutions are phase portraits on the $M$ vs $r$ plane. Setting the numerator and denominator of eq. (\[anal47\]) to be zero simultaneously, we obtain the ‘regular’ critical point conditions as, $$\left[u=c_s\right]_{r_c}, ~~~ \left[c_s\right]_{r_c}=
\sqrt{\frac{f_2(r_c,\lambda )}{\frac{2}{r_c}+\frac{1}{r_c{}^2(1-\frac{2}{r_c})}}}
\label{anal49}$$ Since we are dealing with continuous flow of a transonic fluid in physical space, we need to look only for the ‘smooth’ or ‘regular’ critical points, for which the dynamical velocities and their space derivatives are regular and do not diverge. Such critical points may either be saddle-type with a transonic solution passing through it, or centre-type, through which physical transonic solutions cannot pass. Other categories also exist, including ‘singular’ critical points (with continuous velocities but diverging derivatives). All these categorizations and regularity conditions for a critical point associated with an acoustic horizon have been elaborated in [@abd06cqg].
Equation (\[anal49\]) does not provide the locations of the critical points. One needs to solve eq. (\[anal42\]) employing the critical point conditions for a given set of values of the system parameters ${\cal E}$, $\lambda$ and $\gamma$. Obtaining values of $c_s$ and $u$ from eq. (\[anal49\]) and substituting them in eq. (\[anal42\]) we obtain a polynomial equation for the critical point location $r=r_c$. Coefficients of the polynomial equation in $r_c$ are complicated functions of ${\cal E}$, $\lambda$, $\gamma$, $u_c$ and $c_{sc}$. Thus for a given combination of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$ one may numerically solve the polynomial equation for values of $r_c$. The domains of astrophysically relevant values for ${\cal E}$, $\lambda$ and $\gamma$ are given by $$\left[1{\lsim}{\cal E}{\lsim}2,0<\lambda{\le}2,4/3{\le}\gamma{\le}5/3\right]
\label{anal52}$$ From the critical point conditions obtained for constant height flow, it is evident that the $r_c$ (critical point) $=r_h$ (the acoustic horizon). The nature of such critical points can also be determined using the numerical values of $r_c,{\cal E},\lambda$ and $\gamma$ ([@gkrd07mnras]).\
The polynomial equation in $r_c$ can have either no real solution or, at most, three real solutions for a given set of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$. The present work does not interest us in the non-transonic flows. A single real solution of saddle type implies monotransonic flow. Two saddle type solutions indicate a homoclinic orbit (reconnection of a saddle type critical point to itself [@js99; @strogatz01; @chicone06]). We exclude such flows in our work and concentrate only on the cases in which we obtain three real solutions for stationary flow. Such configuration is characterised by two saddle type critical points with a centre type critical lying between them. One of the saddle type points is formed very close to the gravitational horizon in a region with high space-time curvature and is termed as the inner critical point while the other is formed far away where the space-time is asymptotically flat and is named as the outer critical point. The middle point being a centre type solution does not allow physical flows to occur through it. Depending on the values of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$, the inner critical points can form extremely close to the event horizon (even closer than the innermost stable circular orbit) and the outer critical points may form at extremely large distances from it.\
Based on the relative magnitudes of the entropy accretion rate $\dot {\Xi}$ at the inner and the outer critical points, the parameter space is categorised into two topologically different subspaces. When $\dot {\Xi}_{inner}>\dot {Xi}_{outer}$, a homoclinic orbit is formed through the inner critical point, while for $\dot {\Xi}_{inner}<\dot {Xi}_{outer}$, it is formed through the outer critical point. The former represents multitransonic accretion with two saddle type points and a centre type critical point in the middle, whereas the latter represents the wind solutions. Since a physical flow cannot occur through centre type critical points, the configuration essentially implies transonic flow through the outer and inner critical points. However, it is quite intuitive that a smooth continuous flow cannot have multiple transonicity as the flow profile does not provide any smooth trajectory for the flow to become subsonic once it has crossed the outer sonic point. It can be realized only when there exists a physically allowed discontinuous shock transition to connect two smooth solutions passing separately through the two saddle type critical points. Thus in general, multi-critical solutions and multi-transonic solutions are not the same. Real physical multi-transonic flow occurs only when the respective criteria for energy preserving shocks (for polytropic accretion) or temperature preserving shocks (for isothermal accretion) are satisfied. This will be elaborated in the subsequent sections.\
The space gradient of the advective flow velocity on the acoustic horizon can be computed as $$\left(\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}\right)_{r_c}=\left[-\frac{\alpha_1}{2\Gamma_1}\overset{+}{-}\frac{\sqrt{\alpha_1 ^2-4\Gamma_1\beta_1 }}{2\Gamma_1}\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal53}$$ where the negative value corresponds to the accretion solution, whereas the positive value corresponds to the wind solution. $\alpha_1$, $\beta_1$ and $\Gamma_1$ in eq. (\[anal53\]) have the values $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 = \left. \frac{2 c_s \left(\gamma -1-c_s^2\right) \left(r-1\right)}{\left(1-c_s^2\right) r \left(r-2\right)}\right|_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\beta_1 = \left. \frac{\beta'}{(-2+r)^2 r^2 \left(r^3-(-2+r) \lambda ^2\right)^2}\right|_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\Gamma_1 = \left. \frac{\gamma -3u^2+1}{\left(1-u^2\right){}^2}\right|_{r_c}
\label{anal54}\end{aligned}$$ where
$\beta'=[\gamma \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2 r^4-6 \gamma \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2 r^3+13 \gamma \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2 r^2-12 \gamma \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2 r+4 \gamma \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2-2 \gamma \lambda ^2 c_s{}^2 r^6+8 \gamma \lambda ^2 c_s{}^2 r^5-10 \gamma \lambda ^2 c_s{}^2 r^4+4 \gamma \lambda ^2 c_s{}^2 r^3+\gamma c_s{}^2 r^8-2 \gamma c_s{}^2 r^7+\gamma c_s{}^2 r^6-\lambda ^4 r^4-\lambda ^4 c_s{}^4 r^4+8 \lambda ^4 r^3+6 \lambda ^4 c_s{}^4 r^3-24 \lambda ^4 r^2-13 \lambda ^4 c_s{}^4 r^2+\lambda ^4 c_s{}^2 r^2+32 \lambda ^4 r+12 \lambda ^4 c_s{}^4 r-4 \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2 r-4 \lambda ^4 c_s{}^4+4 \lambda ^4 c_s{}^2+2 \lambda ^2 c_s{}^4 r^6+3 \lambda ^2 r^6-8 \lambda ^2 c_s{}^4 r^5-20 \lambda ^2 r^5+10 \lambda ^2 c_s{}^4 r^4+48 \lambda ^2 r^4-2 \lambda ^2 c_s{}^2 r^4-4 \lambda ^2 c_s{}^4 r^3-40 \lambda ^2 r^3+4 \lambda ^2 c_s{}^2 r^3-c_s{}^4 r^8+2 c_s{}^4 r^7-2 r^7-c_s{}^4 r^6+c_s{}^2 r^6+2 r^6-16 \lambda ^4]_{r_c}$
The critical acoustic velocity gradient $\left(dc_s/dr\right)_{\rm r=r_c}$ can be obtained by substituting the value of $\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_{\rm r=r_c}$ in eq. (\[anal46\]).
In order to generate the Mach number vs radial distance plot, one needs to simultaneously integrate equations (\[anal46\] – \[anal47\]) for a given set of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$. $\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_{\rm r=r_c}$ and $\left(dc_s/dr\right)_{\rm r=r_c}$ are numerically iterated using fourth order Runge - Kutta method [@ptvf07]. Detailed elaboration of the integration scheme with representative trajectory plots may be found in [@das07arxiv; @dc12na; @pmdc12cqg].
### Quasi-spherical flow
The expressions for the mass and the entropy accretion rate are $$\dot{M}=\Lambda \rho \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} r^2
\label{anal57}$$ and $$\dot{\Xi} = \Lambda_{adia} \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} r^2 c_s^{\frac{2}{\gamma -1}}(\frac{\gamma -1}{\gamma - (1+c_s^2)})^\frac{1}{\gamma -1}
\label{anal58}$$ respectively, where, $\Lambda$ is the geometric solid angle factor. The space gradient of the sound velocity and the advective velocity are given by, $$\frac{dc_s}{dr}=-\frac{\gamma -1}{2}\frac{(\frac{1}{u}+\frac{u}{1-u^2})\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}+
\left\{\frac{2}{r}+\frac{1}{r^2(1-\frac{2}{r})}\right\}}{\left\{\frac{c_s}{\gamma -(1+c_s{}^2)}+\frac{1}{c_s}\right\}}
\label{anal59}$$ and $$\frac{du}{dr} = -\frac{c_s{}^2(\frac{2}{r}+\frac{1}{r^2(1-\frac{2}{r})})+f_2(r,\lambda )}{\frac{u}{1-u^2}(c_s{}^2-1)+
\frac{c_s{}^2}{u}}
\label{anal60}$$ respectively. The critical point conditions are derived as $$\left[u=c_s\right]_{r_c}=\sqrt{\frac{f_2(r_c,\lambda )}{\frac{2}{r_c}+\frac{1}{r_c{}^2(1-\frac{2}{r_c})}}}
\label{anal61}$$ Thus, the critical points and the sonic points turn out to be numerically same for quasi-spherical flow.
The critical space gradients of $u$ are obtained as $$\left(\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}\right)_c=
\left[-\frac{\alpha_2}{2\Gamma_2}\overset{+}{-}\frac{\sqrt{\alpha_2 ^2-4\Gamma_2\beta_2 }}{2\Gamma_2}\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal63}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2 = \left.\frac{2 c_s \left(\gamma -1-c_s^2\right) \left(2 r-3\right)}{\left(1-c_s^2\right) r \left(r-2\right)}\right|_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\beta_2 = \left.\frac{\beta''}{(-2+r)^2 r^2 \left(r^3-(-2+r) \lambda ^2\right)^2}\right|_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\Gamma_2 = \left.\frac{\gamma -3u^2+1}{\left(1-u^2\right){}^2}\right|_{r_c}
\label{anal64}\end{aligned}$$ where
$\beta''=[-36 c^4 \lambda ^4-4 c^4 \lambda ^4 r_c^4+28 c^4 \lambda ^4 r_c^3-73 c^4 \lambda ^4 r_c^2+84 c^4 \lambda ^4 r_c+8 c^4 \lambda ^2 r_c^6-40 c^4 \lambda ^2 r_c^5+66 c^4 \lambda ^2 r_c^4-36 c^4 \lambda ^2 r_c^3-4 c^4 r_c^8+12 c^4 r_c^7-9 c^4 r_c^6+36 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^4-12 c^2 \lambda ^4+4 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r_c^4-28 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r_c^3+73 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r_c^2-84 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r_c-8 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r_c^6+40 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r_c^5-66 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r_c^4+36 c^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r_c^3+4 c^2 \gamma r_c^8-12 c^2 \gamma r_c^7+9 c^2 \gamma r_c^6-2 c^2 \lambda ^4 r_c^4+14 c^2 \lambda ^4 r_c^3-35 c^2 \lambda ^4 r_c^2+36 c^2 \lambda ^4 r_c+4 c^2 \lambda ^2 r_c^6-20 c^2 \lambda ^2 r_c^5+30 c^2 \lambda ^2 r_c^4-12 c^2 \lambda ^2 r_c^3-2 c^2 r_c^8+6 c^2 r_c^7-3 c^2 r_c^6-\lambda ^4 r_c^4+8 \lambda ^4 r_c^3-24 \lambda ^4 r_c^2+32 \lambda ^4 r_c+3 \lambda ^2 r_c^6-20 \lambda ^2 r_c^5+48 \lambda ^2 r_c^4-40 \lambda ^2 r_c^3-2 r_c^7+2 r_c^6-16 \lambda ^4]_{r_c}$
### Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium in the vertical direction {#vertical-equilibrium-polytropic-flow}
Half thickness of the disc at a given radial distance is derived by modifying the expression for the flow thickness provided in [@alp97apj] $$H(r) = \frac{r^2c_s}{\lambda }\sqrt{\frac{2(1-u^2)(1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^2}(1-\frac{2}{r}))(\gamma -1)}{\gamma (1-\frac{2}{r})(\gamma -(1+c_s{}^2))}}
\label{anal64}$$ The mass and entropy accretion rate are thus obtained as $$\dot{M}=4\pi \rho \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} \frac{r^4c_s}{\lambda }\sqrt{\frac{2(1-u^2)(1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^2}(1-\frac{2}{r}))(\gamma -1)}{\gamma (1-\frac{2}{r})(\gamma -(1+c_s{}^2))}}
\label{anal65}$$ and $$\dot{\Xi}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\gamma }}\left[\frac{\gamma -1}{\gamma -(1+c_s{}^2)}\right]{}^{\frac{\gamma +1}{2(\gamma -1)}}\frac{c_s{}^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma -1}}}{\lambda }\sqrt{1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^2}(1-\frac{2}{r})} \left( 4 \pi u r^3 \right)
\label{anal66}$$ Acoustic and advective velocity gradients are given by, $$\frac{\text{dc}_s}{\text{dr}} = \frac{-c_s\left\{\gamma -(1+c_s{}^2)\right\}}{\gamma +1}\left[\frac{1}{u}\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}+f_1(r,\lambda )\right]
\label{anal67}$$ and $$\frac{du}{dr} = \frac{\frac{2c_s{}^2}{\gamma +1}f_1(r,\lambda )-f_2(r,\lambda )}{\frac{u}{1-u^2}-\frac{2c_s{}^2}{(\gamma +1)u}}
\label{anal68}$$
The critical point condition appears to be $$\left[u=\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+(\frac{\gamma +1}{2})(\frac{1}{c_s{}^2})}}\right]_{r_c}
=\sqrt{\frac{f_2(r_c,\lambda )}{f_1(r_c,\lambda )+f_2(r_c,\lambda)}}
\label{anal69}$$
In this case, it is observed from eq. (\[anal69\]) that $\left[u{\ne}{c_s}\right]_{\rm r=r_c}$. Mach number at the critical point can be easily obtained as $$M_c=
\sqrt{
\left({\frac{2}{\gamma+1}}\right)
\frac
{{f_{1}}(r_c,\lambda)}
{{{f_{1}}(r_c,\lambda)}+{{f_{2}}(r_c,\lambda)}}
}
\label{anal69a}$$ This value is generally less than $1$. For certain sets of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$, the critical and the sonic points may be separated by hundreds of gravitational radii.\
The space gradient of advective velocity can be derived as $$\left(\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}\right)_c=\left[-\frac{\alpha_3}{2\Gamma_3}\overset{+}{-}\frac{\sqrt{\alpha_3 ^2-4\Gamma_3\beta_3 }}{2\Gamma_3}\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal71}$$ where negative sign stands for accretion and where, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_3 = \left.\frac{8 c_s^2 \left(\gamma -1-c_s^2\right) \left(-2 \lambda ^2 r+3 r^3+3 \lambda ^2\right)}{(\gamma +1)^2 r u_s \left(-\lambda ^2 r+r^3+2 \lambda ^2\right)}\right|_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\beta_3 = \left.\frac{-\beta'''}{(\gamma +1)^2 \left(r-2\right){}^2 r^2 \left(-\lambda ^2 r+r^3+2 \lambda ^2\right){}^2}\right|_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\Gamma_3 = \left.-\frac{4 c_s{}^4}{(\gamma +1)^2 u^2}+\frac{2 (3 \gamma -1) c_s{}^2}{(\gamma +1)^2 u^2}+\frac{u^2+1}{\left(u^2-1\right){}^2}\right|_{r_c}
\label{anal72}\end{aligned}$$ with
$\beta'''=[-36 c_s^4 r^8-30 c_s^2 r^8+42 c_s^2 \gamma r^8+144 c_s^4 r^7+120 c_s^2 r^7-2 \gamma ^2 r^7-168 c_s^2 \gamma r^7-4 \gamma r^7-2 r^7-144 c_s^4 r^6-120 c_s^2 r^6+2 \gamma ^2 r^6+48 c_s^4 \lambda ^2 r^6+42 c_s^2 \lambda ^2 r^6+3 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^2 r^6-54 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^6+6 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^6+3 \lambda ^2 r^6+168 c_s^2 \gamma r^6+4 \gamma r^6+2 r^6-264 c_s^4 \lambda ^2 r^5-240 c_s^2 \lambda ^2 r^5-20 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^2 r^5+288 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^5-40 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^5-20 \lambda ^2 r^5-16 c_s^4 \lambda ^4 r^4-12 c_s^2 \lambda ^4 r^4-\gamma ^2 \lambda ^4 r^4+20 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r^4-2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r^4-\lambda ^4 r^4+480 c_s^4 \lambda ^2 r^4+456 c_s^2 \lambda ^2 r^4+48 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^2 r^4-504 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^4+96 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^4+48 \lambda ^2 r^4+112 c_s^4 \lambda ^4 r^3+84 c_s^2 \lambda ^4 r^3+8 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^4 r^3-140 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r^3+16 \gamma \lambda ^4 r^3+8 \lambda ^4 r^3-288 c_s^4 \lambda ^2 r^3-288 c_s^2 \lambda ^2 r^3-40 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^2 r^3+288 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^3-80 \gamma \lambda ^2 r^3-40 \lambda ^2 r^3-292 c_s^4 \lambda ^4 r^2-216 c_s^2 \lambda ^4 r^2-24 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^4 r^2+368 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r^2-48 \gamma \lambda ^4 r^2-24 \lambda ^4 r^2+336 c_s^4 \lambda ^4 r+240 c_s^2 \lambda ^4 r+32 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^4 r-432 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^4 r+64 \gamma \lambda ^4 r+32 \lambda ^4 r-144 c_s^4 \lambda ^4-96 c_s^2 \lambda ^4-16 \gamma ^2 \lambda ^4+192 c_s^2 \gamma \lambda ^4-32 \gamma \lambda ^4-16 \lambda ^4]_{r_c}$
For a given set of initial boundary conditions, $\left[u,c_s,du/dr,dc_s/dr\right]_{\rm r_c}$ are used as initial values to perform simultaneous numerical integration of eq. (\[anal67\] – \[anal68\]) upto the value of $r$ where $u=c_s$. Values of $\left(du/dr\right)$ and $\left(dc_s/dr\right)$ are evaluated at that $r$ ($=r_h$) and then the corresponding set of $\left[u,c_s,du/dr,dc_s/dr\right]_{\rm r_s}$ is used to evaluate other relevant quantities at the sonic point.
Isothermal accretion
--------------------
For isothermal flow, integration of the stationary general relativistic Euler equation leads to the following conserved quantity, $$\frac{r^2(r-2)}{(r^3-(r-2) \lambda ^2) (1-u^2)} \rho^{2c_s^2}=\text{constant}=\xi
\label{anal73}$$ The isothermal sound speed is constant and independent of flow position. It is given by the Clapeyron-Mendeleev equation ([@gibbs02; @bazarov64]) $$c_s=\sqrt{\frac{k_B}{\mu m_H} T}
\label{anal74}$$ where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann’s constant, $m_H \approx m_p$ is the mass of hydrogen atom, and $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight.
### Flow with constant height H
The mass accretion rate is given by $$\dot M= 2 \pi \rho \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} r h
\label{anal75}$$ where $H$ signifies constant height of the disc. Differentiating eq. (\[anal73\]) and eq. (\[anal75\]), the advective velocity gradient is obtained as $$\frac{du}{dr}=\frac{\left(2r^3-2 (r-2)^2 \lambda^2+(1-r) \left(2r^3+4 \lambda^2-2 r \lambda^2\right) c_s^2\right)u(u^2-1)}{(2 -r) r \left(-2r^3-4 \lambda^2+2 r \lambda^2\right) \left(u^2-c_s^2\right)}
\label{anal76}$$ and the critical point conditions are derived as $$\left[u^2=c_s^2=\frac{- r^3+ (r-2)^2 \lambda ^2}{r^3-r^4+(r-2)(r-1)\lambda ^2}\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal77}$$ Thus, the critical and the sonic points are found to coincide. Since $c_s\propto{T^\frac{1}{2}}$, for a given set of $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ the following polynomial of fourth degree can be solved [*analytically*]{} to calculate the critical points $r_c$. $$\begin{aligned}
2 c_s^2 r^4 - 2 \left(1+c_s^2\right)r^3 - 2\lambda ^2\left(c_s^2-1\right)r^2 - 2\text{$\lambda $}^2\left(4-3c_s^2\right)r \nonumber \\
- 4 \lambda ^2\left(c_s^2-2\right)\bigg\rvert_{r_c} = 0
\label{anal78}\end{aligned}$$ The gradient of advective velocity at the critical point can then be obtained as $$\left(\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}\right)_c=
\left[\frac{\alpha_1^{\rm iso}}{2\Gamma_1^{\rm iso}}\overset{+}{-}\frac{\sqrt{{\alpha_1^{iso}}^2+
4\beta_1^{\rm iso}\Gamma_1^{iso}}}{2\Gamma_1^{\rm iso} }\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal79}$$ where the $-ve$ sign signifies the accretion solution, and where, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1^{\rm iso} = -(3 c_s{}^2-1)(-1+c_s{}^2(r_c-1))r{}^3 \nonumber \\
+(3 c_s{}^2-1)(2+c_s{}^2(r-1)-r)(r-2)\lambda ^2 \bigg\rvert_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\beta_1^{\rm iso}= c_s(1-c_s{}^2)(-3+c_s{}^2(4r-3))r{}^2 \nonumber \\
+c_s(1-c_s{}^2)(c_s{}^2(3-2r)+2(r-2))\lambda ^2\bigg\rvert_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\Gamma_1^{\rm iso}=2 r (r-2) (r^3 - (r-2) \lambda ^2) c_s\bigg\rvert_{r_c}
\label{anal80}\end{aligned}$$
### Quasi-spherical Flow
The mass accretion rate is given by $$\dot M= \Lambda_{iso} \rho \frac{u\sqrt{1-\frac{2}{r}}}{\sqrt{1-u^2}} r^2
\label{anal81}$$ $\Lambda$ is the geometric solid angle factor for the flow. Differentiating eq. (\[anal73\]) and eq. (\[anal81\]), the advective velocity gradient is derived as $$\frac{du}{dr}=\frac{\left\{ 2r^3-2(r-2)^2\lambda ^2+(3-2r)\left(2r^3+4 \lambda ^2-2r \lambda ^2\right)c_s^2\right\}u(u^2-1)}{(2-r)r\left(-2r^3-4 \lambda ^2+2r \lambda ^2\right)(u^2-c_s^2)}
\label{anal82}$$ and the critical point conditions become $$\left[u^2=c_s^2=\frac{- r^3+ (r-2)^2 \lambda ^2}{3 r^3-2 r^4+6 \lambda ^2-7 r \lambda ^2+2 r^2 \lambda ^2} \right]_{r_c}
\label{anal83}$$ The critical and the sonic points are found to coincide in these kind of flows as well. Using a specific set of astrophysically relevant values for $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ the following fourth degree polynomial can be [*analytically*]{} solved to obtain the critical points $r_c$. $$\begin{aligned}
4 c_s^2 r^4-2\left(3c_s^2+1\right)r^3-2\lambda ^2\left(2c_s^2-1\right)r^2+2\text{$\lambda $}^2\left(7c_s^2-4\right)r \nonumber \\
-4\lambda ^2\left(3c_s^2-2\right)\bigg\rvert_{r_c} = 0
\label{anal84}\end{aligned}$$ The advective velocity gradient at the critical point (and hence the sonic point) is obtained as, $$\left(\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}\right)_c=
\left[\frac{\alpha_2^{\rm iso}}{2\Gamma_1^{\rm iso}}\overset{+}{-}\frac{\sqrt{{\alpha_2^{iso}}^2+
4\beta_2^{\rm iso}\Gamma_1^{iso}}}{2\Gamma_1^{\rm iso} }\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal85}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2^{\rm iso} = -(3 c_s{}^2-1)(-1+c_s{}^2(2r_c-3))r^3 \nonumber \\
+(3 c_s{}^2-1)(2+c_s{}^2(2r-3)-r)(r-2)\lambda ^2 \bigg\rvert_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\beta_2^{\rm iso}= c_s(1-c_s{}^2)(-3+c_s{}^2(8r-9))r^2 \nonumber \\
+c_s(1-c_s{}^2)(c_s{}^2(7-4r)+2(r-2))\lambda ^2\bigg\rvert_{r_c}
\label{anal86}\end{aligned}$$
### Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium in the vertical direction {#vertical-equilibrium-isothermal-flow}
Half thickness of the disc is computed as $$H(r)^{\rm iso}=\frac{rc_s\sqrt{2(r^3-(r-2 ) \lambda ^2) (1-u^2)}}{\lambda\sqrt{r-2 }}
\label{anal87}$$ and the mass accretion rate follows to be $$\dot M=4\pi \rho \frac{r^2 u c_s}{\lambda} \sqrt{2(r^3-(r-2 ) \lambda ^2)}
\label{anal88}$$ The advective velocity gradient is given by $$\frac{du}{dr}=\frac{\left[r^3-(r-2)^2 \lambda ^2 +(2 -r) (4 r^3+5 \lambda ^2-3 r \lambda ^2 ) c_s^2 \right] u (u^2-1)}{\frac{1}{2} r (r-2 ) \left(-2r^3-4 \lambda ^2+2 r \lambda ^2 \right) \left[c_s^2-\left(1+c_s^2\right) u^2\right]}
\label{anal89}$$ leading to the following critical point condition $$\left[u^2=\frac{c_s^2}{1+c_s^2}=\frac{- r^3+(r-2)^2 \lambda ^2}{8 r^3-4 r^4+10 \lambda ^2-11 r \lambda ^2+3 r^2 \lambda ^2}\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal90}$$ The critical and the sonic points are thus found to be different for such flow geometry. As observed in section \[vertical-equilibrium-polytropic-flow\], the same is also true in the case of vertical equilibrium discs for general relativistic isothermal flow in the Schwarzschild metric. However, under the influence of the Newtonian or the pseudo-Schwarzschild black hole potentials for a similar flow geometry, it had been previously observed that the sonic surfaces and the critical surfaces are isomorphic in general([@nard12na]). Hence, for relativistic flow, it is required to integrate eq. (\[anal89\]) in order to find out the exact location of the acoustic horizon $r_h$.
From eqn. (\[anal90\]) it is obtained that $$M_c=\left[\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+c_s^2}}\right]_{\rm r_c}
\label{anal90a}$$ where $M_c$ is the Mach number at the critical point. Hence a contrast is observed such non-isomorphism in the case of polytropic flow. For isothermal background flow, the value of Mach number is the same irrespective of the location of the corresponding critical point due to the constant sound speed. Specifying a set of $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ fixes the value of $M_c$. Hence the inner and the outer critical points are collinear on the phase portrait. However, for polytropic flows, $M_c$ is a highly nonlinear function of $r_c$ for a given set of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$, and hence the two saddle type critical points are not necessarily collinear. This result has another important implication. An effective sound speed for isothermal flow in vertical equilibrium can be defined as $c_s^{\rm eff}=\frac{c_s}{\sqrt{1+c_s^2}}$, which becomes unity at the critical point. Thus if a corresponding acoustic geometry is constructed with such an effective sound speed, the critical and sonic points will be isomorphic. However, construction of such an acoustic geometry is impossible for the same geometric flow configuration of a polytropic fluid.
The location of the critical point(s) for a given set of $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ can be solved for analytically from the following fourth degree polynomial $$\begin{aligned}
4 r^4 c_s^2 - r^3 \left(1+8\text{c}_s^2\right) - r^2 \lambda ^2 \left(-1+3c_s^2\right) - {r\lambda}^2\left(4-11c_s^2\right) \nonumber \\
- 2\lambda ^2\left(-2+5c_s^2\right)\bigg\rvert_{r_c} = 0
\label{anal91}\end{aligned}$$ The critical gradient of velocity is thus obtained as $$\left(\frac{\text{du}}{\text{dr}}\right)_c=
\left[\frac{\alpha_3^{\rm iso}}{2\Gamma_3^{\rm iso}}\overset{+}{-}\frac{\sqrt{{\alpha_3^{\rm iso}}^2
+4\beta_3^{\rm iso}\Gamma_3^{\rm iso}}}{2\Gamma_3^{\rm iso} }\right]_{r_c}
\label{anal92}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_3^{\rm iso}= -\left(\frac{3c_s{}^2}{1+c_s{}^2}-1\right)(-1+4c_s{}^2(r-2))r{}^3 \nonumber \\
-\left(\frac{3c_s{}^2}{1+c_s{}^2}-1\right)(2+c_s{}^2(3r-5)-r)(r-2)\lambda ^2\bigg\rvert_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\beta_3^{\rm iso}= \left(\frac{c_s}{(1+c_s{}^2){}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)(-3+8c_s{}^2(2r-3))r{}^2 \nonumber \\
+\left(\frac{c_s}{(1+c_s{}^2){}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)(c_s{}^2(11-6r)+2(r-2))\lambda ^2\bigg\rvert_{r_c}, \nonumber \\
\Gamma_3^{\rm iso}=2 r(r-2) (r{}^3 - (r-2) \lambda ^2) c_s\sqrt{1+c_s{}^2}\bigg\rvert_{r_c}
\label{anal93}\end{aligned}$$
For a given $\left[T,\lambda\right]$, $\left[u\right]_{\rm r_c}$ and $\left(du/dr\right)_{\rm r_c}$ are calculated as defined by eq. (\[anal90\]) and eq. (\[anal92\]) respectively. Then eq. (\[anal89\]) is integrated from the critical point upto the radial distance $r$ ($=r_h$) where the flow becomes transonic. $u$ and $du/dr$ are then computed at $r_h$ and used to evaluate other relevant quantities at that point.
As mentioned earlier, for real physical multi-transonic accretion to occur, the flow must pass through the inner sonic point. And in order to do so, the flow is required to return to the subsonic regime. However, our system so far, does not contain any inherent switch to fulfill this requirement and hence the only way to make it possible would be to introduce discontinuities or shocks in the flow.
In the next section, we describe such discontinuities or [[shocks]{}]{} for three different geometric flow configurations with both polytropic and isothermal equations of state, and derive corresponding expressions for quantities which remain invariant across the shock surface. We investigate the variation of dynamical and thermodynamic flow parameters with shock.
Relativistic Rankine-Hugoniot conditions
========================================
Using energy momentum conservation and the continuity equation, the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions ([@rankine1870ptrsl; @hugoniot1887jepa; @hugoniot1887jepb]) for a fully general relativistic background flow with energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$, 4-velocity $u^{\mu}$, speed of sound $c_s$ and rest mass density $\rho$, are given by,\
$$\left[\left[ \rho u^\mu \right]\right]=0 \text{,and}
\left[\left[T^{\mu\nu} \right]\right]=0,
\label{rh1}$$ where $\left[\left[f\right]\right]$ signifies the discontinuity in $f$ across the shock surface. If $f_-$ and $f_+$ denote the value of $f$ just before and after the shock respectively, then $\left[\left[f\right]\right]=f_+-f_-$. For a perfect fluid the energy-momentum tensor is of the form\
$$T^{\mu\nu}=(p+\epsilon)u^{\mu}u^{\nu}+pg^{\mu\nu},
\label{T}$$ where $p$ and $\epsilon$ denote pressure and energy density of the fluid respectively. In all further calculations, the above form has been considered in Boyer-Lindquist ([@bl67jmp]) co-ordinates normalized for $G=M_{BH}=c=1$ and $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$. The radial velocity of the flow along the direction of the normal $\eta_\mu$ to the shock hypersurface is given by, $$u^r=\frac{u \Delta^\frac{1}{2}}{r\sqrt{1-u^2}},
\label{ur}$$ where $\Delta=r(r-2)$. Hence, the Rankine-Hoguniot conditions are obtained as,\
$$\left[\left[\rho u^r\right]\right]=0,
\label{rh2}$$ $$\left[\left[T_{t\mu}u^\mu\right]\right]=\left[\left[(p+\epsilon)u_tu^r\right]\right]=0,
\label{rh3}$$ $$\left[\left[T_{\mu\nu}\eta^\mu\eta^\nu\right]\right]=\left[\left[(p+\epsilon)u^ru^r+p\right]\right]=0.
\label{rh4}$$ Here time component of 4-velocity $u^\mu$ is given by $u_t=\sqrt{\frac{\Delta}{B(1-u^2)}}$, where $B=r^2-\lambda^2(1-\frac{2}{r})$.
Shock-invariant quantities ($S_h$)
==================================
Polytropic accretion
--------------------
For polytropic flow, the stationary shocks are energy preserving. Using eqns.(\[eqnofstatepoly\]),(\[enthalpy1\]),(\[epsilon\]),(\[csq1\]),(\[enthalpy3\]), one can express $\rho$, $p$ and $\epsilon$ in terms of the sound speed $c_s$ as, $$\rho=K^{-\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\left({\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\left({\frac{c_s^2}{\gamma-1-c_s^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}
\label{rho}$$ $$p=K^{-\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\left({\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}\left({\frac{c_s^2}{\gamma-1-c_s^2}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}
\label{p}$$ $$\epsilon=K^{-\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\left({\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\left({\frac{c_s^2}{\gamma-1-c_s^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\left[1+\frac{1}{\gamma}\left(\frac{c_s^2}{\gamma-1-c_s^2}\right)\right]
\label{e}$$ So far, geometric configuration of the accretion disc has not played its part. However, on careful observation, one can instantly infer that the mass continuity equation, when formulated for a specific type of disc, shall contain an additional area factor $\mathcal{A}(r)$ whose functional form will depend exclusively on the geometry of the background flow. As mentioned earlier, we are going to focus on three distinct flow configurations, viz. discs with constant height H (denoted hereafter by ’CH’), quasi-spherical discs tracing a solid angle $\Lambda$ (denoted hereafter by ’CF’) and discs in hydrostatic equilibrium in the vertical direction with radius dependent height $H(r)$ (denoted hereafter by ’VE’). Thus, eq.(\[rh2\]) will take the from,\
$$\left[\left[\rho u^r\mathcal{A}(r)\right]\right]=0
\label{rh5}$$ where,\
$$\mathcal{A}_{CH}(r)=2\pi rH,
\label{ach}$$ $$\mathcal{A}_{CF}(r)=\Lambda r^2, and
\label{acf}$$ $$\mathcal{A}_{VE}(r)=4\pi rH(r).
\label{ave}$$ We now define the ($S_h$). Numerical value of $S_h$ remains the same on the integral solution passing through the outer sonic point as well as the solution passing through inner sonic point, only at the shock location and nowhere else. If $S_h^{in}$ and $S_h^{out}$ are the shock-invariant quantities defined on the flow topologies through the inner and outer sonic points respectively, then the values of the radial distance for which $S_h^{out}-S_h^{in}=0$ provides the shock location.\
Substituting eq.(\[ach\]), (\[acf\]), (\[ave\]) in eq.(\[rh5\]), (\[rh4\]) and solving simultaneously, the ($S_h$) for all three geometries are derived as, $$S_h\bigr\rvert_{CH}=\frac{u^2(\gamma\frac{\Delta}{r^2}-c_s^2)+c_s^2}{u\sqrt{1-u^2}\left(\gamma-1-c_s^2\right)}
\label{shch}$$ $$S_h\bigr\rvert_{CF}=\frac{u^2(\gamma\frac{\Delta}{r^2}-c_s^2)+c_s^2}{u\sqrt{1-u^2}\left(\gamma-1-c_s^2\right)}
\label{shcf}$$ $$S_h\bigr\rvert_{VE}=\frac{\lambda{\Delta}^{\frac{1}{2}}\{u^2(\gamma\frac{\Delta}{r^2}-c_s^2)+c_s^2\}}{uc_s(1-u^2)\sqrt{\gamma-1-c_s^2}}
\label{shve}$$ Here, it is required to note that width of shock must be very small. Otherwise, strong temperature gradients along the shock region can lead to energy dissipation through the extreme ends.
Isothermal accretion
--------------------
For isothermal flow, the stationary shocks are temperature preserving. $\xi$ is conserved across the shock surface. Hence, substituting $\rho$ from the mass continuity equation, $$\dot{M}=\rho u^r\mathcal{A}(r),
\label{masscon}$$ a Rankine-Hugoniot condition analogous to eq.(\[rh3\]) can be obtained as, $$\left[\left[\xi\right]\right]=\left[\left[u_t^2\{u^r\mathcal{A}(r)\}^{-2c_s^2}\right]\right]=0
\label{xi2}$$ Now, since $P=K\rho$ and $c_s^2=\frac{1}{h}\frac{dP}{d\rho}$, where specific enthalpy $h=\frac{p+\epsilon}{\rho}$, $$\epsilon=\frac{K\rho}{c_s^2}\left(1-c_s^2\right).
\label{epsiloniso}$$ Therefore, the shock condition pertaining to momentum conservation (eq.\[rh4\]) in this case becomes, $$\left[\left[\{1+\frac{u^ru^r}{c_s^2}\}\{u^r\mathcal{A}(r)\}^{-1}\right]\right]=0
\label{momconiso}$$ Solving eq.(\[xi2\]) and eq.(\[momconiso\]) simultaneously, we derive the for three distinct geometries, $$S_h\bigr\rvert^{iso}_{CH}=\bigr\{\frac{u}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}\bigr\}^{2c_s^2-1}\{u^2\Delta+r^2c_s^2(1-u^2)\},
\label{shchiso}$$ $$S_h\bigr\rvert^{iso}_{CF}=\bigr\{\frac{u}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}\bigr\}^{2c_s^2-1}\{u^2\Delta+r^2c_s^2(1-u^2)\},
\label{shcfiso}$$ $$S_h\bigr\rvert^{iso}_{VE}=u^{2c_s^2-1}\{u^2\Delta+r^2c_s^2(1-u^2)\}.
\label{shveiso}$$
Dependence of shock on flow geometry
====================================
Polytropic accretion
--------------------
In this section, effect of the geometry of an axially symmetric, non self-gravitating, stationary background flow in Schwarzschild space-time on the properties of discontinuities or shocks for polytropic accretion onto astrophysical black holes is investigated. The parameter space determined by initial boundary conditions is consturcted first. Then properties of the shock are depicted for certain regions of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$ for which multi-transonic accretion with stable shocks can be obtained for all three flow configurations.
### Parameter space classification
The critical point(s) are obtained by specifying suitable values for $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$. The 3D parameter space $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$ has bounds $\left[1<{\cal E}<2,2<\lambda{\le}4,4/3{\le}\gamma{\le}5/3\right]$, which are astrophyscially relevant and of our interest. We scan the given parameter space to understand the dependence of multi-criticality on initial boundary conditions.
In figure 1, the $\left[{\cal E},\lambda,\gamma\right]$ space has been projected on a $\left[{\cal E},\lambda\right]$ plane with $\gamma=1.4$. Such $\left[{\cal E},\lambda\right]$ projections may be studied for other values of $\gamma$ as well, lying in the range $4/3{\le}\gamma{\le}5/3$.
Figure (\[fig1\]) depicts the ${\cal E} - \lambda$ plane for quasi-spherical disc geometry. A$_1$A$_2$A$_3$A$_4$ contains three real positive roots lying outside event horizon for the corresponding polynomial equation in $r_c$. A$_1$A$_2$A$_3$ represents the multi-critical accretion region for which ${\dot {\Xi}}_{\rm inner} > {\dot {\Xi}}_{\rm outer}$. Subspace A$_1$A$_5$A$_3$ allows shock formation. This region contains real physical multi-transonic stationary accretion solutions where transonic flow passing through the outer sonic point meets transonic flow through the inner sonic point by means of a discontinuous energy preserving Rankine-Hugoniot type shock. Thus, such a shocked multi-transonic solution consists of smooth transonicities at two regular saddle points and a discontinuous transonicity at the location of shock.
Region A$_1$A$_3$A$_4$ represents a subset of the parameter space where ${\dot {\Xi}}_{\rm inner} < {\dot {\Xi}}_{\rm outer}$. Here, the incoming flow possesses one saddle type critical point and the background flow consists of one acoustic horizon at this inner sonic point. Multi-critical accretion at the boundary A$_1$A$_3$ separating these two regions is characterized by ${\dot {\Xi}}_{\rm inner} = {\dot {\Xi}}_{\rm outer}$. Transonic solutions on the boundary are completely degenerate and the phase portrait thus formed leads to a heteroclinic orbit [^1] which may be unstable and turbulent.
![${\cal E} - \lambda$ plane for quasi-spherical flow geometry for polytropic accretion for fixed value of $\gamma=1.4$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](para_con_without_shock_gama14.eps)
Figure (\[fig2\]) depicts the same $\left[{\cal E},\lambda\right]$ parameter space diagram with value of $\gamma$ fixed at $4/3$ for all the three flow geometry configurations with only those multi-transonic accretion solutions of $r_c$ which allow the formation of standing shocks. As described in the previous subsection, these are subspaces of the entire mathematically permissible $\left[{\cal E},\lambda\right]$ space providing three real roots of the corresponding polynomial equations in $r_c$ outside the event horizon. A$_1$A$_2$A$_3$, B$_1$B$_2$B$_3$ and C$_1$C$_2$C$_3$ shown using dotted blue lines, dotted green lines and solid red lines represent flow with constant thickness, quasi-spherical or conical flow and flow in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium respectively. It may be observed from the figure that a very small overlap region (region $XYZ$ in the inset) of the three wedges does exist, thus ensuring a common astrophysically relevant range of $\left[{\cal E},\lambda\right]$ for the given value of $\gamma$ for which true physical multi-transonic accretion can occur. We shall be interested in this common region of physical flow solutions while comparing the three different disc configurations for all our future purposes.
![${\cal E} - \lambda$ plane for three different flow geometries with shock for fixed value of $\gamma=4/3$. Variation of ${\cal E} - \lambda$ branches for flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dashed green lines, and dotted blue lines, respectively. Inset: Shaded region XYZ shows the overlap of shocked multitransonic accretion solutions for all three matter geometries.[]{data-label="fig2"}](para_poly_shock_inset.eps)
### Methodology for obtaining multi-transonic topology with shock
Using a specific set of $\left[\cal E, \lambda, \gamma\right]$, one first solves the equation for $\cal E$ at the critical point to find out the corresponding three critical points, saddle type inner, center type middle, and the saddle type outer. The space gradient of the flow velocity as well as the acoustic velocity at the saddle type critical point is then obtained. Such $u_{|_{(r=r_{c})}}$, $c_{s_{(r=r_{c})}}$, $\frac{dc_s}{dr}|_{(r=r_{c})}$ and $\frac{du}{dr}|_{(r=r_{c})}$, serve as the initial value condition for performing the numerical integration of the advective velocity gradient using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. Such integration provides the outer sonic point (located closer to the black hole compared to the outer critical point, since the Mach number at the outer critical point is less than unity), the local advective velocity, the polytropic sound speed, the Mach number, the fluid density, the disc height, the bulk temperature of the flow and any other relevant dynamical and thermodynamic quantity characterizing the flow. The corresponding wind solution through the outer sonic point is obtained in the same way, by taking the other value of $\frac{du}{dr}|_{(r=r_{c})}$ (note that solution of the equation in $\frac{du}{dr}|_{(r=r_{c})}$ which is a quadratic algebraic equation, provides two initial values, one for the accretion and the other for the wind).\
The respective accretion and the wind solutions passing through the inner critical point are obtained following exactly the same procedure as has been used to draw the accretion and wind topologies passing through the outer critical point. Note, however, that the accretion solution through the inner critical point folds back onto the wind solution which is a homoclinic orbit through the inner critical point encompassing the center type middle critical point. A physically acceptable transonic solution must be globally consistent, i.e. it must connect the radial infinity with the black hole event horizon. Hence, for multi-transonic accretion there is no individual existence of physically acceptable accretion/wind solution passing through the inner critical (sonic) point, although, depending on the inital boundary conditions, such solution may be clubbed with the accretion solution passing through outer critical point, through a standing shock.\
The set $\left[\cal E, \lambda\right]_{A}$ thus produces doubly degenerate accretion/wind solutions. Such two fold degeneracy may be removed by the entropy considerations since the entropy accretion rates for solutions passing through the inner critical point and the outer critical point are not generally equal. For any $\left[\cal E, \lambda, \gamma\right] \in \left[\cal E, \lambda, \gamma\right]_{A}$ we find that the entropy accretion rate $\dot{\Xi}$ evaluated for the complete accretion solution passing through the outer critical point is less than that of the rate evaluated for the incomplete accretion/wind solution passing through the inner critical point . Since the quantity $\dot{\Xi}$ is a measure of the specific entropy density of the flow, the solution passing through the outer critical point will naturally tend to make a transition to its higher entropy counterpart, i.e., the globally incomplete accretion solution passing through the inner critical point. Hence, if there existed a mechanism for the accretion solution passing through the outer critical point to increase its entropy accretion rate exactly by an amount $$\Delta\dot{\Xi}=\dot{\Xi}(r^{in}_c)-\dot{\Xi}(r^{out}_c),$$ there would be a transition to the accretion solution passing through the inner critical point. Such a transition would take place at a radial distance somewhere between the radius of the inner sonic point and the radius of the point of inflexion of the homoclinic orbit. In this way one would obtain a true multi-transonic accretion solution connecting the infinity and the event horizon, ehich includes a part of the accretion solution passing through the inner critical, and hence the inner sonic point. One finds that for some specific values of $\left[\cal E, \lambda, \gamma\right]_{A}$, a standing Rankine-Hugoniot shock may accomplish this task. A supersonic accretion through the outer sonic point (which is obtained by integrating the flow startinf from the outer critical point) can generate entropy through such a shock formation and can join the flow passing through the inner sonic point (which is obtained by integratign the flow starting from the outer critical point). Below we will carry on a detailed discussion on such shock formation.\
In the presence of a shock, the flow may have the following profile. A subsonic flow starting from infinity first becomes supersonic after crossing the outer sonic point and somewhere in between the outer sonic point and the inner sonic point, the shock transition takes place and forces the solution to jump onto the corresponding subsonic branch. The hot and dense post-shock subsonic flow produced in this way becomes supersonic again after crossing the inner sonic point and ultimately dives supersonically into the black hole.\
The shock location in multi-transonic accretion is found in the following way. While performing the numerical integration along the solution passing through the outer critical point, we calculate the shock invariant $S_h$ in addition to $u,c_s$ and $M$. We also calculate $S_h$ while integrating along the solution passing through the inner critical point, starting from the inner sonic point upto the point of inflexion of the homoclinic orbit. We then determine the radial distance $r_{sh}$, where the numerical values of $S_h$, obtained by integrating the two different sectors described above, are equal. Generally, for any value of $\left[\cal E, \lambda, \gamma\right]$ allowing shock formation, one finds two formal shock locations, one located in between the outer and the middle sonic point, and the other located in between the inner and the middle sonic point. The shock strength is different for the inner and for the outer shock. Acording to the standard local stability analysis (Yang and Kafatos, 1995), for a multi-transonic accretion, one can show that only the shock formed between the middle and outer sonic point is stable. Hereafter, whenever we mention the shock location, we always refer to the stable shock location only.
![Topology (Mach number $\left(M\right)$ - $r$ plot) for quasi-spherical flow geometry with shock for fixed value of $\gamma=4/3$, $\mathcal{E}=1.0003$ and $\lambda=3.6$.[]{data-label="fig2a"}](topology_shock_con_E10003_l36_edit.eps)
Figure (\[fig2a\]), depicts the topology of shocked multi-transonic accretion/wind for quasi-spherical or conical disc flow geometry. The value of $\gamma$ has been fixed at $\frac{4}{3}$ and those of $\cal E$ and $\lambda$ have been chosen from the set which allows formation of standing shock. In the figure, the upper branch $ABCC'D$ represents the integral solution from a very large radial distance passing through the outer critical point and the outer sonic point (which are equal in this case), contonuing till the event horizon, in case there are no discontinuities in the flow. The lower branch $EFF'GH$ actually represents two seperate branches of the integral solution- branch $GF'FE$ from the inner critical/sonic point (equal in the present case) to the point of inflexion of the homoclinic orbit surrounding the middle critical point, and branch $GH$ from the inner critical/sonic point till the event horizon. Now if the flow starting from a very large radial distance after passing through the puter sonic point does not face any shock or discontinuity, it will continue undisturbed along the upper branch and end up falling into the black hole. However such flow will not become subsonic for a second time and hence will not be multi-transonic. Therefore, for a multi-transonic flow to occur the flow must jump from from the upper branch to the lower branch through a Rankine-Hugoniot type energy preserving shock. Such discontinuous jump locations are calculated using procedures discussed in the previous sections. The vertical lines $CF$ and $C'F'$ represent the analytically obtained discontinuous jump locations for the depicted flow. As elaborated in the preceding paragraph, $CF$ is the required physical stable shock, whereas $C'F'$ is unstable and hence is not of our physical interest. Thus, the flow originating from infinity becomes supersonic after passing through the outer sonic point, faces a discontinuity at $C$, jumps onto the subsonic lower branch at $C'$, becomes supersonic again after passing through the inner sonic point, and finally takes its plunge of death into the black hole.
### Dependence of shock related quantities on flow geometry
In figure \[fig3\](a) we show the variation of the shock location $r_{sh}$ with $\lambda$. The value of the polytropic index $\gamma$ has been fixed at $4/3$. The value of $\cal E$ has been taken to be $1.0003$ such that we get real multi-transonic solutions with stable shocks for all the three flow geometries. It is observed that the location of the discontinuity varies over a very wide range of the order of $10$s to $1000$s of the Schwarschild radius. We also observe that the distance of the location of shock formation from the event horizon increases with increasing specific angular momentum of the flow. The correlation of $r_{sh}$ with $\lambda$ is obvious because higher the flow angular momentum, the greater the rotational energy content of the flow. As a consequence, the strength of the centrifugal barrier which is responsible to break the incoming flow by forming a shock will be higher and the location of such a barrier will be farther away from the event horizon. A similar trend is observed in figure \[fig3\](b) where variation of $r_{sh}$ with the specific energy $\cal E$ has been depicted. The value of $\gamma$ remains fixed at $4/3$ and $\lambda$ has been fixed at $3.6$ so that real multi-transonic shocked solutions are obtained for all three geometries.
![(a) $r_{sh} - \lambda$ variation for three different flow geometries for polytropic accretion. $\mathcal{E}=1.0003$ and $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$ for all three branches. (b) $r_{sh} - \cal E$ variation for three different flow geometries for polytropic accretion. $\lambda=3.6$ and $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$ for all three branches. Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dotted green lines, and dashed blue lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig3"}](rsh_poly_sch.eps)
Figure (\[fig4\]) depicts the variation of shock strengths in terms of (a) Mach number before and after the shock ($M_+/M_-$), (b) density of infalling matter after and before the shock ($\rho_-/\rho_+$), (c) pressure of the infalling matter after and before the shock ($P_-/P_+$) and (d) temperature of flow after and before the shock ($T_-/T_+$) with the distance of shock location $r_{sh}$ from the event horizon. It is evident from the plot that as the shock location shifts closer to the gravitational horizon, the magnitude of jump for the corresponding quantities rises, thus in turn indicating an increase in strength of the shock. The closer to the black hole the shock forms, the higher are the strengths and the entropy enhancement ratio. The ultra relativistic flows are supposed to produce the strongest shocks. The reason behind this is also easy to understand. The closer to the black hole the shock forms, the higher the available gravitational potential energy must be released, and the radial advective velocity required to have a more vigorous shock jump will be larger
![(a)$M_+/M_-- r_{sh}$, (b)$\rho_-/\rho_+ - r_{sh}$, (c)$P_-/P_+ - r_{sh}$ and (d)$T_-/T_+ - r_{sh}$ variations for three different flow geometries for polytropic accretion. $\mathcal{E}=1.0003$ and $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$ for all three branches. Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dotted green lines, and dashed blue lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig4"}](shock_strength1.eps "fig:") ![(a)$M_+/M_-- r_{sh}$, (b)$\rho_-/\rho_+ - r_{sh}$, (c)$P_-/P_+ - r_{sh}$ and (d)$T_-/T_+ - r_{sh}$ variations for three different flow geometries for polytropic accretion. $\mathcal{E}=1.0003$ and $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$ for all three branches. Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dotted green lines, and dashed blue lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig4"}](shock_strength2.eps "fig:")
Isothermal accretion
--------------------
First, we construct the $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ parameter space showing the astrophysically relevant range of parameters for which real multi-critical solutions can be obtained. Then a specific subset of the entire parameter space is chosen for which all three flow geometries will display multi-transonic isothermal accretion with Rankine-Hugoniot type discontinuity in the flow.
### Parameter space classification
Figure (\[fig5\]) shows the parameter space division following a similar scheme as introduced in the previous subsection. For constant height flow, conical flow and vertical equilibrium flow, A1${^\prime}$A2${^\prime}$A3${^\prime}$, B1${^\prime}$B2${^\prime}$B3${^\prime}$ and C1${^\prime}$C2${^\prime}$C3${^\prime}$, respectively represent the $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ regions for which the algebraic polynomial equations in $r_c$ will provide three real physical roots located outside the gravitational horizon, alongwith the added constraint that the obtained values of $r_c$ also satisfy the Rankine-Hugoniot criteria, which in this case is ensured by invariance of the quantitites $S_h$ given by eqn.(\[shchiso\]), eqn.(\[shcfiso\]) and eqn.(\[shveiso\]). Similar to the case of polytropic accretion, such shocks provide true multi-transonicity. However, unlike polytropic accretion, in the isothermal case the shocks have to be temperature preserving. The solutions consist of two acoustic black hole horizons (inner and outer) and an acoustic white hole (at the shock). The analysis of this shock has been performed in our present work.
![$T - \lambda$ plane for three different flow geometries with isothermal shock. $T$ is in units of Kelvin. Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dotted green lines, and dashed blue lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig5"}](para_iso_shock.eps)
### Dependence of shock related quantitites on flow geometry
Figure \[fig6\](a) represents the variation of the shock location $r_{sh}$ with specific angular momentum $\lambda$ for all the three flow geometries. The value of $T$ has been chosen from the region of parameter space overlap and has been fixed at $0.0001$ (in terms of $10^{10}$ Kelvin). Figure \[fig6\](b) depicts the variation of $r_{sh}$ with flow temperature $T$, where $\lambda$ has been fixed at the value $3.76$. It is observed that although there is a similar rising trend of $r_{sh}$ as was observed in polytropic accretion, however, the variation is over a much larger range with $\lambda$ than with $T$.
![(a) $r_{sh} - \lambda$ variation for three different flow geometries for isothermal accretion. $T=0.0001$ (in terms of $10^{10}$ K) for all three branches. (b) $r_{sh} - T$ (in terms of Kelvin) variation for three different flow geometries for isothermal accretion. $\lambda=3.76$ for all three branches. Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dotted green lines, and dashed blue lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig6"}](rsh_iso_sch.eps)
In figure (\[fig7\]), we report the variation of shock strengths in terms of (a) Mach number before and after the shock ($M_-/M_+$), (b) density of infalling matter after and before the shock ($\rho_+/\rho_-$), and (c) pressure of the infalling matter after and before the shock ($P_+/P_-$) with the distance of shock location $r_{sh}$ from the event horizon. Akin to the results obtained for polytropic accretion, here also it is observed that as the shock location moves closer to the horizon, the magnitude of jump for the corresponding quantities rises, thus indicating a stronger shock. It is worth noting that the magnitude of the discontinuity in isothermal accretion is far more prominent than that in polytropic accretion. While the Mach number jumps upto a factor of 1000, the pressure and density of the infalling matter increases all of a sudden by huge orders of magnitude. Since the shock is temperature preserving, it has to dissipate an immense quantity of energy, which probably is the reason for peoducing such extremely strong shocks.
![(a) $M_-/M_+ - r_{sh}$, (b) $\rho_+/\rho_- - r_{sh}$ and (c) $P_+/P_- - r_{sh}$ variation for three different flow geometries for isothermal accretion. $T=0.0001$ (in terms of $10^{10}$ K) for all three branches. Flow in hydrostatic equilibrium along the vertical direction, conical flow and flow with constant thickness are represented by solid red lines, dotted green lines, and dashed blue lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig7"}](shock_strength_iso.eps)
Concluding remarks
==================
We demonstrate that physical multitransonic accretion with shocks does occur in all flow geometries for a common parameter space of $\left[\cal E,\lambda,\gamma\right]$ for polytropic fluid and $\left[T,\lambda\right]$ for isothermal fluid flow. Based on our obtained results a comparision between polytropic and isothermal accretion revealed that the effects of discontinuities in the flow are much more prominent in the isothermal case. It is also observed that although the shocks are much more prominent in isothermal accretion, but a comparision among the different flow geometries depicts that the isothermal shock strengths remain of comparable magnitude for all three configurations with slight variations in the rate of change of the shock strength related quantitites.\
For axially symmetric relativistic accretion onto a non-rotating black hole, the geometric configuration of the infalling matter influences the accretion dynamics in general. The transonic features of stationary integral flow solutions depends on matter geometry, although the no-self gravity of the flow is taken into account (and hence no backreaction of the metric). For same set of initial boundary conditions, flow in hydrostatic equilibrium in the vertical direction produces the sonic points closest to the horizon whereas the sonic points form at the farthest distance for constant height flow. Conical flow in characterised by production of the sonic points lying in between these two models. The rate at which the difference of the space gradient of the advective velocity and the adiabatic sound speed, i.e. the quantity $\left(\frac{du}{dr}-\frac{dc_s}{dr}\right)$, increases with the radial distance (measured from the horizon) is thus minimnum for flow in vertical equilibrium. This is because only for such flow model, the mass accretion rate non linearly depends on the radial sound speed, hence on the radial pressure force, which acts along the direction of the gravitational force, becomes more significant at any radial distance, and hence matter falls relatively less quickly, and the dynamical velocity can overtake the sound speed only at the close proximity of the horizon where the gravitational pull becomes considerably large. For conical flow, dependence of mass accretion rate on the radial distance is one power of $r$ more compared to $\dot{M}$ for constant height flow. The rate at which the advective velocity will preceed the sound speed for a particular $r$ will thus be more for constant height flow compared to the conical flow. Similar situation is obtained for isothermal flow as well. There, however, the sound speed is position independent. Hence the proximity to the horizon of the sonic transition will solely depend on the rate at which the advective velocity increases with the radial distance. The model dependence of the proximity of the shock location toward the horizon follow opposite trend as is observed for the sonic points. Why such phenomena is observed is difficult to explain analytically sonce the shock location is determined by a set of non-trivially complex non linear algebro-differential equations, which are non-exactly solvable. The model dependence of shock related quantities can thus be demonstrated, as has been done in this work, but the exact reasons behind such dependencies can never be expalined analytically by any means. One can, however, make successful predictions about how several important features of the shocked accretion flow depends on the matter geometry. Post shock flows are more common for relatively slowly rotating accretion at low energy for vertical equilibrium model, whereas for the constant height model, sufficiently hot flow with almost Keplerian angular momentum can form shock (see e.g. figure 2). What range of initial boundary conditions (determined by the nature of the donor, the dynamics of the infall, the temperature of the ambient medium, etc.) are suitable to produce the post shock flow for which matter geometry? The answer to this important question can thus be obtained using our present work. The main importance of our work lies in this finding as we believe. If one knows the environment (which determine/is determined by the initial boundary conditions governing the flow properties) of an astrophysical source harbouring massive black hole (low angular momentum flow is better realised for flow onto supermassive black holes rather than black hole binaries), one can then predict for which kind of flow geometry the observed results may be explained using the multi-transonic shock accretion flow. Our work will also serve for calibration purpose to study the shocked black hole accretion in the source that if certain shock related property is known to have association with a particular type of flow geometry, then for any astrophysical source, if the observational signature of such shock related property is obtained, one can correctly predict the structure of the corresponding accretion disc using the results obtained in our work.\
For isothermal accretion, the kind of standing shocks we consider are temperature preserving, and hence, unlike the polytropic Rankine-Hugoniot shock, they are dissipative. Inviscid flow may dissipate most of its binding energy at the shock. Such isothermal shocks may serve as the efficient provider of the effective radiative cooling mechanism in isothermal accretion discs.\
![$\xi_+/\xi_-$ vs. $\lambda$ for $T=10^{10}K$ for all three geometric configurations. Constant height disc, quasi-spherical disc and vertical equilibrium model depicted by solid red lines, dotted green lines and dashed blue lines respectively.[]{data-label="fig9"}](dissipation_lambda.eps)
A measure of the dissipation at the shock for such flow may be expressed as $$\left(\frac{\rho_+}{\rho_-}\right)^{2c_s^2}\left(\frac{1-u_-^2}{1-u_+^2}\right)$$ where $c_s$ is the position independent isothermal sound speed which remains constant before and after a temperature preserving standing shock is formed. Figure (\[fig9\]) shows the variation of such measure of dissipation as a function of $\lambda$ for three different flow geometries. The dissipated amount may very quickly be removed possibly in the form of radiation via various wavebands, most preferably in X-ray, from the disc to maintian the invariance of the flow temperature before and after the shock forms. Sudden X-ray burst observed from the galactic centre black holes may thus be explained using the formation of the dissipative shock. Isothermal shocks are, thus, ’brighter’ compared to the polytropic Rankine-Hugoniot shock. It is observed that the isothermal quasi-spherical disc model may produce brightest such shock (see, e.g. figure (\[fig9\])) whereas the vertical hydrostatic equilibrium disc model produces the faintest one.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
PT would like to acknowledge the kind hospitality provided by HRI, Allahabad, India, for several visits through the $XII^{th}$ plan budget of Cosmology and High Energy Astrophysics grant and SNBNCBS, Kolkata, India, for their financial and infrastructural support. The authors also acknowledge insightful discussions with Archan S. Majumdar. The authors would like to thank Sankhasubhra Nag and Sonali Saha Nag for their kind help in formulating the initial version of a numerical code which has been partly used in this work.
[^1]: Heteroclinic orbits are the trajectories defined on a phase portrait which connects two different saddle type critical points. Integral solution configuration on phase portrait characterized by heteroclinic orbits are topologically unstable.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '@milgrom-2017 has proposed a heuristic for determining a maximum weight basis of an independence system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ given that for sets from ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ we care in particular about the qualitiy of approximation as we assume, that ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ contains (frequently) the optimal basis. It is based on finding an ‘inner matroid’, one contained in the independence system. We show that without additional assumptions on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ being different from ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ the worst-case performance of this new heuristic is no better than that of the classical greedy algorithm.'
author:
- 'Sven de Vries and Rakesh V. Vohra'
bibliography:
- 'greedy.bib'
date:
- 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
-
title: Matroidal Approximations of Independence Systems
---
Introduction
============
An independence system consists of a ground set $E=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and a family ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ of subsets of $E$. The pair $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is a called an independence system if $\emptyset \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ and for all $B \subseteq A
\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ we have $B \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ as well. Elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ are called independent. For any $A \subseteq E$, a set $B \subseteq A $ is called a basis of $A$ if $B \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ and $B \cup \{j\} \not \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ for all $j \in A \setminus B$. For $A\subseteq E$ denote by $ {\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}(A)$ (or ${\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}(A)$ when no ambiguity) the set of bases of $A$ (with respect to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$). The bases with respect to $E$ are denoted by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ or just ${\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}$. Minimally dependent sets are called circuits. If we associate weights $v_i\in {{\mathbb R}_+}$ for each $i\in E$, the problem of finding a maximum weight basis of $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ can be expressed as $\max_{A \in
{\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}}\sum_{i \in A}v_i$. For convenience we will write $\sum_{i \in S}v_i$ as $v(S)$ for all $S
\subseteq E$. The problem is NP-hard by reduction to Hamiltonian path in a directed graph [@korte-hausmann-1978].
Call an independence systems $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ with $\{i\}\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ for all $i\in E$ *normal* (for graphs or matroids, the term *loopless* is more prevalent). A non-normal independence system can be turned into a normal one by deleting the elements $e\in E$ with $\{e\}\notin{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ without changing the solution to the problem of finding a maximum weight basis.
@milgrom-2017 proposed a heuristic for determining a maximum weight basis of an independence system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ given that for sets from ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ we care in particular about the qualitiy of approximation as we assume, that ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ contains (frequently) the optimal basis. It is based on finding an ‘inner matroid’, one contained in the independence system. We compare the worst-case performance of this heuristic with the well known greedy algorithm for the same problem. We show that the worst-case performance of this new heuristic without additional assumptions on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ being different from ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ is no better than that of the classical greedy algorithm. Nevertheless, as we show by example, there are aspects of Milgrom’s proposal that bear further investigation. We defer a discussion of these matters till the end. In the next section we describe the greedy algorithm and state its worst case performance.
Greedy Algorithm
================
We describe the greedy algorithm for finding a basis of $E$ with possibly large weight.
Order the elements of $E$ by non-increasing value $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq
\ldots \geq v_n\geq 0$ \[lGI-1\]
Set $I {\ensuremath{\leftarrow}}\emptyset$
Let $I_g {\ensuremath{\leftarrow}}I$ and return $I_g$.
If some coefficients in the objective function are equal, the order of the $v_i$’s is not unique and therefore the algorithm’s outcome is not necessarily unique. To avoid this assume an exogenously given tie breaking rule, so that the outcome of the greedy algorithm is unique.
A worst case bound on the quality of the greedy solution in terms of the rank quotient of an independence system can be found in @jenkyns-1976 [@korte-hausmann-1978].
Let $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ be an independence system. The *rank* of $F \subseteq E$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
r(F) {\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\max \{|B| \, : \, B \text{ basis of } F\}.
\end{aligned}$$ The rank-function maps $2^E$ into the nonnegative integers.
Similarly, for $F\subseteq E$ we define $$l(F) {\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\min \{|B| \colon B \text{ basis of }
F\}$$ to be the *lower rank* of $F$. The *rank quotient* of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ is denoted by $$q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) {\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\min_{F\subseteq E, r(F) > 0}\, \frac{l
(F)}{r(F)}.$$
Following an axiomatization of matroids by @hausmann-korte-jenkyns-1980, we define a matroid to be an independences system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ with $q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) = 1$. For matroids there are several equivalent characterizations known, some of which we will use later:
Basis exchange:
: For every pair of bases $B^1,B^2\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}$ and $i\in B^2\setminus B^1$ there exists a $j\in B^1\setminus B^2$ such that $(B^1\cup \{i\})\setminus \{j\}$ is again a basis.
Augmentation property:
: For every pair of independent sets $I,J\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ with $|I|<|J|$ there exists $j\in J\setminus I$ such that $I\cup\{j\}$ is again independent.
Rank axioms:
: see - on page .
For proofs on these and more see @oxley-b1992.
If $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is a normal independence system, then, $$q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})\in\left\{\frac{i}{j}\mid 1\leq i,j\leq r({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})\right\}.$$ Hence for normal independence systems, $q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})\geq 1/r({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$ However, a better bound is known:
\[thm:hkj\] Let $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ be an independence system. If, for any $A\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ and $e\in E$ the set $A\cup\{e\}$ contains at most $p$ circuits, then $q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})\geq 1/p$.
If an independence system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ is the intersection of $p$ matroids, then $q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})\geq 1/p$.
\[satz:5.18\] For an independence system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ on $E$ with objective function $v\gneqq {\ensuremath{\mathbf 0}\xspace}$, let $I_g$ be the solution returned by Algorithm and $I_o$ be a maximum weight basis. Then, $$q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) \leq \frac{v(I_g)}{v(I_o)} \leq 1.$$ Also, for every independence system there are weights $v \in
\{0,1\}^E$, such that the first inequality holds with equality.
The only attempt to improve upon this bound we are aware of involves incorporating a partial enumeration stage into the greedy algorithm see @hausmann-korte-jenkyns-1980.
Inner Matroid
=============
@milgrom-2017 proposes an alternative to direct application of the greedy algorithm. It has two parts. The first is the introduction of *a-priori* information on where the optimal basis may lie. Formally, let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subseteq
{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ be a collection of independent sets one of which is conjectured to be an optimal weight basis. ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ need not satisfy the hereditary property (so $J\subset I\in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ does not imply $J\in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$) and may exclude a basis that is in fact optimal (see Example \[ex:stab\]). Call ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ the *acceptable set*. The second part finds a matroid ‘inside’ the independence system (but not necessarily containing all of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$) and applies the greedy algorithm to find an optimal weight basis of that matroid. We describe this approach here. Given an independence system $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}),$ an acceptable set ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$, and a weight vector $v\in{{\mathbb R}_+}^E$ let $$V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},v)=\max_{S\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}}v(S) \text{ and } V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}, v) =\max_{S\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}}v(S)$$ and $$V^*_g({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},v)=\text{value of the greedy solution}.$$ Independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})$ is a matroid by previous definition involving rank quotient and Theorem if and only if $$V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v)=V_g^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v)\quad \forall v\in{{\mathbb R}_+}^E.$$
We say that the independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})$ is contained in $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$, an inner independence system, if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. If $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})$ is a matroid it is called an inner matroid.
The *approximation quality of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ with respect to the acceptable set ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$* is given by $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}){\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\min_{S \in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}\min_{S'\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}(S)}
\frac{|S'|}{|S|};$$ so this picks the element from ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ that is least well approximated by a basis of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}$. If $l_{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}$ denotes the lower rank function of $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})$ then $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})=
\min_{S \in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}
\frac{l_{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}(S)}{|S|}.$$ If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ is an inner matroid, then $r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}=l_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ and $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}) = \min_{S \in
{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}
\frac{r_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}}(S)}{|S|}
=\min_{S \in
{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}\max_{S'\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}:S'\subseteq
S}\frac{|S'|}{|S|},$$ which is the form @milgrom-2017 originally chose.
It is natural to ask when $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})=1$.
\[rho1\] If $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is a normal independence system with acceptable set ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$, then, there exists a matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ with $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})=1$ if and only if [$\mathcal I$]{} has an inner matroid containing ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\bigcup_{F\subseteq B\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}}\{F\}$.
If $({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})=1$ then ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$. For $I\subseteq J\in
{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ follows $J\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ and by hereditary property of matroid $I\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}.$
We give three examples to suggest that nothing stronger is possible.
Let $U^k_n$ denote the *uniform matroid* of all subsets of an $n$-element set of cardinality at most $k$, where clearly $0\leq k\leq n$. If we want to specify the groundset $E$ of $n$ elements explicityly, we can also write $U^k_E.$
In all cases the ground set is $E = \{1,2,3,4\}$.
- Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}= \{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{4\}, \{1,2\},\{3,4\}\}$. $(E,
{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is not a matroid as the basis exchange axiom is violated. If ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=\{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{4\}\}$, then, $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},U^1_4)=1$. This demonstrates, that the condition “${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is matroid” is too strong. However, in this case [${\mathcal O}^\dagger$]{} *is* a matroid.
- Again, let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}= \{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{4\},
\{1,2\},\{3,4\}\}$. Hence $(E,
{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is not a matroid (again). If ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=\{\{1,2\},\{3,4\}\}$, then, $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},U^1_4)=1/2$. In this case [${\mathcal O}^\dagger$]{} is not a matroid.
- Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}= \{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{4\},\{1,2\}, \{2,3\}, \{3,4\}, \{1,3\}, \{1,4\}, \{2, 4\}, \{1,2,3\}\}.$ $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is not a matroid, since $\{1,2,3\}$ and $\{3,4\}$ are bases for $E$ of different sizes. If ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=\{\{2,3\},\{3,4\}\}$ the smallest inner matroid of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ containing ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}=U^2_{\{2,3\}}$; and $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})=1.$ However ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ is not a matroid, since it lacks the basis $\{2,4\}$ that would be required by basis exchange. So requiring “${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ is a matroid” is too strong.
Usually, the intersection of all matroids containing ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ is not a matroid, therefore it is unsuitable for a notion of hull.
Clearly $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})\geq\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}}),$$ since the minimum on the right hand side is determined over a larger set.
However, $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})>\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})$ is possible, as the following example demonstrates:
Consider $E=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ and the independence system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}=2^{\{1,2,3,4\}}\cup 2^{\{3,4,5,6\}}.$ Clearly $\{1\},
\{5,6\} \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. The augmentation property would require, that $\{1,5\}$ or $\{1,6\}$ has to be independent, which is not the case. Therefore [$\mathcal I$]{} is not a matroid. Let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}= \{\{1,2,3,4\}, \{3,4,5,6\}\}$ be our benchmark set and let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}=2^{\{1,2,3,4\}}$. Now, to determine $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}) = \min_{S \in
{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}
\frac{r_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}}(S)}{|S|}$ we have to consider only the two elements of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$:
$O=\{1,2,3,4\}$
: is easy, since $r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(O)=4$;
$O=\{3,4,5,6\}$
: is as easy, since $r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(O)=2$.
Together, we obtain $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})=\frac24=\frac12.$
Now, ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ contains $O=\{4,5,6\}$ with $r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(O)=1$. Even worse $O=\{6\}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ with $r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(O)=0$ which demonstrates $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})= 0<\frac12=\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})$.
The example demonstrates, that $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})>0$ is only possible if for all $e\in\bigcup_{O\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}}O$ holds $\{e\}\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$
\[ex:twin-peaks\] Consider two disjoint sets $E_1$ and $E_2$ and integers $k_1,k_2$ such that $k_1<|E_1|<k_2<|E_2|.$ Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_1=U^{k_1}_{E_1}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2=U^{k_2}_{E_2}$. Define $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ to be the independence system on $E{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}E_1{\dot\cup}E_2$ where a set $A
\subseteq E$ is independent if and only if $A$ is an independent set in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_1$ *or* ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2$, thus ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_1\cup{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2$. Call this a ‘twin-peaks’ indendence system. Choose an $F\subseteq E$ which consists of one element from $E_1$ and $k_2$ elements from $E_2$. Now $l(F)=1$ and $r(F)=k_2$. Since larger ratios between sets in this independence system are impossible, $q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})=\frac1{k_2}$.
To determine the best matroid approximating ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ contained in [$\mathcal I$]{}, we must examine all matroids ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}'$ contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}.$
1. Suppose first that there exists $i\in E_1, j\in E_2$ such that $\{i\}, \{j\}\in {{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$. We show that the rank of ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ is 1, i.e. the largest bases of ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ are of size one. If not, there exists a set $F \in {{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ of cardinality two. By construction of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ the set $F$ must be a subset of $E_1$ or $E_2$, wlog let $F\subseteq E_1$; since $F$ and $\{j\}$ are independent sets in ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ there has to be an element in $F$ with which we could augment $\{j\}$ to be an independent set $F'$ in ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$. But $F'$ contains elements from $E_1$ and $E_2$ and therefore is not independent in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ and therefore not in ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}.$
The largest matroid of this kind contained in [$\mathcal I$]{} is the one, where all singletons are independent. Hence every independent set from [$\mathcal I$]{} is approximated by an arbitrary contained singleton and we obtain the worst case bound of $$\frac{1}{\max(k_1,k_2)}=\frac{1}{k_2}.$$
2. On the other hand, if $\operatorname{rank}{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}>1$ then we can conclude that either all independent sets of [[${\mathcal M}'$]{}]{} are contained in $E_1$ or they are contained in $E_2$ and the inclusion-wise largest matroids contained in $E_1$ and $E_2$ are ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_1$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2.$
For ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_1$ approximating sets $F\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ is only possible with the empty set which yields a quotient of $0/|F|$ and the same for ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2$ approximating sets aproximating nonempty sets $F\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_1\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ is only possible with the empty set which yields a quotient of $0/|F|.$
In summary we obtain the best approximation in the first case and can conclude $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}})=\frac{1}{k_2}=q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$$
**However,** $\rho$ can be much better if we exploit additional knowledge. As an illustration, suppose that ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}= \binom{E_2}{k_2}$, i.e., all subsets of size at most $k_2$ of $E_2$. This might be justified by a situation, where we know that the optimal solutions, that occur in our environment, have to live in $E_2$, maybe since $k_1\ll k_2$. Unsurprisingly, the matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2$ gives us the best conceivable guarantee of $1$: $$\rho\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},\binom{E_2}{k_2},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}_2\right
)=1>\frac{1}{k_2}=q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$$
@milgrom-2017 proposes that the maximum weight basis of an inner matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ be used as a solution to the problem of finding a maximum weight basis in $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$. The objective function value of this solution will be $V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal J}},v)$. @milgrom-2017 gives a bound on the quality of this solution in term of $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal J}})$.
For a given independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ and $e\in E$ define the new independence system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{e\}$ on $E\setminus \{e\}$ by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{e\}{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\{I\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\colon e\notin I\}.$
It is easy to see, that $(E\setminus\{e\},{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{e\})$ is an independence systems again. Furthermore, if $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ is a matroid, so is $(E\setminus\{e\},{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{e\})$.
Given an independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ and a set ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ the set $$W{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\{ w\in {{\mathbb R}}^E_+\colon {\ensuremath{\mathbf 1}\xspace}{^\top}w=1\} \cap\{w\in{{\mathbb R}}^E_+\colon \emptyset\neq{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\cap
{\operatorname{arg\,max}}_{I\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} w(I)\}$$ is compact.
Clearly the set $\{ w\in {{\mathbb R}}^E_+\colon {\ensuremath{\mathbf 1}\xspace}{^\top}w=1\}$ compact. Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\{w\in{{\mathbb R}}^E_+\colon \emptyset\neq{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\cap {\operatorname{arg\,max}}_{I\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} w(I)\}
&=\bigcup_{O\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}} \{w\in{{\mathbb R}_+}^E\colon O\in {\operatorname{arg\,max}}_{I\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} w(I)\},
\end{aligned}$$ where each set on the right is a closed cone. As ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is finite the right hand side is closed. Therefore $W$ is compact.
\[miltheorem\] Let $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})$ be an inner matroid and $W$ be the above defined set of non-negative and non-trivial weight vectors $v$ such that at least one member of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is a maximum weight basis of $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})$. Then, $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}) =\min_{v\in W} \frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v)}.$$
As a convenience for the reader we provide here an independent, fuller proof of the result than @milgrom-2017.
If the theorem is false, there must exist an independence system $(E,
{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$, a set ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ and an inner matroid $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})$ such that $$\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}) > \min_{v\in W} \frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v)}.\label{eq:viol}$$
Among all such counterexamples choose one where $|E|$ is minimal. Among all such counterexamples choose one, where the support of $v$ is smallest. Denote the size of the support by $\ell$.
Let $$v^*\in {\operatorname{arg\,min}}_{v \in W:\operatorname{supp}(v)\leq\ell}
\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v)}.$$ such that it is a vector with as few distinct values as possible. Choose $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\in{\operatorname{arg\,max}}_{S\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}}v^*(S),$ and $ X_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}}\in{\operatorname{arg\,max}}_{S\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}}v^*(S)$ such that $|X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\cap X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}|$ is maximal. By the minimum support assumption, $v^*_j = 0$ for all $j \not \in X_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}} \cup X_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}}$.
$v^*_j>0$ for all $j\in E\setminus X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}.$
Suppose there exists $j\in E\setminus X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ with $v^*_j=0.$ Let ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal I}'}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{j\}$, $E'=E\setminus\{j\}$, ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\setminus\{j\}$ and ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{j\}{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\{O\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\colon j\notin O \}.$ Because $j\notin X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\in {{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}}$ we have ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}}\neq\emptyset$.
For our counterexample we had: $$\min_{S\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}\frac{r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(S)}{|S|}=\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})>
\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v^*)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v^*)}.$$ Now $$\min_{S\in{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}\frac{r_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}(S)}{|S|}\geq
\min_{S\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}\frac{r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(S)}{|S|},$$ since the minimum on the left is taken over a smaller set and $r_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}(S)=r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(S)$ for all $S\in{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}}$.
On the other hand, $V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v^*)\geq V^*({{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}},v^*)$ and $V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v^*)=V^*({{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}},v^*)>0$ yield $$\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v^*)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v^*)}\geq \frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}',v^*)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}',v^*)}.$$ Together $$\min_{S\in{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}\frac{r_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}(S)}{|S|}=\rho({{\ensuremath{{\mathcal I}'}}},{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}},{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}})>
\frac{V^*({{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}},v^*)}{V^*({{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}'}}},v^*)}.$$ Therefore we obtain a counterexample with $|E'|<|E|$ in contradiction to our assumption of minimality of the counterexample.
$v^*_k=0\,\, \forall k\in X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\setminus X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$.
Suppose a $k\in X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\setminus X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ with $v^*_k>0$ exists. Consider the valuations $v^\alpha=v^*-\alpha e^k$ for $0\leq\alpha< v^*_k$ and their projection $$\hat v^\alpha = \frac{1}{\sum_{i\in E} v^\alpha_i} v^\alpha$$ onto the unit simplex. Now $$\frac{\hat v^\alpha (S)}{\hat v^\alpha(T)}=\frac{v^\alpha
(S)}{v^\alpha(T)}\quad \forall S,T:v(T)>0.$$ Since the weights on elements in $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ have not changed, while the coefficient for index $k$ decreases, $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is optimal for all $\alpha$. Therefore $\hat v^\alpha \in W.$
There exists $\epsilon>0$ such that $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ remains optimal for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ with respect to $v^\alpha$ for $0\leq \alpha\leq\epsilon$. If not, there is another solution $X'$ that is optimal in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ with respect to $v^0$. By the basis exchange property of matroids there is some $j\in X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ such that $X' = X_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}} \setminus \{k\} \cup \{j\}$. This contradicts our assumption, that $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ and $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ were chosen to have a maximal intersection.
Now, observe $v^\alpha(X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})$ and $\hat v^\alpha(X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}})/\hat v^\alpha(X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}})$ are decreasing for $\alpha$ increasing from $0$ to $\epsilon$. But this contradicts minimality of $v^*$.
Together with the previous claim we obtain:
$X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\setminus X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=\emptyset$, therefore $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\subseteq X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ and $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=E$.
For every $i\in X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ there exists an $j\in X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ such that $v^*_i=v^*_j$ and vice-versa.
Consider a valuation where $v^*_i$ is slightly decreased. If $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ and $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ do not change, then a smaller quotient for that valuation would result, which contradicts the assumption. As $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=E$ that cannot change either; so $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ has to change for arbitrary small changes to $v^*_i$, and it can change only, by dropping $i$ and picking up some new element $j\in X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\setminus X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}.$ But this requires $v^*_i=v^*_j$.
Similarly, consider a valuation, where $v^*_j$ is slightly increased. If $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ and $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ do not change, then a smaller quotient for that valuation would result, which contradicts assumption. Again, $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=E$ ensures that $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ remains optimal after these slight increases. However, it could be, that $j$ immediately enters $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ but this requires, that just as immediately some $i\in X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ exits $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$. But this requires $v^*_i=v^*_j$.
Let $\bar v=\max_{i\in E} v^*_i$ and set $$\hat v_j^{\alpha}{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\begin{cases}
\bar v + \alpha&\text{ if } v^*_j=\bar v,\\
v^*_j&\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ If $v^*$ were a multiple of the all ones vector, we would be done. Otherwise, for $\dbarv{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\max_{i:v^*_i\neq \bar v}
v^*_i$ holds $\dbarv\neq-\infty$.
Now, when $|\alpha|\leq \bar v-\dbarv$, $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ and $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ remain optimal for $V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},\hat v_j^\alpha)$ and $V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},\hat v_j^\alpha)$ respectively, since $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=E$ and $v\geq 0$ implies, that $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is best possible. Regarding the optimality of $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$, notice, that the greedy algorithm can find the optimal solution, but for $|\alpha|\leq \bar v-\dbarv$ the ordering of the elements did not change, hence $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ remains optimal. Let $$f(\alpha) {\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},\hat v_j^\alpha)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},\hat
v_j^\alpha)}.$$ By our analysis we deduce $$f(\alpha) {\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},\hat v_j^*)+\alpha|\{i\in
X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\colon \bar v=v^*_i\}|}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},\hat
v_j^\alpha)+\alpha|\{i\in
X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\colon \bar v=v^*_i\}|}
.$$ If $f'(0) < 0$, then $f(\epsilon)<f(0)=
\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v^*)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v^*)}$ (for small $\epsilon$) contrary to the assumption, that $v^*$ was chosen best possible among those with minimal $|E|$ and support of size $\ell$. For small $\epsilon$ neither $E$ nor $\operatorname{supp}(v^\epsilon)$ have changed.
If $f'(0) > 0$, then $f(-\epsilon)<f(0)=
\frac{V^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal M}},v^*)}{V^*({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},v^*)}$ (for small $\epsilon$) contrary to the assumption, that $v^*$ was chosen best possible among those with minimal $|E|$ and support of size $\ell$. For small $\epsilon$ neither $E$ nor $\operatorname{supp}(v^{-\epsilon})$ have changed.
Finally, if $f'(0) = 0$, it is straightforward to show that $f$ is a constant function on $\alpha\in[\dbarv -\bar v,\bar v -\dbarv]$, hence $f(\dbarv -\bar v)=f(0)$ but the number of distinct values of $\hat v^{\dbarv -\bar v}$ has decreased by $1$ contrary to the assumption that $v^*$ was chosen to have the minimum number of distinct values.
Since in all three cases we got a contradiction, we conclude that $v^*$ is just a multiple of the all-ones vector.
Uniqueness of $X_{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ and $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ is important for the proof. Consider a twin-peaks independence system consisting of $\{1\}$ and of $\{2,3\}$. The bases are $\{1\}$ and $\{2,3\}$. Let $2,1,1$ be the coefficients of the objective function. Optimal are both $X_1=\{1\}$ and $X_2=\{2,3\}.$
If we choose $X_2$ for the optimal solution and $\alpha$ increases from $0$ upwards then the objective function is $\alpha |X_1|$ which does not relate to $X_2$.
If we choose $X_1$ for the optimal solution and $\alpha$ decreases from $0$ downwards, then, the objective function is constantly $|X_2|$ which does not relate to $X_1$.
Theorem \[miltheorem\] about approximating an independence system by a matroid motivates the search for a matroid that yields a best approximation. To this end, @milgrom-2017 defines the following *substitutability index*: $$\label{rho}
\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}){\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}\max_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}: {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\text{ is a
matroid}}\rho({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}).$$
@milgrom-2017 gives no algorithm for determining the inner matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}'$. We describe an integer program for finding it.
Let $r$ be the rank function of the independence system $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$. We use the fact that matroids are completely characterized by their rank functions. A function $r:
2^E\mapsto {{\mathbb Z}_+}$ is the rank function of matroid $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$, with ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}=\{F\subseteq E\colon r(F)=|F|\}$ if and only if for all $X,Y\subseteq E$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{R1}\label{R1} & r(X)\leq |X|\\ \tag{R2}\label{R2} & \text{If } X\subseteq Y, \text{ then }
r(X)\leq r(Y)\\ \tag{R3}\label{R3} & r(X\cup Y)+r(X\cap Y)\leq r(X)+r(Y) \end{aligned}$$ We formulate the problem of finding the inner matroid as the problem of finding a suitable rank function, $r'(S) = r(S) - \delta_S$, with $\delta_S$, integral, must be chosen to ensure that $r'$ is a matroid rank function. Hence, $$\begin{alignedat}{2}
\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}, {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}) = \max_{\delta} \min_{S \in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}} (1- \frac{\delta_{S}}{r(S)})&\\
{\textrm{s.t.\ }}\quad 0 \leq \delta_{S} &\leq r(S)&& \forall S \subseteq E\\
[r(S)-\delta_{S}] &\leq [r(T)-\delta_{T}]&&\forall S
\subset T\subseteq E\\
[r(S \cup j \cup k) - \delta_{S \cup j \cup k}] - [r(S \cup j ) - \delta_{S \cup j}]&\leq [r(S \cup k ) - \delta_{S \cup k}] - [r(S) - \delta_{S}]\quad&&\forall j, k \not \in S \subseteq E\\
\delta_S &\text{ integral }&& \forall S \subseteq E\\
\end{alignedat}$$ Obviously, this is not an efficient mean to find in general an optimal inner matroid, since it is an integer-program which by itself is usually hard to solve and this instances involve exponential numbers of variables and of constrainst which does not make it any easier if we aim for efficiency in $|E|$. Additionally, the usually given independence oracle is of no use either.
However, if one faces an important application on a single independence system with possibly different objective functions but always, for reasons of fundamental value, the same desireable set ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$, then finding a good inner matroid could be written off as a simple mean of preprocessing.
Comparison to Greedy
====================
In this section we compare the outcome of the algorithm in @milgrom-2017 with greedy in the zero knowledge case of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}=
{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. Example \[ex:twin-peaks\] investigated a case, in which under zero knowledge the usual rank-quotient bound could not be improved. But that does not exclude the possibility that there exists an independence system $(E, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ where $\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) > q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$.
\[bound\] For every independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$, $$\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})\leq q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$$
Suppose not. Then, there is an independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ with $ \rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})>q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$ Among all such counterexamples, choose one that minimizes $|E|$ and among these, one that minimizes $|{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}|$. Then, $$\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) =\max_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}: {\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}\text{ is a
matroid}}\min_{S \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}
\frac{r_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}}(S)}{r(S)} >
\min_{F\subseteq E, r(F) > 0}\, \frac{l(F)}{r(F)}=q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$$ Suppose the maximum on the left hand side of the inequality is attained by ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ and the minimum on the right hand side by $F_0$, where $F_0$ is chosen to minimize $|F_0|$. Therefore, $$\label{*}
\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}, {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) =\min_{S \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}
\frac{r_{{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}}(S)}{r(S)} > \frac{l(F_0)}{r(F_0)}=q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}).$$ Now, the lower and upper rank of $F_0$ differ (otherwise ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ were a matroid and $q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})=1$), so let $U,L\subseteq
F_0$ be bases of $F_0$ (in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$) with $|L|=l(F_0)$ and $|U|=r(F_0)$.
$U$ and $L$ satisfy the following:
1. $U\cup L=F_0$ because $F_0$ was chosen to be of smallest cardinality.
2. $U\cap L=\emptyset$, otherwise $F'{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}(U\cup
L)\setminus (U\cap L)$ satisfies $l(F')/r(F')<l(F_0)/r(F_0)$ contradicting the choice of $F_0$.
3. $F_0=E$, otherwise the restriction of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ to $F_0$ yields a smaller counter example.
Thus, our minimal counterexample has $E = U\dot\cup
L$. Furthermore, $U$ and $L$ are bases of $E$ with $|L| < |U|$. This last inequality follows from . Therefore, every matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ has to have a rank of at most $|U| $, i.e., $m{\mathrel{\raise.095ex\hbox{:}\mkern-4.2mu=}}r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(E)\leq |U|$. As $U \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ from we see that: $$\frac{r_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}(U)}{r(U)} \geq \min_{S \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus\{\emptyset\}}
\frac{r_{{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}}(S)}{r(S)}>\frac{l(F_0)}{r(F_0)} \Rightarrow \frac{r_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}(U)}{|U|}>\frac{|L|}{|U|}$$ $$\Rightarrow r_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}(U)>|L|=l(F_0).$$
Hence, for ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ we have $|L| < m$. Let $Z$ be a basis of $L$ in ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$. By the augmentation property of matroid ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$ we can augment $Z$ into a basis $Z'$ of $E$ in ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}$. If $Z\neq \emptyset$, then $L,Z'\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ would form a smaller counterexample on the groundset $L\cup Z'$ contrary to assumption. Therefore, all elements of $L$ are dependent in ${{\ensuremath{{\mathcal M}'}}}.$ Hence, for the matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ we have that the minimum in is attained for $L$, therefore, $\frac{r_{\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}(L)}{r(L)}=\frac{0}{|L|}=0$. This contradicts the assumption that $\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}) >
q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})>0$. Therefore, no minimal example ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ with $\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})>q({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}})$ exists.
The zero knowledge assumption is weaker than necessary. If $v\geq {\ensuremath{\mathbf 0}\xspace}$, we know that a maximum weight basis must be, unsurprisingly, a basis of $E$. Thus, a more reasonable knowledge assumption is ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. Theorem \[bound\] continues to hold under the *reasonable knowledge assumption.* This is because in the proof, $L$ and $U$ were each a basis of $E$.
Suppose $v\geq {\ensuremath{\mathbf 0}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. In this case, prior information rules out some basis from being optimal. To ensure an apples with apples comparison between the greedy algorithm and the algorithm in @milgrom-2017 we must allow the greedy algorithm to make use of the information contained in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ as well. This may require modifying the greedy algorithm so much that it become an entirely different algorithm altogether. A straightforward way to do this is to apply the greedy algorithm to an independence system $(E,{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}})$ of sets contained in elements of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$. The example we describe below shows that the greedy algorithm will be dominated by Milgrom’s heuristic. Under one interpretation of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ this is not surprising. Suppose, that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}\setminus {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is the collection of sets that can never be optimal. Then, ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ would include sets that should definitely not be selected.
\[ex:stab\] Consider the stable set problem (problem to find a set of nonadjacent vertices) on a path of $9$ vertices:
(-1,0.5) rectangle (9,1.5);
=\[font=\]; //iin [ 0.5/1/1, 1.5/1/2, 2.5/1/3, 3.5/1/4, 4.5/1/5, 5.5/1/6, 6.5/1/7, 7.5/1/8, 8.5/1/9 ]{}[ at (,)(i)[i]{}; ]{}
i/in [ 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, 5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 8/9 ]{}[ (i)–(); ]{}
The underlying independence system has $E=\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9\}$ and the stable sets form the set-system ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. The maximum cardinality basis of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ is the set $\{1,3,5,7,9\}$ of cardinality $5$. An example of a small basis of $E$ would be $\{2,5,8\}$ of size $3$. For the Korte-Hausmann bound, consider the set $\{1,2,3\}$ that demonstrates $q\leq \frac12$. Suppose ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$ is the collection of stable sets $S$ of size at most $4$ with $|S\cap \{3,6,9\}|\leq 1$. Notice, $\{1,3,5,7\} \in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$.
Consider the set $\{1,2,3\}$. Assuming only subsets of elements of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$, are independent, this set has a rank quotient of $1/2$, i.e., $q({\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}) = 1/2$. Hence, the greedy algorithm applied to the independence system consisting of the elements of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$ will have a worst case bound of at most $1/2$.
The following matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}=U^1_{\{1,2\}}\oplus U^1_{\{4,5\}}\oplus
U^1_{\{7,8\}}$ is contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ since every independent set in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$ is a stable set from ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. It is straightforward to verify that $\rho^M({\ensuremath{\mathcal I}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}) = 3/4 > 1/2$. Interestingly, the largest set of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$ is not independent in the matroid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal M}}$.
This example highlights the essential difference between Milgrom’s heuristic and the greedy algorithm. The first is looking for a basis that has large overlap with each of the sets in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$. The greedy algorithm seeks a basis with a large overlap with *every* set that is contained in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}^\dagger}}$.
Discussion
==========
Our reading of [@milgrom-2017] suggests that he proposed the existence of a ‘good’ inner matroid as an explanation for the success of the greedy algorithm in some settings. He writes:
> “In practice, procedures based on greedy algorithms often perform very well.”
Our analysis shows that existence of a good inner matroid by itself is not good enough to explain the practical observation. It is possible for there to be no good inner matroid approximation, yet the greedy algorithm performs well. Further, there are examples where the inner matroid approximation will dominate that of the greedy algorithm. In our view the power of the inner matroid approximation comes from the prior knowledge encoded in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal O}}}$. The idea of incorporating prior information about the optimal solution into an optimization problem is not new. There are three approaches we are aware of: probabilistic, uncertainty sets and stability. The first encodes the prior information in terms of a probability distribution over the possible objective value coefficients.[^1] The second, assumes that the objective coefficients are drawn from some set given a-priori. Stability assumes that the optimal solution of the instance under examination does not change under perturbations to the objective function (see [@bilulinial]). Milgrom, instead, proposes that the prior information be encoded in a description of the set of possible optima.
Interestingly, it is unclear how to adapt the greedy algorithm (or indeed other heuristics) to incorporate prior information about the location of the optimal solution. We think this a useful and fruitful line of inquiry.
[^1]: This is sometimes relaxed to a class of distributions sharing common moments.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Explaining predictions made by complex machine learning models helps users understand and accept the predicted outputs with confidence. Instance-based explanation provides such help by identifying relevant instances as evidence to support a model’s prediction result. To find relevant instances, several *relevance metrics* have been proposed. In this study, we ask the following research question: “Do the metrics actually work in practice?” To address this question, we propose two sanity check criteria that valid metrics should pass, and two additional criteria to evaluate the practical utility of the metrics. All criteria are designed in terms of whether the metric can pick up instances of desirable properties that the users expect in practice. Through experiments, we obtained two insights. First, some popular relevance metrics do not pass sanity check criteria. Second, some metrics based on cosine similarity perform better than other metrics, which would be recommended choices in practice. We also analyze why some metrics are successful and why some are not. We expect our insights to help further researches such as developing better explanation methods or designing new evaluation criteria.'
author:
- |
Kazuaki Hanawa$^{1,2,\ast}$ Sho Yokoi$^{2,1,\ast}$ Satoshi Hara$^{3,\dagger}$ Kentaro Inui$^{2,1,\ast}$\
$^1$RIKEN, Japan $^2$Tohoku University, Japan $^3$Osaka University, Japan\
$^\ast$`{hanawa,yokoi,inui}@ecei.tohoku.ac.jp` $^\dagger$`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'neurips\_2020.bib'
title: 'Evaluation Criteria for Instance-based Explanation'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Explaining predictions made by complex machine learning models helps users understand and accept the predicted outputs with confidence [@Ribeiro2016; @Lundberg2017; @guidotti2018survey; @adadi2018peeking; @molnar2020interpretable]. Instance-based explanation attains this goal by showing relevant instances as evidence of the prediction made by the model. This form of explanation is particularly similar to the ways humans make decisions by referring to their prior experiences [@klein1988people; @klein1989strategies; @read1991reminds]. @cunningham2003evaluation found that, thanks to the compatibility with the humans’ decision-making process, instance-based explanation can make users more confident about the predictions made by the models.
A typical instance-based explanation approach is to raise training instances that are relevant to the prediction of a test instance [@koh2017; @khanna2019]. In this paper, we particularly focus on the methods that use a *relevance metric*, and propose evaluation criteria for such metrics.
Let $\mathcal{D} = \{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}, y_\mathrm{train}^{(i)})\}_{i=1}^N$ be a set of training instances, and ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}$ be a test input of interest whose predicted output is given by $\widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}^{} = f({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}^{})$ with a model $f$. An instance-based explanation method raises the most relevant training instance $\bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}} \in \mathcal{D}$ to the test instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, \widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}^{})$ by $\bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}} = {\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train} \in \mathcal{D}} R({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{})$ using a relevance metric $R({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}) \in \mathbb R$.
There are various relevance metrics such as *similarity* [@Caruana1999], *kernel functions* [@kim2016examples; @khanna2019], and *influence function* [@koh2017].
Note that there is another approach for instance-based explanation that uses specific models that can provide explanations by its design [@kim2014bayesian; @Plotz2018; @Chen2019]. However, we set aside these specific models and focus on generic relevance metrics because of their applicability to a wide range of problems.
**Research Question** Several studies have demonstrated the usefulness of relevance metrics for instance-based explanation [@kim2016examples; @koh2017; @khanna2019]. Our research question is whether these relevance metrics have desirable properties that the users expect in practice. In the visual explanation literature, a pioneering study by @Adebayo2018 showed that some saliency methods have undesirable properties. An important implication from their study is that quantitative evaluation of explanation methods, which, in our case, are the relevance metrics, is much more important than demonstrating a few fascinating examples. As an example, in \[fig:example\], we show some relevant instances found in CIFAR10 [@Krizhevsky09learningmultiple] using several relevance metrics. One may find from this example that most of the metrics can raise fairly reasonable instances as relevant. However, in light of @Adebayo2018, these individual examples are not helpful for the quantitative evaluation of the relevance metrics.
**Contributions** We provide a quantitative evaluation of popular relevance metrics. For this purpose, we design two types of evaluation criteria, as shown in \[tab:criteria\]. The first type of criteria includes sanity checks that every valid relevance metric should pass, similar to the study of @Adebayo2018 for evaluating the saliency methods. The second type of criteria is used to evaluate the practical utility of relevance metrics. All criteria are designed in terms of whether the metric can select instances of desirable properties that the users expect in practice.
(test) at (0, 0) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/test.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (top\_h\_l2) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/top_h_l2.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (all\_h\_l2) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/all_h_l2.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (top\_h\_cos) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/top_h_cos.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (all\_h\_cos) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/all_h_cos.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (top\_h\_dot) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/top_h_dot.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (all\_h\_dot) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/all_h_dot.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (influence\_dot) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/influence_dot.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (fisher\_dot) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/fisher_dot.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (grad\_dot) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/grad_dot.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ; (grad\_cos) [![ Relevant instances selected for the test input using several relevance metrics (a)–(j) on CIFAR10 with CNN. See \[tb:res\_overview\] and Section \[sec:metrics\] for the metrics.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](imgs/grad_cos.png "fig:"){width="0.14\linewidth"}]{}; ;
[>m[0.19]{}>m[0.14]{}>m[0.14]{}>m[0.16]{}>m[0.16]{}]{} & &\
(lr)[2-3]{} (lr)[4-5]{} & Identical Instance Test & & Top-$k$ Identical Class Test & Identical Subclass Test\
(lr)[1-5]{} Can the metric raise a training instance... & ...itself? & ...of the same class? & ...of the same class? & ...of the same subclass?\
------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------- --
(lr)[4-5]{} Abbrv. Identical Instance Test Identical Class Test
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ $\ell_2^x$
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{last}$ $\ell_2^\mathrm{last}$
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ $\ell_2^\mathrm{all}$
(lr)[1-5]{} $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ $\cos^x$
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{last}$ $\cos^\mathrm{last}$
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ $\cos^\mathrm{all}$
(lr)[1-5]{} $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ $\mathrm{dot}^x$
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{last}$ $\mathrm{dot}^\mathrm{last}$
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ $\mathrm{dot}^\mathrm{all}$
(lr)[1-5]{} Influence Function IF
Fisher Kernel FK
Grad-Dot GD
Grad-Cos GC
------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------- --
: List of the relevance metrics we consider and their sanity check results. Only five metrics passed both of the two sanity check criteria. The details of the relevance metrics, the evaluation criteria, and the evaluation procedures can be found in Sections \[sec:metrics\], \[sec:criteria\], and \[sec:results\], respectively.[]{data-label="tb:res_overview"}
Our results based on empirical evaluations with these criteria are twofold. First, some relevance metrics do not pass the sanity check criteria as shown in \[tb:res\_overview\], indicating they are not desirable for instance-based explanation. Second, some metrics based on cosine similarity perform better than other metrics and will be of recommended choices in practice. We also analyze why some metrics are successful and why some are not.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
-------------
**Notations** For vectors $\bm{a}, \bm{b} \in \mathbb{R}^p$, we denote the dot product by $\langle \bm{a}, \bm{b} \rangle := \sum_{i=1}^p a_i b_i$, the $\ell_2$ norm by $\|\bm{a}\| := \sqrt{\langle \bm{a}, \bm{a} \rangle}$, and the cosine similarity by $\cos(\bm{a}, \bm{b}) := \nicefrac{\langle \bm{a}, \bm{b} \rangle}{\|\bm{a}\| \|\bm{b}\|}$.
**Classification Problem** We consider a standard classification problem as the evaluation benchmark. The model is the conditional probability $p(y\mid {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}})$ with parameter $ {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}$. Let $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}$ be a trained parameter $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} = {\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{train}}}:= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i = 1}^{N} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}})$, where the loss function [$\ell$]{} is the cross entropy ${\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}) = -\log p(y \mid {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}})$ for an input-output pair ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}= ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}, y)$. The model classifies a test input $ {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test} $ by assigning the class with the highest probability $\widehat{y}_\mathrm{test} = {\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{y} p(y \mid {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test} ; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})$.
Relevance Metrics {#sec:metrics}
-----------------
We present an overview of the two types of relevance metrics considered in this study, *similarity metrics* and *gradient-based metrics*. See \[tb:res\_overview\] for the list of metrics and their abbreviations.
**Similarity Metrics** We consider the following popular similarity metrics with a feature map $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}})$.
- $\bm{\ell_2}$ **Metric**: $R_{\ell_2}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := - \|\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) - \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}')\|^2 $, which is a typical choice for nearest neighbor methods [@hastie2009elements; @AbuAlfeilat2019].
- **Cosine Metric**: $R_{\cos}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := \cos(\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'))$, which is commonly used in natural language processing tasks [@Mikolov2013; @Arora2017; @Conneau2017].
- **Dot Metric**: $R_\mathrm{dot}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := \langle \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') \rangle$, which is a kernel function used in kernel models such as SVM [@scholkopf2002learning; @Fan2005; @bien2011prototype].
As the feature map $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}})$, we consider (i) an identity map $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$; (ii) the last hidden layer $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{last}$, which is the latent representation of the input ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$, one layer before the output in a deep neural network; and, (iii) all hidden layers $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$, where ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all} = [{\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^{1}, {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^{2}, \ldots, {\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{last}]$ is the concatenation of all latent representations in the network. Note that the metrics with the identity map merely measure the similarity of the inputs without model information. We adopt these metrics as naive baselines to contrast with other advanced metrics that utilize the information of the models.
**Gradient-based Metrics** Gradient-based metrics use the gradient $\bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}} := \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})$ to measure the relevance. We consider the four metrics: Influence Function (IF) [@koh2017], Fisher Kernel (FK) [@khanna2019], Grad-Dot (GD) [@yeh2018representer; @Charpiat2019], and Grad-Cos (GC) [@perronnin2010large; @Charpiat2019]. See Appendix \[sec:grad\_based\_metric\] for the detail.
[2]{}
- **IF**: $R_\mathrm{IF}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := \langle \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}}, \bm{H}^{-1} \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}} \rangle$
- **FK**: $R_\mathrm{FK}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := \langle \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}}, \bm{I}^{-1} \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}} \rangle$,
- **GD**: $R_\mathrm{GD}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := \langle \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}}, \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}} \rangle$,
- **GC**: $R_\mathrm{GC}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') := \cos( \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}}, \bm{g}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'}_{\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}} )$,
where $\bm{H}$ and $\bm{I}$ are the Hessian and Fisher information matrices of the loss [$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{train}$]{}, respectively.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
**Evaluation of Metrics** Metrics between instances play an essential role in many machine learning problems. For example, the distance between instances is essential for the distance-based methods such as nearest neighbor methods [@hastie2009elements]. Another example is kernel models where the kernel function represents the relationship between two instances [@scholkopf2002learning]. There are several studies evaluating which metrics are desirable for specific tasks [@Hussain2011; @Hu2016; @Li2018; @AbuAlfeilat2019]. The goal of these studies is to find metrics that improve classification accuracy. The validity of metrics for instance-based explanation is usually left out of scope. Our goal is to evaluate the validity of relevance metrics for instance-based explanation; thus, the findings in these previous studies are not directly applicable to our goal.
**Evaluation of Relevance Metrics** One way of evaluating relevance metrics is to solve the *data cleansing problem* [@koh2017; @khanna2019; @Hara2019]. The idea is that an outlier in the training set (e.g., an instance with an incorrect label) must be highly *relevant* to the model’s prediction. If a relevance metric can find outliers included in the training set with a small false positive rate, that metric can be considered effective. However, outliers are not always effective evidence of the model’s prediction, and users may not accept the model’s prediction confidently if instances with incorrect labels are provided as evidence. Thus, our focus is on evaluation criteria for users who expect supporting evidence for model prediction rather than outliers.
Evaluation Criteria for Relevance Metrics {#sec:criteria}
=========================================
We propose four criteria for evaluating relevance metrics: the first two for sanity checks, and the other two for evaluating the practical utilities.
We take MNIST [@lecun2010mnist] as an example to explain the criteria. Here, input [$\bm{x}$]{} is an image of a handwritten digit, and output [$y$]{} is one of 10 classes (i.e., “0” to “9”).
Two Sanity Check Criteria {#sec:criteria_sanity}
-------------------------
We propose two sanity check criteria. Although the criteria may look trivial, some popular relevance metrics do not satisfy these requirements, as demonstrated in Section \[sec:results\_sanity\].
#### The First Criterion: Identical Instance Test
One of the requirements for intelligent agents is to be able to solve the same problem that has been solved already. In other words, if the test instance itself appeared during model training, then the model would give the correct answer to such an instance simply because it has been observed previously. For example, assume the model predicts “3” for input image ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}$, and a copy of the test instance $ {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}, 3)$ exists in the training set $\mathcal{D}$. In this case, the most relevant training instance for this prediction is trivially the copy of the test instance. This observation leads to our first sanity check criterion.
The most relevant instance for the prediction of a training instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}, y_\mathrm{train}^{}) \in \mathcal{D}$ with a correct prediction $\widehat{y}_\mathrm{train} = y_\mathrm{train}$ is the training instance itself: ${\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}\in \mathcal{D}} R({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}^{}_{\mathrm{train}}$.
Note that, for training instances with incorrect predictions, we do not require the identical instance to be considered as relevant. For such cases, some other instances that mislead the predictions should be raised as relevant.
#### The Second Criterion: Identical Class Test
Another requirement for intelligent agents is to appropriately generalize their knowledge to unseen problems, which is a fundamental goal of machine learning. To classify test instances to a certain class, the model needs to be trained using training instances from the same class with a certain generalization property. For example, a model can classify input image ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}$ to class $\widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}=5$ because it has seen images of “5” during training. Thus, the classification of the test instance is highly dependent on training instances of the same class. This observation leads to the second sanity check criterion.
The most relevant instance for the prediction of a test instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, \widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}^{})$ is a training instance of the same class as the given test instance. $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}= ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}, y) \in \mathcal{D}} R\bigl({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}\bigr) = (\bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}}, \bar{y}) \implies \bar{y} = \widehat{y}^{}_{\mathrm{test}}\text{.}
\label{eq:criterion2}\end{aligned}$$
Here, we do not require the test predictions to be correct unlike the identical instance test.
Two Utility Evaluation Criteria {#sec:criteria_utility}
-------------------------------
We now propose two additional evaluation criteria based on desirable properties in practice.
#### The Third Criterion: Top-$k$ Identical Class Test
The identical class test requires the most relevant instance to be of the same class as the test instance. In practice, users can be more confident about a model’s output if several instances are provided as evidence. In other words, we expect that the most relevant and a first few relevant instances will be of the same class. This observation leads to the third evaluation criterion, which is a generalization of the identical class test.
For ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, \widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}^{})$, let $\bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}^j = (\bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}}^j, \bar{y}^j)$ be a training instance with the $j$-th largest relevance score. Then, we require $\bar{y}^{j} = \widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}$ for any $j \in \{1, 2, \ldots, k\}$.
#### The Fourth Criterion: Identical Subclass Test
In the fourth criterion, we consider the classification problem with subclasses in each class. In classification problems, it is common for class labels to have hierarchical structures. A typical example is ImageNet [@Deng2010] whose image labels are taken from WordNet [@Miller1995], which provides a hierarchy of the words. In such a case, each class typically has several latent subclasses.
To derive the fourth criterion, consider the task of classifying handwritten digits to two classes, “odd” and “even”. In this task, subclasses, e.g., “3” and “7,” belong to the “odd” class, and subclasses, e.g., “2” and “8,” belong to the “even” class. Here, assume that the model classified a test instance of “7” to the “odd” class. The question is what kind of instances are expected as evidence for this output. The identical class test accepts any training instances from the “odd” class. However, from a practical perspective, the ideal instances should belong to the subclass “7” because the model classifies the test instance based on training instances whose subclass is “7”. This requirement leads to the fourth evaluation criterion below.
Let $s({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}})$ be its subclass for an instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}= ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}, y)$. Here, the most relevant instance for the prediction of a test instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{} = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, \widehat{y}_\mathrm{test}^{})$ with a correct prediction $\widehat{y}_\mathrm{test} = y_\mathrm{test}$ is the training instance of the same subclass as the test instance.[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}\in \mathcal{D}} R\bigl({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}\bigr) = \bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}} \implies s(\bar{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}) = s({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test})\text{.}
\label{eq:criterion4}\end{aligned}$$
Note that the identical subclass test depends on whether the model has obtained internal representations that can distinguish between subclasses. All datasets and models that we used in our experiments are considered to satisfy this condition. For more details, see Appendix \[sec:confirmation\_subclass\].
Evaluation Results {#sec:results}
==================
Here, we examine the validity of the relevance metrics based on the proposed criteria.[^2] For this evaluation, we used two image datasets (MNIST [@lecun2010mnist], CIFAR10 [@Krizhevsky09learningmultiple]) and two text datasets (TREC [@Li2002], Customer Feedback (CF) [@Liu2017]). As benchmarks, we employed logistic regression and deep neural networks trained on these datasets. The details of the datasets, models, and computing infrastructure we used are given in Appendix \[sec:data\_and\_model\].
**Procedure** Our experimental procedure for each evaluation criterion is as follows.
1. Train models using a subset of the training instances.[^3] Then, randomly sample $500$ test instances from the training set or test set depending on the evaluation criterion.
2. For each test instance, compute the relevance score with all the instances used for training. Then, compute the success rate, which is the ratio of test instances that passed the evaluation criterion.
We repeated this procedure 10 times and report the average success rate.
In this section, we mainly present the results for CIFAR10 with CNN, and CF with Bi-LSTM. The other results were similar, and can be found in Appendix \[sec:all\_results\].
**Summary of the Results** We summarize the main results prior to discussing individual result.
- Only five metrics $\ell_2^\mathrm{last}$, $\ell_2^\mathrm{all}$, $\cos^\mathrm{last}$, $\cos^\mathrm{all}$, and GC passed the sanity checks. The results indicate that the other metrics are inappropriate for instance-based explanation.
- Two cosine-based metrics, $\cos^\mathrm{all}$ and GC, outperformed the other metrics; thus, they would be the recommended choices in practice.
In Section \[sec:analyze\], we analyze why some metrics are successful and why some are not.
Sanity Checks {#sec:results_sanity}
-------------
We first present the results for the sanity checks. For the identical instance test, we sampled $500$ instances with correct predictions from the training set as test instances. For the identical class test, we sampled $500$ instances from the test set as test instances.
\[fig:sanity\_checks\] shows the success rates for the identical instance test and the identical class test. To determine whether the metrics passed the sanity checks or not, we adopted 0.5 as a threshold for the success rate. If a metric passed the threshold for both tests on all the datasets, we considered the metric has passed the sanity checks. Note that 0.5 is a quite loose condition and much higher success rates would be required in practice. Therefore, it would be reasonable to consider metrics that failed to pass this threshold as impractical.
Below, we summarize three observations (see \[tb:res\_overview\] also).
- Five metrics, $\ell_2^\mathrm{last}$, $\ell_2^\mathrm{all}$, $\cos^\mathrm{last}$, $\cos^\mathrm{all}$, and GC, passed both the identical instance test and the identical class test on all the datasets. The other metrics failed to pass at least one of the tests.
- The dot metrics and the gradient-based metrics, except for GC, failed the identical instance test. These metrics could not consider the training instance identical to the test instance as relevant. Note that, the $\ell_2$ and cosine metrics can trivially pass the identical instance test by their definition.
- The metrics with the identity feature map $\ell_2^x$, $\cos^x$, and $\mathrm{dot}^x$ failed the identical class test. Remind that we adopted these metrics without model information as naive baselines. As expected, these metrics had limited capabilities in practice.
Utility Evaluations {#sec:results_utility}
-------------------
We examine the five metrics that passed the sanity checks using the two additional utility evaluation criteria. For the top-$k$ identical class test, we sampled $500$ instances from the test set as test instances. For the identical subclass test, we used modified datasets: we split the dataset into two classes by randomly assigning existing classes to one of the two classes “A” and “B”. The new classes “A” and “B” now contain the original data classes as subclasses, which can be used for the identical subclass test. We then sampled $500$ instances with correct predictions from the test set as test instances.
\[fig:utility\_evaluations\] shows the success rates for the top-10 identical class test and the identical subclass test. There are two observations. First, GC outperformed the other metrics on the top-10 identical class test. Note that, a similar trend was observed also on the other datasets and the models (see Appendix \[sec:all\_results\]). Second, GC and $\cos^\mathrm{all}$ performed well on the identical subclass test. The results on the other datasets indicated that GC performed particularly well on the text datasets, while $\cos^\mathrm{all}$ performed well on the image datasets (see Appendix \[sec:all\_results\]).
To conclude, the results on both sanity checks and utility evaluations indicate that only GC passed all the tests with high success rates, which would be a recommended choice for instance-based explanation. Note that $\cos^\mathrm{all}$ would also be a reasonable choice in practice depending on the application.
Why some metrics are successful and why some are not? {#sec:analyze}
=====================================================
We observed that the dot metrics and the popular gradient-based metrics, IF, FK, and GD, were not successful, while GC was. Here, we analyze why some metrics failed and why GC performed well. In Appendix \[sec:repair\], we also discuss a way to *repair* IF and FK to improve their performances based on the findings in this section.
#### Failure of the Dot Metrics and Gradient-based Metrics
To understand the failure, we reformulate IF, FK, and GD as dot metrics of the form $R_\mathrm{dot}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}) = \langle \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}) \rangle$ so that the following discussion to hold true for any metrics in this form. It is easy to see that IF, FK, and GD can be expressed in this form by defining the feature maps by $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = \bm{H}^{-1/2} g({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})$, $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = \bm{I}^{-1/2} g({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})$, and $\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}) = g({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})$, respectively.[^4]
Given a criterion, let ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}$ be a desirable instance for a test instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}^{}_{\mathrm{test}}$. The failures of the dot metrics indicate the existence of an undesirable instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(j)}$ such that $\langle \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}) \rangle < \langle \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(j)}) \rangle$. The following sufficient condition for ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(j)}$ is useful to understand the failure. $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}) \rVert
<
\lVert \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(j)}) \rVert \cos(\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(j)}))
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ The condition implies that any instance with an extremely large norm and cosine slightly larger than zero can be the candidate of ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(j)}$. In our experiments, we observed that the condition on the norm is especially crucial. Indeed, as we can see in \[fig:norms\], even though instances with extremely large norms were scarce, only such extreme instances were selected as relevant instances by IF, FK, and GD. That is, these metrics tend to consider such extreme instances as relevant ones. By contrast, GC was not attracted by large norms because it completely cancels out the norm through normalization.
\[fig:example\_common\] shows some training instances frequently found to be relevant in the identical instance test on CIFAR10 with CNN. When using IF, FK, and GD, these training instances were frequently selected as relevant with several test instances regardless of their classes, simply because the training instances had large norms. In these metrics, the term $\cos(\phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}), \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}))$ seems to have only negligible effects. GC was the only exception: the instances with small norms were selected as relevant with test instances of the same class only.
(rect) at (0,0) \[name=train,anchor=west,draw,fill=blue,fill opacity=0.4,minimum width=0.8,minimum height=0.2\] ; ; (rect) \[name=select,anchor=west,right=2.8 of train,draw,postaction=[pattern=north east lines]{},minimum width=0.8,minimum height=0.2\] ; ;
\
(-0.8,2.7) rectangle (4.23,2.3); (4.23,2.7) rectangle (5.9,2.3); (6.0,2.7) rectangle (11.03,2.3); (11.03,2.7) rectangle (12.7,2.3); (-0.8,-0.8) rectangle (4.23,-1.2); (4.23,-0.8) rectangle (5.9,-1.2); (6.0,-0.8) rectangle (11.03,-1.2); (11.03,-0.8) rectangle (12.7,-1.2);
(5.95,2.7) – (5.95,-4.15);
(if\_test\_1) at (0, 0) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/if_test_00.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (if\_test\_2) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/if_test_01.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (if\_test\_3) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/if_test_02.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (if\_train) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/if_train.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{};
(fk\_test\_1) at (6.8, 0) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/fk_test_00.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (fk\_test\_2) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/fk_test_01.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (fk\_test\_3) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/fk_test_02.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (fk\_train) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/fk_train.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{};
(gd\_test\_1) at (0, -3.5) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gd_test_00.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (gd\_test\_2) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gd_test_03.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (gd\_test\_3) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gd_test_04.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (gd\_train) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gd_train.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{};
(gc\_test\_1) at (6.8, -3.5) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gc_test_00.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (gc\_test\_2) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gc_test_01.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (gc\_test\_3) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gc_test_02.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{}; (gc\_train) [![ Examples of the training instances frequently found to be relevant with multiple test instances on CIFAR10 with CNN, the cosine between them, and the norm of the training instances. []{data-label="fig:example_common"}](imgs/gc_train.png "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth"}]{};
; ; ;
; ; ; ;
(if\_cos) [$\cos({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train})$]{}; (if\_norm) [$\| \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}) \|$]{};
(if\_left1) ; (if\_right1) ; (if\_left1) – (if\_right1); (if\_left2) ; (if\_right2) ; (if\_left2) – (if\_right2);
; ; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ; ;
(fk\_cos) [$\cos({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train})$]{}; (fk\_norm) [$\| \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}) \|$]{};
(fk\_left1) ; (fk\_right1) ; (fk\_left1) – (fk\_right1); (fk\_left2) ; (fk\_right2) ; (fk\_left2) – (fk\_right2);
; ; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ; ;
(gd\_cos) [$\cos({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train})$]{}; (gd\_norm) [$\| \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}) \|$]{};
(gd\_left1) ; (gd\_right1) ; (gd\_left1) – (gd\_right1); (gd\_left2) ; (gd\_right2) ; (gd\_left2) – (gd\_right2);
; ; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ; ;
(gc\_cos) [$\cos({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train})$]{}; (gc\_norm) [$\| \phi({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}) \|$]{};
(gc\_left1) ; (gc\_right1) ; (gc\_left1) – (gc\_right1); (gc\_left2) ; (gc\_right2) ; (gc\_left2) – (gc\_right2);
; ; ; ;
**Success of GC** We now analyze why GC performed well in particular in the identical class test. To simplify the discussion, we consider linear logistic regression whose conditional distribution $p(y \mid {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}})$ is given by the $y$-th entry of $\sigma(W {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}})$, where $\sigma$ is the softmax function, ${\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}= W \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times d}$, and $C$ and $d$ are the number of classes and the dimensionality of ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$, respectively. With some algebra, we obtain $R_\mathrm{GC}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}') = \cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'}) \cos({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}')$ for ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}= ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}, y)$ and ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}' = ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}', y')$, where $\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}} = \sigma(W {\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}) - \bm{e}_y$ is the *residual* for the prediction on ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}$ and $\bm{e}_y$ is a vector whose $y$-th entry is one and zero otherwise. Here, the term $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'})$ plays an essential role in GC. From the definition, $r^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_c \le 0$ if $c = y$ and $r^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}_c \ge 0$ otherwise. Thus, $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'}) \ge 0$ always holds true when $y = y'$, while $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'})$ can be negative for $y \neq y'$. Hence, the chance of $R_\mathrm{GC}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}')$ being positive can be larger for the instances from the same class compared to the ones from a different class.
[r]{}\[0pt\][0.53]{}
(rect) at (-0.2,0) \[name=same,anchor=west,draw,fill=red,fill opacity=0.6,minimum width=0.8,minimum height=0.2\] ; ; (rect) \[name=different,anchor=west,right=1.8 of train,fill=white,draw=black,minimum width=0.8,minimum height=0.2\] ; ;
\
\[fig:cos\] shows that $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}'})$ is essential also for deep neural networks. Here, for each test instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}$ on CIFAR10 with CNN, we randomly sampled two training instances ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}$, one with the same class and the other with a different class, and computed $R_\mathrm{GC}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{})$ and $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}})$.
We also note that $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}})$ alone was not helpful for the identical subclass test, whose success rate was around the chance level. We thus conjecture that, while $\cos(\bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}}, \bm{r}^{{\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}})$ is particularly helpful for the identical class test, the use of the entire gradient is still essential for GC to meet our evaluation criteria.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We proposed four criteria to evaluate relevance metrics for instance-based explanation: two criteria for sanity checks, and the other two criteria for evaluating the practical utilities of relevance metrics. Our quantitative evaluations based on these criteria revealed that some popular relevance metrics do not even meet the minimal requirements for the instance-based explanation; thus, the use of such metrics would not be appropriate for instance-based explanation. The results also suggest, as @Adebayo2018 have demonstrated for saliency methods, that quantitative evaluation is essential for instance-based explanation. Further investigation of evaluation criteria that meet the practical requirements remain as an important future direction. Designing better relevance metrics based on the evaluation criteria would be essential as well.
Broader Impact {#broader-impact .unnumbered}
==============
Interpretable machine learning and explainable AI technologies are studied extensively in recent years [@Ribeiro2016; @Lundberg2017; @guidotti2018survey; @adadi2018peeking; @molnar2020interpretable]. Researchers aim to realize a society where humans and machine learning systems can coexist better, by making models less black-box and promoting users’ trust to the systems. However, recent studies [@Adebayo2018; @rudin2019stop; @aivodji2019fairwashing] revealed some negative aspects of these researches, e.g., some of the methods can mislead the users by providing wrong explanations. This paper follows these lines of researches, and we tried to reveal possible negative aspects of current instance-based explanation methods.
As a positive aspect, we expect our study to prevent people from using inappropriate instance-based explanation methods. This will save people from making wrong decisions mislead by wrong explanations and subsequent various damages, such as health problems and economic losses.
A possible downside, on the other hand, is that our study might discourage researchers working on completely new idea for relevance metrics. Some novel idea might be dismissed just because they failed to pass our sanity checks. We would like to remind that this is not what we desire. The relevance metrics can be used for applications other than instance-based explanation as well. Data cleansing that we mentioned in Section \[sec:related\] is one such application. We expect that our evaluation criteria to be used appropriately in the context of instance-based explanation, but not for rejecting novel ideas regardless of the contexts.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dr. Ryo Karakida and Dr. Takanori Maehara for their helpful advice. We also thank Overfit Summer Seminar[^5] for an opportunity that inspired this research. We also thank our laboratory members for their helpful comments. Customer Feedback Analysis dataset is obtained through personal communication with Dr. Alberto Poncelas. Satoshi Hara is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP20K19860.
Gradient-based Metrics {#sec:grad_based_metric}
======================
In gradient-based metrics, we consider a model with parameter ${\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}$, its loss ${\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}})$, and its gradient $\nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}; {\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}})$ to measure relevance, where ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}= ({\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}, y)$ is an input-output pair.
#### Influence Function [@koh2017]
@koh2017 proposed to measure relevance according to “how largely the test loss will increase if the training instance is omitted from the training set.” Here, the model parameter trained using all of the training set is denoted by $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}$, and the parameter trained using all of the training set except the $i$-th instance ${\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}$ is denoted by $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}_{-i}$. The relevance metric proposed by @koh2017 is then defined as the difference between the test loss under parameters $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}$ and $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}_{-i}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
R_\mathrm{IF}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}) := {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}_{-i}) - {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}) .\end{aligned}$$ Here, a greater value indicates that the loss on the test instance increases drastically by removing the $i$-th training instance from the training set. Thus, the $i$-th training instance is essential relative to predicting the test instance; therefore, it is highly relevant.
In practice, the following approximation is used to avoid computing $\widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}_{-i}$ explicitly. $$\begin{aligned}
R_\mathrm{IF}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}) \approx \langle \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}), \bm{H}^{-1} \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})) \rangle ,
\label{eq:influence_function}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{H}$ is the Hessian matrix of the loss [$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{train}$]{}.
#### Fisher Kernel [@khanna2019]
@khanna2019 proposed to measure the relevance of instances using the Fisher kernel as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
R_\mathrm{FK}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}) := \langle \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}), \bm{I}^{-1} \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} {\ensuremath{\ell}}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{(i)}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}) \rangle ,
\label{eq:fisher_kernel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{I}$ is the Fisher information matrix of the loss [$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{train}$]{}.
#### Grad-Dot, Grad-Cos [@perronnin2010large; @yeh2018representer; @Charpiat2019]
@Charpiat2019 proposed to measure relevance according to “how largely the loss will decrease when a small update is added to the model using the training instance.” This can be computed as the dot product of the loss gradients, which we refer to as Grad-Dot. $$\begin{aligned}
R_\mathrm{GD}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}) := \langle \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} \ell({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}), \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} \ell({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}) \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Note that a similar metric is studied by @yeh2018representer as the *representer point value*.
As a modification of Grad-Dot, @Charpiat2019 also proposed the following cosine version, which we refer to as Grad-Cos. $$\begin{aligned}
R_\mathrm{GC}({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}, {\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}) := \cos(\nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} \ell({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{test}^{}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}}), \nabla_{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}} \ell({\ensuremath{\bm{z}}}_\mathrm{train}^{}; \widehat{{\ensuremath{ \bm{ \theta }}}})).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the use of the cosine between the gradients is also proposed by @perronnin2010large.
Experimental Setup {#sec:data_and_model}
==================
Datasets and Models
-------------------
#### MNIST [@lecun2010mnist]
The MNIST dataset is used for handwritten digit image classification tasks. Here, input ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ is an image of a handwritten digit, and the output ${\ensuremath{y}}$ consists of 10 classes (“0” to “9”). We adopted logistic regression and a CNN as the classification models. The CNN has six convolutional layers, and max-pooling layers for each two convolutional layers. The features obtained by these layers are fed into the global average pooling layer followed by a single linear layer. The number of the output channels of all the convolutional layers is set to 16. We trained the models using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001. We used randomly sampled 5,500 training instances to train the models.
#### CIFAR10 [@Krizhevsky09learningmultiple]
The CIFAR10 dataset is used for object recognition tasks. Here, input ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ is an image containing a certain object, and output ${\ensuremath{y}}$ consists of 10 classes, e.g., “bird” or “airplane.” Note that we used the same models as for the MNIST dataset. In addition, we adopted MobileNetV2 [@Sandler2018] as a model with a higher performance than the previous model. We trained the models using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001. In the experiments, we first pre-trained the models using all the training instances of CIFAR10, and then trained the models using randomly sampled 5,000 training instances. Without the pre-training, the classification performance of the models dropped significantly.
Note that we did not examine IF and FK on MobileNetV2 because the matrix inverse in these metrics required too much time to calculate even with the conjugate gradient approximation proposed by @koh2017.
#### TREC [@Li2002]
The TREC dataset is used for question classification tasks. Here, input ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ is a question sentence, and output ${\ensuremath{y}}$ is a question category consisting of six classes, e.g., “LOC” and “NUM.” We used bag-of-words logistic regression and a two-layer Bi-LSTM as the classification models. In the Bi-LSTM, the last state is fed into one linear layer. The word embedding dimension is set to 16, and the dimension of the LSTM is set to 16 also. We trained the models using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001. We used randomly sampled 2,726 training instances to train the models.
#### Customer Feedback (CF) [@Liu2017]
The Customer Feedback (CF) dataset is used for sentence classification tasks comprising multiple languages. Here, input ${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$ is a sentence, and output ${\ensuremath{y}}$ is a category comprising six classes, e.g., “comment” and “request.” We used the same models as TREC. We trained the models using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001. We used randomly sampled 4,088 training instances to train the models.
Computing Infrastructure
------------------------
In our experiments, training of the models was run on a NVIDIA GTX 1080 GPU with Intel Xeon Silver 4112 CPU and 64GB RAM. Testing and computing relevance metrics were run on Xeon E5-2680 v2 CPU with 256GB RAM.
Repairing Gradient-based Metrics {#sec:repair}
================================
As described in Section \[sec:analyze\], we found that training instances with extremely large norms were selected as relevant by IF, FK, and GD. Thus, to repair these metrics, we need to design metrics that can ignore instances with large norms. A simple yet effective way of repairing the metrics is to use $\ell_2$ or cosine instead of the dot product. As \[fig:sanity\_checks\] shows, the $\ell_2$ and cosine metrics performed better than the dot metrics. Indeed, the $\ell_2$ metrics do not favor instances with large norms that lead to large $\ell_2$-distance, and, through normalization, the cosine metrics completely ignore the effect of the norms
We name the repaired metrics of IF, FK, and GD based on the $\ell_2$ metric as $\ell_2^\mathrm{IF}$, $\ell_2^\mathrm{FK}$, and $\ell_2^\mathrm{GD}$, respectively, and the repaired metrics based on the cosine metric as $\cos^\mathrm{IF}$ and $\cos^\mathrm{FK}$, and $\cos^\mathrm{GD}$, respectively[^6]. We observed that these repaired metrics attained higher success rates on several evaluation criteria. The details of the results can be found in Appendix \[sec:all\_results\].
Do the models capture subclasses? {#sec:confirmation_subclass}
=================================
[c]{}
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/mnist_cnn_0.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/mnist_cnn_1.pdf){width="\hsize"}
\
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/cifar10_mobilenet_0.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/cifar10_mobilenet_1.pdf){width="\hsize"}
\
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/cifar10_cnn_0.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/cifar10_cnn_1.pdf){width="\hsize"}
\
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/trec_lstm_0.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/trec_lstm_1.pdf){width="\hsize"}
\
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/cf_lstm_0.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![visualization of ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ in each dataset and model using UMAP.[]{data-label="fig:vis_subclass"}](tsne_fig/cf_lstm_1.pdf){width="\hsize"}
\
The identical subclass test requires the model to obtain internal representations that can distinguish subclasses. Here, we confirm that this condition is satisfied for all the datasets and models we used in the experiments. We consider that the model captures the subclasses if the latent representation ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ has cluster structures. \[fig:vis\_subclass\] visualizes ${\ensuremath{\bm{h}}}^\mathrm{all}$ for each dataset and model using UMAP [@lel2018umap]. The figures show that the instances from different subclasses are not mixed completely random. MNIST and TREC have relatively clear cluster structures, while CIFAR10 and CF have vague clusters without explicit boundaries. These figures imply that the models capture subclases (although it may not be perfect).
Complete Evaluation Results {#sec:all_results}
===========================
We show the complete results of the identical instance test in \[tb:res\_req1\], the identical class test in \[tb:res\_req2\], the top-10 identical class test in \[tb:res\_req2\_top10\], the identical subclass test in \[tb:res\_req3\], and the top-10 identical subclass test in \[tb:res\_req3\_top10\]. The results we present here are consistent with our observations in Section \[sec:results\].
- Five metrics, $\ell_2^\mathrm{last}$, $\ell_2^\mathrm{all}$, $\cos^\mathrm{last}$, $\cos^\mathrm{all}$, and GC, passed both the identical instance test and the identical class test on all the datasets. The other metrics failed to pass at least one of the tests.
- The dot metrics and the gradient-based metrics, except for GC, failed the identical instance test.
- The metrics with the identity feature map $\ell_2^x$, $\cos^x$, and $\mathrm{dot}^x$ failed the identical class test.
- GC outperformed the other metrics on the top-10 identical class test.
- GC and $\cos^\mathrm{all}$ performed well on the identical subclass test, where GC performed particularly well on the text datasets, while $\cos^\mathrm{all}$ performed well on the image datasets.
[^1]: We require correct predictions in this test because the subclass does not match for incorrect cases.
[^2]: Our code is: <https://github.com/k-hanawa/criteria_for_instance_based_explanation>
[^3]: We randomly sampled 10% of MNIST and CIFAR10, and 50% of TREC and CF.
[^4]: We can make the Hessian matrix $\bm{H}$ to be positive definite using a regularization [@koh2017].
[^5]: <https://sites.google.com/view/mimaizumi/event/mlcamp2018>
[^6]: Note that $\cos^\mathrm{GD}$ is the same as GC.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Several sources of direct photons are known to contribute to the total photon yield in high energy nuclear collisions. All of these photons carry characteristic and important information on the initial nuclei or the hot and dense fireball created in the collision. We investigate the possibility to separate photons from back-scattering of high momentum quarks off quark gluon plasma from other sources. Their unique kinematics can be utilized through high energy jet triggers on the away-side. We discuss the basic idea and estimate the feasibility of such a measurement at RHIC and LHC.'
address:
- 'Cyclotron Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA'
- 'Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata - 700064, India'
author:
- 'Rainer J. Fries'
- 'S. De'
- 'D. K. Srivastava'
title: 'Jet-Tagged Back-Scattering Photons For Quark Gluon Plasma Tomography'
---
Quark Gluon Plasma ,Electromagnetic Probes
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Photons and dileptons hold great promise as penetrating probes of hot nuclear matter. Their mean free path is short compared to the typical size of the fireball created in high energy nuclear collisions. Hence, once they are created their rescattering can be neglected and they encode valuable information on their creation process. Different sources of direct photons have been discussed in the literature over the years. (i) [*Hard photons from initial scatterings of partons in the nuclear wave functions*]{}. They can be used to extract information about the modification of nucleon wave functions in large nuclei [@Owens:1986mp]. (ii) [*Photons fragmenting off jets created in initial hard collisions*]{}. Together with the previous source these photons are already present in elementary $p+p$ collisions. Fragmentation photons, besides being sensitive to the same wave function effects as hard initial photons can be suppressed through energy loss of the partons before the photon is radiated off [@Owens:1986mp]. Hard initial and fragmentation photons can in principle be distinguished experimentally through isolation cuts which check for hadronic activity in a cone around the photon. (iii) [*Pre-equilibrium photons*]{}. This poorly understood photon source is active during the first fm/$c$ of a nuclear collision when partons are reinteracting but are not thermalized [@Bass:2002pm]. (iv) [*Thermal QGP radiation*]{}. Thermal emission from an equilibrated quark gluon plasma (QGP) is one of the signature measurements in heavy ion physics [@Kapusta:1991qp; @Baier:1991em; @Aurenche:1998nw; @Arnold:2001ms], as it could serve as proof of deconfinement and as a thermometer for the matter created [@Adare:2008ab]. Thermal QGP radiation might however not be easily distinguishable from other thermal emission. (v) [*Thermal radiation from hot hadronic gas*]{}. Hadronic emission is an important contribution to the overall yield at low photon momenta [@Kapusta:1991qp]. Albeit at lower temperature than the QGP photons the rate does not vary much across the pseudo-critical temperature $T_c$ for deconfinement. (vi) [*Photons from the hadronization processes*]{}. Photons from hadronization of QGP — while undoubtedly present [@ChenFries:2012] — have largely been ignored in the literature so far due to the intrinsically non-perturbative nature of the process. (vii) [*Photons from jets interacting with the medium*]{}. It has been argued that jet energy loss in QGP and in hot hadronic matter should be accompanied by photon back-scattering [@Fries:2002kt; @Fries:2005zh] and bremsstrahlung [@Zakharov:2004bi]. Back-scattering photons are sensitive to the mean free path of fast partons in QGP and encode information about parton energy loss that is complementary to hadronic measurements. In these proceedings we propose a novel way to measure back-scattering photons from fast partons in QGP.
Back-Scattering Photons {#sec:bs}
=======================
It is well known in electrodynamics that elastic photon-electron scattering exhibits a sharp peak in backward direction. This Compton back-scattering phenomenon has been used extensively to create collimated beams of high energy photons by scattering an intense laser pulse ($E_\gamma \sim 1$ eV) off a beam of high energy electrons ($E_{e^{-}} \sim 1$ – 100 GeV) [@Milburn:1962jv; @Arutyuninan:1963aa]. In quantum chromodynamics the mixed process $q + g \to q +\gamma$ involves the same type of diagrams at leading order and exhibits the same Compton back-scattering peak. A similar peak can be observed for the annihilation process $q+\bar q \to \gamma+ g$. Hence we expect a significant yield of high energy photons from quarks ($E_q \sim 1$ – 100 GeV) scattering off thermal gluons ($E_g \sim 200$ MeV) or thermal antiquarks.
In [@Fries:2002kt] some of us have estimated the rate of high energy Compton back-scattering and annihilation photons from jets interacting with the medium to be $$\label{eq:1}
E_\gamma \frac{dN}{d^4x d^3p_\gamma} = \frac{\alpha\alpha_s}{4\pi^2}
\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} \left(\frac{e_f}{e}\right)^2
\left[ f_q(\mathbf{p}_\gamma,x) + f_{\bar q}(\mathbf{p}_\gamma,x) \right]
T^2 \left[ \ln \frac{3E_\gamma }{\alpha_s\pi T} + C\right]$$ where $C=-1.916$. $\alpha$ and $\alpha_s$ are the electromagnetic and strong coupling constant, $T$ is the local temperature at $x$, $f_q$ is the phase space distribution of fast quarks interacting with the medium and $e_f$ is the electric charge of a quark with the index $f$ running over all active quark flavors. This rate has subsequently also been calculated for virtual photons [@Srivastava:2002ic; @Turbide:2006mc].
We note a few interesting facts about the back-scattering rate. First, it is parametrically proportional to $T^2 \ln 1/T$ and hence very sensitive to the medium temperature. Secondly, it is proportional to the quark distribution $f_q$ as a function of momentum, position and time. Hence back-scattering photons have a power-law like spectrum that can make a sizable contribution even at intermediate and large photon transverse momentum $P_T$. Nevertheless the normalization of this spectrum is still sensitive to the temperature of the medium. This leads to the interesting prospect of finding thermal signatures at large momenta. Furthermore, because the quark distributions evolve with time the back-scattering spectra are sensitive to quark energy loss.
In Refs. [@Fries:2002kt; @Fries:2005zh; @Turbide:2007mi] it has been noted that jet-medium photons can make a sizable contribution to the total photon yield both at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). They shine particularly bright compared to other sources in the intermediate $P_T$ range around 4 GeV/$c$. This comes from the power-law behavior which lifts them above purely thermal sources at those momenta, while on the other hand there is an additional $\sim 1/P_T$ factor [@Fries:2002kt] that makes the power-law slightly softer than the initial hard photon spectrum which dominates at very large $P_T$. However, it is very difficult to experimentally confirm the presence of jet-medium photons, let alone produce a quantitative measurement, by analyzing singe inclusive photon spectra alone. Subsequently it was proposed by some of us to use the azimuthal asymmetry $v_2$ around the beam axis as a signature [@Turbide:2005bz]. This is based on the observation that jet-medium photons should have negative $v_2$ unlike any of the other photon sources whose $v_2$ is positive or vanishing [@Chatterjee:2005de]. However, the small absolute size of direct photon $v_2$ at intermediate and large momenta has made this impossible with currently available data [@Turbide:2007mi].
Here we propose a novel way to experimentally confirm the existence of jet-medium photons and maybe extract quantitative information from them. The basic idea starts with a classification of hadron-photon or jet-photon correlations inherent in the sources discussed above. It is clear that only initial hard photons, fragmentation photons and jet-medium photons have a significant back-to-back correlation with hadrons or jets. We will focus on jets in the following which lead to cleaner signals and are now routinely measured at LHC and RHIC. Thus by measuring photons on the opposite side of a trigger jet one can eliminate most competing photon sources right away. Next we note that fragmentation photons are concentrated at low $z$ ($\lesssim 0.3$) where $z=E_\gamma/E_{\mathrm{parent\,\, jet}}$ [@Owens:1986mp; @Bourhis:2000gs] . Hence background from this source can be suppressed by choosing a kinematics which features large $E_\gamma$, of the order of the trigger jet energy.
At leading order (LO) kinematics the transverse momenta of the trigger jet and an associated hard initial photon balance perfectly,$P_{T,\gamma} =
P_{T,{\mathrm{trigger}}}$. Without energy loss of the partons before radiation the back-scattering kinematics would ensure the same momentum correlation with the trigger for back-scattering photons, potentially burying them under the hard direct photon peak. However, if the leading parton of the associated jet suffers from energy loss, the back-scattering photon $P_T$ will be shifted away from the trigger $P_T$, typically a few GeV below $P_{T,{\mathrm{trigger}}}$. This shift by itself, if measured, carries valuable information about parton energy loss. At next-to-leading order (NLO) kinematics the back-to-back correlation and the strong momentum correlations get washed out but residual signals remain.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section we present the results of some preliminary studies of the signal (back-scattering photons) and the background (initial hard and fragmentation photons). We use the JETPHOX code [@Catani:2002ny; @Aurenche:2006vj] for jet-photon and jet-hadron yields at LO and NLO to calculate the underlying hard process and the background from initial hard and fragmentation photons. The trigger jets were fixed in trigger windows around midrapidity, then the photon spectra were calculated at midrapidity in sectors of $30^\circ$ width around the away-side. We use the PPM code [@Rodriguez:2010di; @Fries:2010jd] to propagate leading jet partons of the away-side jet inside a longitudinally boost-invariant fireball with a $L^2$-dependent energy loss (sLPM in [@Rodriguez:2010di]) and to convert them to photons according to Eq. (\[eq:1\]). The energy loss parameter in PPM is fixed to describe measured single inclusive hadron spectra.
Fig. \[fig:1\] shows the results for central Au+Au collisions at RHIC ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200 $ GeV) for a jet trigger window of $E_T = 30$-$35$ GeV for LO kinematics. Direct hard photons exhibit a distinctive peak inside the trigger window while fragmentation photons slowly rise from the trigger window towards lower $z$. Back-scattering photons without energy loss prior to the Compton or annihilation process are strongly correlated with the trigger window as well. However, if energy loss is switched on they show a distinct shoulder toward smaller momenta due to energy loss of partons before the Compton or annihilation process. We also show the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ which is approximated by the ratio of back-scattering photons (signal) over sum of back-scattering (signal) and hard initial and fragmentation (background) photons. A signal can be seen across the trigger window. A characteristic peak develops once energy loss is switched on. Fig. \[fig:2\] shows the same for central Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76 $ TeV) for a jet trigger window of $E_T = 100$-$105$ GeV. Initial results for backgrounds at NLO accuracy show a decorrelation between trigger and and hard initial photon momentum as expected. This might decrease the signal-to-background by up to a factor two.
![\[fig:1\] Left panel: photon spectra associated with trigger jets from 30-35 GeV in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200 $ GeV. The yield of back-scattering photons with (red solid line) and without (black dashed line) energy loss is compared to the background of initial hard photons and fragmentation photons (blue squares). Right panel: the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ with (red solid line) and without (black dashed line) taking energy loss of leading partons into account.](phot_trig_spec_RHIC_30-35_LO "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![\[fig:1\] Left panel: photon spectra associated with trigger jets from 30-35 GeV in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200 $ GeV. The yield of back-scattering photons with (red solid line) and without (black dashed line) energy loss is compared to the background of initial hard photons and fragmentation photons (blue squares). Right panel: the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ with (red solid line) and without (black dashed line) taking energy loss of leading partons into account.](phot_trig_RAA_RHIC_30-35_LO "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:2\] The same as Fig. \[fig:1\] for 100-105 GeV trigger jets in central Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76 $ TeV. Only the (realistic) case of back-scattering photons with energy loss prior to their emission is shown.](phot_trig_spec_LHC_100-105_LO "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![\[fig:2\] The same as Fig. \[fig:1\] for 100-105 GeV trigger jets in central Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76 $ TeV. Only the (realistic) case of back-scattering photons with energy loss prior to their emission is shown.](phot_trig_RAA_LHC_100-105_LO "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
Separating and quantitatively using different direct photon sources in high energy nuclear collisions is challenging. We advocate the use of jet triggers to separate back-scattering photons from a background of fragmentation and hard initial photons. We predict that back-scattering photons produce a characteristic enhancement in nuclear modification factors for direct photons on the away side of the trigger, just below the trigger jet energies. This technique completely subtracts all direct photon sources without an underlying hard process. It further suppresses fragmentation photons which amass at low $z$, and hard direct photons which do not suffer from energy loss. The height of the back-scattering peak reflects a quadratic temperature dependence and the shift of the peak down from the trigger window is sensitive to parton energy loss. In the future one should study the effects of trigger jet energy loss which has been neglected so far, as well as add a next-to-leading order calculation of the hard process underlying the back-scattering signal.
This work was supported by NSF CAREER Award PHY-0847538 and by the JET Collaboration and DOE grant DE-FG02-10ER41682.
[00]{}
J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 465 (1987). S. A. Bass, B. Muller and D. K. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 082301 (2003). J. I. Kapusta, P. Lichard and D. Seibert, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 2774 (1991) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**47**]{}, 4171 (1993)\]. R. Baier, H. Nakkagawa, A. Niegawa and K. Redlich, Z. Phys. C [**53**]{}, 433 (1992). P. Aurenche, F. Gelis, R. Kobes and H. Zaraket, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 085003 (1998). P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0112**]{}, 009 (2001). A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 132301 (2010) \[arXiv:0804.4168 \[nucl-ex\]\].
G. Chen, R. J. Fries, [*in preparation*]{}.
R. J. Fries, B. Muller and D. K. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 132301 (2003) \[nucl-th/0208001\].
R. J. Fries, B. Muller and D. K. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 041902 (2005) \[nucl-th/0507018\].
B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. [**80**]{}, 1 (2004) \[Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**80**]{}, 3 (2004)\] \[hep-ph/0405101\].
R. H. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 75 (1963). F. R. Arutyunian and V. A. Tumanian, Phys. Lett. [**4**]{}, 176 (1963). D. K. Srivastava, C. Gale and R. J. Fries, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{}, 034903 (2003) \[nucl-th/0209063\].
S. Turbide, C. Gale, D. K. Srivastava and R. J. Fries, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 014903 (2006) \[hep-ph/0601042\].
S. Turbide, C. Gale, E. Frodermann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 024909 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.0732 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Turbide, C. Gale and R. J. Fries, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 032303 (2006) \[hep-ph/0508201\].
R. Chatterjee, E. S. Frodermann, U. W. Heinz and D. K. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 202302 (2006) \[nucl-th/0511079\].
L. Bourhis, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet and M. Werlen, Eur. Phys. J. C [**19**]{}, 89 (2001) \[hep-ph/0009101\].
S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet and E. Pilon, JHEP [**0205**]{}, 028 (2002) \[hep-ph/0204023\].
P. Aurenche, M. Fontannaz, J. -P. Guillet, E. Pilon and M. Werlen, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 094007 (2006) \[hep-ph/0602133\].
R. Rodriguez, R. J. Fries and E. Ramirez, Phys. Lett. B [**693**]{}, 108 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.3567 \[nucl-th\]\].
R. J. Fries and R. Rodriguez, Nucl. Phys. A [**855**]{}, 424 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.3950 \[nucl-th\]\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For a Morse function $f$ on a compact oriented manifold $M$, we show that $f$ has more critical points than the number required by the Morse inequalities if and only if there exists a certain class of link in $M$ whose components have nontrivial linking number, such that the minimal value of $f$ on one of the components is larger than its maximal value on the other. Indeed we characterize the precise number of critical points of $f$ in terms of the Betti numbers of $M$ and the behavior of $f$ with respect to links. This can be viewed as a refinement, in the case of compact manifolds, of the Rabinowitz Saddle Point Theorem. Our approach, inspired in part by techniques of chain-level symplectic Floer theory, involves associating to collections of chains in $M$ algebraic operations on the Morse complex of $f$, which yields relationships between the linking numbers of homologically trivial (pseudo)cycles in $M$ and an algebraic linking pairing on the Morse complex.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Georgia\
Athens, GA 30602
author:
- Michael Usher
title: Linking and the Morse complex
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Let $f\co M\to \R$ be a Morse function on a compact $n$-dimensional manifold $M$; thus around each critical point $p$ of $f$ there are coordinates $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ in terms of which $f$ is given by the formula $$f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=-\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i}^{2}+\sum_{i=k+1}^{n}x_{i}^{2}$$ for some integer $k$ called the *index* of $p$ and denoted in this paper by $|p|_f$. For each integer $k$ let $c_k(f)$ denote the number of critical points of $f$ having index $k$, and define the Morse polynomial of $f$ by $$\mathfrak{M}_f(t)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_k(f)t^k.$$ Meanwhile if $\K$ is a field let $\mathfrak{b}_k(M;\K)$ be the rank of the $k$th homology $H_k(M;\K)$ with coefficients in $\K$ and define the Poincaré polynomial of $M$ with coefficients in $\K$ to be $$\mathfrak{P}_M(t;\K)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frak{b}_{k}(M;\K)t^k.$$ One way of expressing the famous *Morse inequalities* is to say that one has $$\mathfrak{M}_f(t)=\mathfrak{P}_M(t;\K)+(1+t)\mathfrak{Q}_f(t;\K)$$ for some polynomial $\mathfrak{Q}_f(t;\K)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q_{k}(f;\K)t^k$ all of whose coefficients $q_{k}(f;\K)$ are nonnegative. Indeed, using the gradient flow of $f$ it is possible to construct a chain complex $(CM_{*}(f;\K),d_f)$ such that $CM_{k}(f;\K)$ is a $\K$-vector space of dimension $c_k(f)$ and such that the homology of the complex is isomorphic to $H_{*}(M;\K)$, and then the coefficients $q_{k}(f;\K)$ of the polynomial $\mathfrak{Q}_f(\cdot;\K)$ are the ranks of the differentials $d_{f,k+1}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_{k}(f;\K)$.
In particular, for any coeffcient field $\K$, the number of critical points of index $k$ for any Morse function $f$ obeys $c_k(f)\geq \frak{b}_{k}(f;\K)$, and equality holds in this inequality if and only if $q_{k}(f;\K)$ and $q_{k-1}(f;\K)$ are equal to zero. Thus a nonzero value of $q_k(f;\K)$ corresponds to $f$ having “extra” critical points in indices $k$ and $k+1$. This paper is concerned with giving alternate interpretations of the numbers $q_k(f;\K)$, in terms of the *linking* of homologically trivial cycles in $M$. (Actually, we will generally work with pseudocycles (see [@MS Section 6.5] and Section \[pseudolink\] below for precise definitions) instead of cycles; in view of results such as [@Z Theorem 1.1] this will encode essentially the same information. In particular it makes sense to ask whether a given pseudocycle is homologically trivial; our convention is that a *pseudoboundary* is by definition a homologically trivial pseudocycle.)
Although our methods are rather different, our results are conceptually related to results along the lines the Saddle Point Theorem of [@R], which assert under various rather general hypotheses that for a function $f\co M\to \R$ (where $M$ is, say, a Banach manifold) which satisfies the Palais–Smale condition, if there are null-bordant submanifolds $A,B\subset M$ such that $\inf_B f>\sup_A f$ and $A$ and $B$ are linked in the sense that any other submanifold whose boundary is $A$ must intersect $B$, then $f$ must have a critical point with critical value at least $\inf_B f$. Various extensions and refinements of this result have appeared; for instance one can see from [@C Theorems II.1.1$'$, II.1.5] that if $\dim A=k$ then one can arrange to find a critical point of $f$ whose local Morse homology is nontrivial in degree $k$, and so the critical point will have index $k$ provided that it is nondegenerate. However if $M$ has nontrivial singular homology in degree $k$ and if $f$ is *any* Morse function then $f$ will automatically have critical points of index $k$, which might seem to indicate that in this case the linking condition in the hypothesis of the Saddle Point Theorem only leads to critical points whose existence can be explained just from the homology of $M$. On the contrary, we show in this paper that, at least in the finite-dimensional, compact case, a certain type of linking is rather precisely associated with “extra” critical points:
\[main1\] Let $f\co M\to \R$ be a Morse function on a compact oriented $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, and let $\K$ be any ring[^1]. The following are equivalent:
- The Morse boundary operator[^2] $d_{f,k+1}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_k(f;\K)$ is nontrivial (*i.e.*, in our earlier notation when $\K$ is a field, $q_k(f;\K)\neq 0$.)
- There are pseudoboundaries $b_{\pm}\co B_{\pm}\to M$, where $\dim B_+=k$ and $\dim B_-=n-k-1$, such that $\overline{Im(b_-)}\cap \overline{Im(b_+)}=\varnothing$ and the $\K$-valued linking number $lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)$ is nonzero, and such that $\min(f|_{\overline{Im(b_-)}})>\max(f|_{\overline{Im(b_+)}})$.
Moreover, if (i) holds, then from the stable and unstable manifolds of $f$ associated to a suitable Riemannian metric, one may construct a pair of pseudoboundaries $b_{\pm}\co B_{\pm}\to M$ of dimensions $k$ and $n-k-1$ with $lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)\neq 0$ such that the value of $\min(f|_{\overline{Im(b_-)}})-\max(f|_{\overline{Im(b_+)}})$ is as large as possible.
The equivalence of (i) and (ii) follows from Theorem \[alggeom\] and the first sentence of Proposition \[alg-betaprop\], since in the notation of Theorem \[alggeom\] the statement (i) is equivalent to the statement that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)> 0$, while statement (ii) is equivalent to the statement that $\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)> 0$. The final statement of the theorem follows from the constructions in Section \[crittolink\] which are used to prove the implication ‘(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii).’
We leave to Section \[pseudolink\] the precise definitions related to linking numbers of pseudoboundaries. Suffice it to note for the moment that a special case of a pair of pseudoboundaries $b_{\pm}\co B_{\pm}\to M$ is given by setting $B_{\pm}=\partial C_{\pm}$ for some compact manifolds with boundary $C_{\pm}$, and setting $b_{\pm}=c_{\pm}|_{C_{\pm}}$ for some pair of smooth maps $c_{\pm}\co C_{\pm}\to\R$. Assuming that $b_+$ and $b_-$ have disjoint images, the $\mathbb{Z}$-valued linking number $lk(b_-,b_+)$ is obtained by perturbing $c_+$ to make it transverse to $b_-$ and then taking the intersection number of $b_-$ and $c_+$ (which, one can show, depends only on $b_{\pm}$ and not on $c_{\pm}$), and the $\K$-valued linking number $lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)$ is just the image of $lk(b_-,b_+)$ under the unique unital ring morphism $\Z\to \K$. The more general setup of pseudoboundaries generalizes this only in that the domains and images of $b_{\pm}$ and $c_{\pm}$ are allowed some mild noncompactness (the images should be precompact, and “compact up to codimension two” in a standard sense that is recalled in Section \[pseudolink\]). If we were to instead require the domains of $b_{\pm}$ to be compact, then of course the implication ‘(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i)’ in Theorem \[main1\] would follow *a fortiori*, while ‘(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii)’ would hold provided that $\K$ has characteristic zero by Remark \[betasmooth\].
The implication (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in Theorem \[main1\] is perhaps surprisingly strong in that it yields not just a smoothly nontrivial link in $M$ but a link with nontrivial linking number. For example, letting $M=S^3$, if $L=L_0\cup L_1$ is any link with $\dim L_0=\dim L_1=1$ such that every minimal-genus Seifert surface for $L_0$ intersects $L_1$ (there are many examples of links with this property that moreover have zero linking number, beginning with the Whitehead link), then standard minimax arguments along the lines of those used in [@R] and [@C] to prove the Saddle Point Theorem and its variants show that if $f\co S^3\to \R$ is any Morse function such that $\min(f|_{L_0})>\max(f|_{L_1})$ then $f$ must have a critical point which is not a global extremum, and so in view of the homology of $S^3$ the Morse boundary operator $d_f\co CM_{*}(S^3;\Z)\to CM_{*-1}(S^3;\K)$ must be nonzero in some degree. So Theorem \[main1\] then gives a link $L'_0\cup L'_1$ in $S^3$ such that $\min(f|_{L'_0})>\min(f|_{L'_1})$ and whose components $L'_0$ and $L'_1$ are homologically trivial and have nonzero linking number, even if the original link had zero linking number. (It is not immediately clear whether the $L'_i$ must be one-dimensional; conceivably one of them could be zero-dimensional and the other two-dimensional.)
The orientability hypothesis on $M$ in Theorem \[main1\] and in Theorem \[main2\] below may be dropped if one restricts to rings $\K$ having characteristic two and modifies the definition of a pseudoboundary (see Definition \[pseudodef\]) so that the domains of a pseudoboundary and of its bounding pseudochain need not be orientable. This can be seen by direct inspection of the proofs of the theorems if one simply ignores all references to orientations therein.
Going beyond Theorem \[main1\], for any field $\K$ one can characterize the precise values of the coefficients $q_k(f;\K)$, not just whether or not they are zero, in terms of the linking of pseudoboundaries, though this requires a somewhat more complicated description and indeed requires some knowledge of the gradient flow of the function $f$ with respect to a suitable metric. If $b_+\co B_+\to M$ and $b_-\co B_-\to M$ are pseudoboundaries of dimensions $k$ and $n-k-1$ respectively, from the general theory in Section \[ops\] we obtain a quantity denoted there by $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_+,b_-}M_f)$. This quantity may be intuitively described as a signed count of those trajectories $\gamma\co [0,T]\to M$ of the vector field $-\nabla f$ such that $\gamma(0)\in Im(b_+)$ and $\gamma(T)\in Im(b_-)$, where $T$ is a positive number (which is allowed to vary from trajectory to trajectory). The quantity $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_+,b_-}M_f)$ should in general be expected to depend on the Riemannian metric used to define the gradient flow; however there is one case where it is obviously independent of the metric and also is easily computable: since the function $f$ decreases along its gradient flowlines, if one has $\sup(f|_{Im(b_+)})<\inf(f|_{Im(b_-)})$ then clearly $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_+,b_-}M_f)=0$ (indeed this is the reason that $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_+,b_-}M_f)$ did not appear in the statement of Theorem \[main1\]). We will see that in general $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_+,b_-}M_f)$ serves as a sort of correction term in the relationship between geometric linking of pseudoboundaries in $M$ and the algebraic linking pairing on the Morse complex of $f$ defined in (\[mlpair\]).
\[main2\] Let $f\co M\to \R$ be a Morse function on a compact oriented $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, and let $\K$ be a field. There are Riemannian metrics on $M$ such that the following are equivalent for all nonnegative integers $k$ and $m$:
- The rank of the Morse boundary operator $d_{f,k+1}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_{k}(f;\K)$ is at least $m$.
- There are $k$-dimensional pseudoboundaries $b_{1,+},\ldots,b_{r,+}$ and $(n-k-1)$-dimensional pseudoboundaries $b_{1,-},\ldots,b_{s,-}$ such that the matrix $L$ whose entries are given by $$L_{ij}=lk(b_{j,-},b_{i,+})-(-1)^{(n-k)(k+1)}\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_{i,+},b_{j,-}}M_f)$$ has rank at least $m$.
See Corollaries \[linkcor1\] and \[cormain2\].
In fact, as noted in Corollary \[cormain2\], if (ii) (or equivalently (i)) holds, then the pseudocycles $b_{i,+},b_{j,-}$ can be chosen to obey $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_{i,+},b_{j,-}}M_f)=0$.
To rephrase Theorem \[main2\], for each $k$ the rank $q_k(f;\K)$ of the Morse boundary operator $d_{f,k+1}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_k(f;\K)$ can be expressed as the largest possible rank of a matrix whose entries are given by the $\K$-valued linking numbers of each member of a collection of $k$-dimensional pseudoboundaries with each member of a collection of $(n-k-1)$-dimensional pseudoboundaries, corrected by a term arising from “negative gradient flow chords” from the former to the latter. Moreover, there are collections of pseudoboundaries for which the maximal possible rank is attained and the correction term vanishes.
By Poincaré duality, the Betti numbers $\frak{b}_k(M;\K)$ can somewhat similarly be described as the maximal rank of a certain kind of matrix: namely, a matrix whose entries are given by the $\K$-valued intersection numbers of each member of a collection of $k$-dimensional pseudocycles with each member of a collection of $(n-k)$-dimensional pseudocycles. Thus a general Morse function $f$ on an oriented compact manifold $M$ has $\left(\sum_{k}\frak{b}_k(M;\K)\right)$-many critical points which can be seen as resulting purely from the homology of $M$ and may be associated to the intersection of cycles in $M$, and also exactly $2\left(\sum_{k}q_k(f;\K)\right)$-many other critical points, and these other critical points are not accounted for by the homology of $M$ but may be associated to the behavior of $f$ with respect to linked, homologically trivial cycles in $M$.
Outline of the paper and additional remarks
-------------------------------------------
The body of the paper begins with the following Section \[or\], which sets up some notation and conventions relating to orientations and Morse theory and works out some signs that are useful later; readers, especially those content to ignore sign issues and work mod 2, may prefer to skip this section on first reading and refer back to it as necessary.
Section \[pseudolink\] introduces the formalism of pseudochains and pseudoboundaries that is used throughout the paper; these are natural modifications of the pseudocycles considered in [@MS Section 6.5]. In particular we show that a pair of pseudoboundaries the sum of whose dimensions is one less than the dimension of the ambient manifold, and the closures of whose images are disjoint, has a well-defined linking number, about which we prove various properties. We also prove Lemma \[smoothen\], which for some purposes allows one to work with homologically trivial maps of compact smooth manifolds into $M$ in place of pseudoboundaries; however if one wishes to work over $\Z$ or $\Z/p\Z$ rather than $\mathbb{Q}$ then restricting to maps of compact smooth manifolds will lead one to miss some topological information, consistently with results that date back to [@T Théorème III.9].
Section \[ops\] recalls the Morse complex $CM_{*}(f;\K)$ of a Morse function $f$ and introduces several operations on it. Among these are rather standard ones corresponding after passing to homology to Poincaré duality and to the cap product. Importantly, these operations can be defined on chain level, and consideration of their chain-level definitions suggests some other operations that capture different information. In particular the chain level Poincaré pairing can easily be modified to obtain a Morse-theoretic linking pairing, whose relation to the linking of pseudoboundaries is fundamental for this paper. As for the cap product, it is described on chain level by considering negative gradient trajectories which pass through a given pseudochain, and this chain level operation has natural generalizations obtained from negative gradient trajectories which instead pass through several prescribed pseudochains at different times. These more general operations (denoted $I_{g_0,\cdots,g_{k-1}}$) are not chain maps, so they do not pass to homology and, at least in and of themselves, do not encode topologically invariant information (though suitable combinations of them should give rise to Massey products). While from some perspectives this lack of topological invariance would be seen as a defect, our focus in this paper is on the “extra” critical points that a given Morse function $f$ may or may not have, and these extra critical points are also not topologically invariant in that their existence typically depends on $f$ (and throughout the paper we are viewing the function $f$, not just the manifold on which it is defined, as the basic object of study).
While the $I_{g_{0},\cdots, g_{k-1}}$ are not chain maps for $k\geq 2$, they do satisfy some important identities which are obtained by examining boundaries of certain one-dimensional moduli spaces of gradient trajectories and are described in general in Remark \[ainfty\]. The only ones of these that are used for the main results of this paper are Propositions \[igprop\](ii) and \[fundid\] (which concern the cases $k=1,2$), though it would be interesting to know if the identities for $k>2$ can be used to provide a relationship between Morse theory and Milnor’s higher-order linking numbers. We would like to take this opportunity to mention a broader perspective on these identities. Given a finite set of pseudochains $g_i\co C_i\to M$ which are in suitably general position with respect to each other, a construction in the spirit of [@FOOO Section 3.4] should give rise to an $A_{\infty}$-algebra $\mathcal{C}(M)$ of pseudochains in $M$ with each $g_i\in \mathcal{C}(M)$, whose operations $\frak{m}_l$, when applied to tuples of distinct $g_i$ from the given collection, obey $$\begin{aligned}
\frak{m}_1(g_i)&=\pm g_i|_{\partial C_i} \\ \frak{m}_2(g_{i_1},g_{i_2})&=\pm g_{i_{1}}\times_M g_{i_2}\,\,\mbox{ if }i_1\neq i_2 \\ \frak{m}_l(g_{i_1},\ldots,g_{i_l})&=0 \,\,\mbox{ if }l\geq 3\mbox{ and }i_1,\ldots,i_l\mbox{ are distinct}.\end{aligned}$$ In this case Remark \[ainfty\] would be a special case of the statement that the Morse complex $CM_{*}(f;\K)$ is an $A_{\infty}$-module over the $A_{\infty}$-algebra $\mathcal{C}(M)$, with part of the module action given up to sign by the operators $I_{g_{i_0}\ldots g_{i_{k-1}}}$.[^3] This is reminiscent of, though distinct from, the discussion in [@F Chapter 1], in which Fukaya organizes the Morse complexes associated to all of the various Morse functions on the manifold $M$ into an $A_{\infty}$-category; by contrast, we work with a single fixed Morse function $f$ on $M$, and the relevant $A_{\infty}$ structure on $CM_{*}(f;\K)$ arises not from other Morse functions but rather from the interaction of $f$ with an $A_{\infty}$-algebra of (pseudo)chains in $M$. One could perhaps enlarge Fukaya’s picture to incorporate ours by regarding $(\mathcal{C}(M),\frak{m}_1)$ as playing the role of the “Morse complex” of the (non-Morse) function $0$ on $M$. With this said, we will just prove those aspects of the $A_{\infty}$ structures that we require in a direct fashion, so the phrase “$A_{\infty}$” will not appear again in the paper.
Section \[linkcrit\] begins the process of establishing a relationship between the linking of pseudoboundaries described in Section \[pseudolink\] with the operations on the Morse complex described in Section \[ops\]; in particular the implications “(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i)” in Theorems \[main1\] and \[main2\] are established in Section \[linkcrit\]. The key ingredient in this regard is Proposition \[linklinkprop\], which uses Propositions \[igprop\] and \[fundid\] to associate to a pair $b_0,b_1$ of linked pseudoboundaries in $M$ a pair of boundaries in the Morse complexes of $\pm f$, whose Morse-theoretic linking pairing is determined by the linking number of the pseudoboundaries together with the correction term $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_0,b_1}M_f)$ alluded to earlier. If the pseudoboundary $b_0$ has dimension $k$, then its associated boundary in the Morse complex is obtained as a linear combination of those index-$k$ critical points which arise as the limit in forward time of a negative gradient flowline of $f$ which passes through the image of $b_0$ (generically there will be only finitely many such flowlines). This is vaguely similar to the usual strategy of obtaining critical points the Saddle Point Theorem as in [@R], wherein one essentially “pushes down” $b_0$ via the negative gradient flow until one encounters a critical point. However, if one does follows Rabinowitz’s approach naively then one should not even expect to locate a critical point of index $k$, since the critical points that one first encounters would be likely to have higher index. Although there exist ways of guaranteeing that one finds an index-$k$ critical point by a similar procedure (essentially by first replacing $b_0$ with a certain other chain which is homologous to it in an appropriate relative homology group, see [@C Section II.1]), these older methods still do not seem to suffice to yield the quantitative estimates on $q_k(f;\K)$ in Theorem \[main2\], or indeed the nonvanishing of $q_k(f;\K)$ in Theorem \[main1\] if the ambient manifold has nonzero $k$th Betti number. However, by taking the approach—familiar from Floer theory—of using not the entire gradient flow of $f$ but rather only certain zero-dimensional spaces of gradient trajectories, and by exploiting more fully the algebraic structures on the Morse complex, we are able to obtain these quantitative results.
In Section \[linkcrit\] we also formulate and begin to prove Theorem \[alggeom\], which can be seen as a more refined version of Theorem \[main1\]. Theorem \[alggeom\] equates two quantities associated to a Morse function $f\co M\to\R$ on a compact oriented manifold and a ring $\K$: the *geometric link separation* $\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)$ and the *algebraic link separation* $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$. The geometric link separation describes the maximal amount by which the function $f$ separates any pair of pseudoboundaries of appropriate dimensions whose linking number is nontrivial; thus Theorem \[main1\] asserts that this quantity is positive if and only if the Morse boundary operator is nontrivial in the appropriate degree. The algebraic link separation in general has a more complicated definition which we defer to Section \[linkcrit\], but when $\K$ is a field we show in Proposition \[alg-betaprop\] that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$ is equal to a quantity introduced in the Floer-theoretic context in [@U11] called the *boundary depth* of $f$: the Morse complex $CM_{*}(f;\K)$ has a natural filtration given by the critical values, and the boundary depth is the minimal quantity $\beta$ such that any chain $x$ in the image of the boundary operator must be the boundary of a chain $y$ whose filtration level is at most $\beta$ higher than that of $x$. This paper had its origins in an attempt to obtain a more geometric interpretation of the boundary depth in the Morse-theoretic context—which in particular reflects the fact that the boundary depth depends continuously on the function $f$ with respect to the $C^0$-norm—and when $\K$ is a field that goal is achieved by Theorem \[alggeom\].
The implications “(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii)” in Theorems \[main1\] and \[main2\] are proven in Section \[crittolink\]. Our approach is to associate to any element $a$ in the Morse complex $CM_{k+1}(f;\Z)$ a pseudochain which represents $a$ in a suitable sense; see Lemma \[chainconstruct\]. In the case that the Morse differential of $a$ is trivial, such a construction already appears in [@S99], where it is used to construct an equivalence between Morse homology and singular homology. Our interest lies in the case that the Morse differential $d_{f,k+1}a$ of $a$ is nontrivial, and then the boundary of the pseudochain will be a pseudoboundary whose properties with respect to linking numbers and with respect to the function $f$ are patterned after corresponding properties of $d_{f,k+1}a$ in the Morse complex; for this purpose a somewhat more refined construction than that in [@S99] is required. Our construction makes use of properties of the manifold-with-corners structure of the compactified unstable manifolds of $f$ with respect to metrics obeying a local triviality condition near the critical points, as established in [@BH]. (The existence of such a structure has been proven for more general metrics in [@Q]; however we also require the evaluation map from the compactified unstable manifold into $M$ to be smooth, a property which currently seems to be known only in the locally trivial case.)
Finally, the closing Section \[app\] contains proofs of three technical results deferred from Sections \[pseudolink\] and \[ops\], two of which concern issues of transversality and the other of which works out in detail (with careful attention paid to orientations) the boundary of the moduli space which gives rise to the key identity in Proposition \[fundid\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The original inspiration for this project came partially from conversations with Leonid Polterovich during a visit to the University of Chicago in March 2011. This work was supported by NSF grant DMS-1105700.
Conventions for orientations and Morse theory {#or}
=============================================
The most detailed and coherent treatment of the orientation issues that one encounters in dealing simultaneously with intersection theory and the Morse complex that I have found is [@BC Appendix A], so I will borrow most of my orientation conventions from there.
Short exact sequences. {#or:ses}
----------------------
Many of the vector spaces that one needs to orient in a discussion such as this are related to each other by short exact sequences, and so one should first decide on an orientation convention for short exact sequences; following [@BC], our convention is that, given a short exact sequence of vector spaces $$\xymatrix{ 0\ar[r] & A\ar[r]^{f} & B\ar[r]^{g}& C\ar[r]& 0 }$$ in which two of $A,B,C$ are oriented, the other should be oriented in such a way that, if $\{a_1,\ldots,a_p\}$ and $\{c_1,\ldots,c_q\}$ are oriented bases for $A$ and $C$ respectively and if $b_i\in B$ are chosen so that $g(b_i)=c_i$, then $$\{b_1,\ldots,b_q,f(a_1),\ldots,f(a_p)\}$$ is an oriented basis for $B$.
We orient a vector space given as a direct sum $V\oplus W$ of oriented vector spaces by using an oriented basis for $V$ followed by an oriented basis for $W$; in terms of our short exact sequence convention this amounts to orienting $V\oplus W$ by using the short exact sequence $$\xymatrix{ 0\ar[r] & W \ar[r]& V\oplus W\ar[r]& V\ar[r]& 0 }$$ A product $M\times N$ of oriented manifolds is then oriented by means of the direct sum decomposition $T_{(m,n)}=T_mM\oplus T_n N$.
Group actions. {#or:actions}
--------------
If $G$ is an oriented Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ (for us $G$ will always be $\mathbb{R}$) acting freely on an oriented manifold $M$, the quotient $M/G$ is oriented according to the exact sequence on tangent spaces given by the action: $$\xymatrix{ 0\ar[r]&\mathfrak{g}\ar[r]& T_mM\ar[r] & T_{[m]}(M/G)\ar[r]& 0 }$$
Boundaries. {#or:bound}
-----------
For boundaries of oriented manifolds we use the standard “outer-normal-first” convention.
Fiber products. {#or:fp}
---------------
Many of the important spaces that we need to orient can be seen as *fiber products*: if $f\co V\to M$ and $g\co W\to M$ are smooth maps, the fiber product $V {}_{f}\times_g W$ is given by $$V {}_{f}\times_g W=\{(v,w)\in V\times W|f(v)=g(w)\}.$$ In other words, where $\Delta\subset M$ is the diagonal, we have $V {}_{f}\times_g W=(f\times g)^{-1}(\Delta)$. So if $f\times g$ is transverse to $\Delta$ (in which case we say that “the fiber product is cut out transversely”) then $V_f\times_g W$ will be a manifold of dimension $\dim V+\dim W-\dim M$. The tangent space to $V_f\times_g W$ at $(v,w)$ may be canonically identified (under the projection $T_vV\oplus T_{f(v)}M\oplus T_wW\to T_vV\oplus T_wW$) with the kernel of the map $h\co T_vV\oplus T_{f(v)}M\oplus T_wW\to T_{f(v)}M\oplus T_{f(v)} M$ defined by $h(e_V,e_M,e_W)=(f_*e_V-e_M,e_M-g_*e_W)$. Under this identification, if orientations on $V,W,M$ are given, then $V {}_f\times_g W$ is oriented at $(v,w)$ by means of the short exact sequence $$\xymatrix{0\ar[r] & \ker h\ar[r] & T_vV\oplus T_{f(v)}M\oplus T_{w}W\ar[r]^{h}& T_{f(v)}M\oplus T_{f(v)}M\ar[r]&0 }$$
As noted in [@BC], this fiber product orientation convention results in a number of pleasant properties. First, a Cartesian product $V\times W$ can be viewed as a fiber product $V{}_{*}\times_{*}W$ by taking the target space $M$ to be a positively-oriented point, and the resulting fiber product orientation on $V\times W$ coincides with the standard orientation. Also, for a smooth map $f\co V\to M$ the fiber products $V{}_{f}\times_{1_M}M$ and $M{}_{1_M}\times_{f}V$ are identified with $V$ by projection, and the orientations on $V{}_{f}\times_{1_M}M$ and $M{}_{1_M}\times_{f}V$ are consistent with this orientation. Less trivially, given suitably transverse maps $f\co U\to X$, $g_1\co V\to X$, $g_2\co V\to Y$, $h\co W\to Y$, one has: $$\label{associd} (U {}_{f}\times_{g_1} V)_{g_2}\times_h W=U {}_f\times {}_{g_1}(V_{g_2}\times_{h}W)$$ as oriented manifolds. Also, if $V$ and $W$ are manifolds with boundary and $f\co V\to M$, $g\co W\to M$ are smooth maps such that $f(\partial V)\cap g(\partial W)=\varnothing$, and if all fiber products below are cut out transversely, one has, as oriented manifolds, $$\label{bdryid} \partial(V {}_f\times_g W)=\left((\partial V) {}_f\times_g W\right)\coprod (-1)^{\dim M-\dim V}\left(V {}_f\times_g\partial W\right).$$
Moreover, again assuming $f\times g\co V\times W\to M\times M$ to be transverse to $\Delta$, the obvious diffeomorphism $(v,w)\mapsto (w,v)$ from $V\times W$ to $W\times V$ restricts as a diffeomorphism of oriented manifolds as follows: $$\label{commutid} V{}_{f}\times_g W\cong (-1)^{(\dim M-\dim V)(\dim M-\dim W)}W{}_g\times_f V.$$
(The proofs of (\[associd\]), (\[bdryid\]), and (\[commutid\]) can all be read off from [@BC A.1.8] and references therein.)
If $\delta\co M\to M\times M$ is the diagonal embedding, and if $V{}_{f}\times_g W$ is cut out transversely, then $V{}_{f}\times_g W$ is diffeomorphic by the map $(v,w)\mapsto (v,w,f(v))$ to the fiber product $(V\times W){}_{f\times g}\times_{\delta} M$. This diffeomorphism affects the orientations by $$\label{diagid} V{}_{f}\times_g W\cong (-1)^{\dim M(\dim M-\dim W)}(V\times W){}_{f\times g}\times_{\delta} M.$$ To see this, one can use the fact that the tangent space to $V{}_{f}\times_g W$ may be oriented as the kernel of the map $h_1\co TV\oplus TM\oplus TW\oplus TM\oplus TM\to TM\oplus TM\oplus TM\oplus TM$ defined by $h_1(v,m_0,w,m_1,m_2)=(f_*v-m_0,m_0-g_*w,m_1,m_2)$ while the tangent space to $(V\times W){}_{f\times g}\times_{\delta} M$ is oriented as the kernel of $h_2\co TV\oplus TW\oplus TM\oplus TM\oplus TM\to TM\oplus TM\oplus TM\oplus TM$ defined by $h_2(v,w,m_0,m_1,m_2)=(f_*v-m_0,g_*w-m_1,m_0-m_2,m_1-m_2)$. There is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ TV\oplus TM\oplus TW\oplus TM\oplus TM \ar[r]^{h_1} \ar[d]^{\phi} & TM\oplus TM\oplus TM\oplus TM \ar[d]^{\psi} \\ TV\oplus TW\oplus TM\oplus TM\oplus TM \ar[r]^{h_2} & TM\oplus TM\oplus TM\oplus TM }$$ where $\phi(v,m_0,w,m_1,m_2)=(v,w,m_0+m_1,m_0+m_2,m_0)$ and $\psi(m,m',m_1,m_2)=(m-m_1,-m'-m_2,m_1,m_2)$. The sign in (\[diagid\]) is then obtained as the product of the signs of the determinants of $\phi$ and $\psi$.
If $f_0\co V^0\to M$, $f_1\co V^1\to N$, $g_0\co W^0\to M$, and $g_1\co W^1\to N$ are smooth maps such that the fiber products $V^0{}_{f_0}\times_{g_0}W^0$ and $V^1{}_{f_1}\times_{g_1} W^1$ are both cut out transversely, then the fiber product $$(V^0\times V^1)_{f_0\times f_1}\times_{g_0\times g_1}(W^0\times W^1)$$ is also cut out transversely, and the map $(v_0,v_1,w_0,w_1)\mapsto (v_0,w_0,v_1,w_1)$ is a diffeomorphism of oriented manifolds $$\label{prodid} (V^0\times V^1)_{f_0\times f_1}\times_{g_0\times g_1}(W^0\times W^1)\cong (-1)^{(\dim N-\dim V^1)(\dim M-\dim W^0)}(V^0{}_{f_0}\times_{g_0}W^0)\times(V^1{}_{f_1}\times_{g_1}W^1).$$ The sign can easily be obtained either directly from the definition of the fiber product orientation, or by using [@BC (83)].
### Signed counts of points and intersection numbers
If $X$ is a $0$-dimensional manifold, then an orientation of $X$ of course amounts to a choice of number $\ep(x)\in \{-1,1\}$ attached to each point $x\in X$. Assuming $X$ to be compact (*i.e.*, finite) we write $\#(X)=\sum_{x\in X}\ep(x)$ and call $\#(X)$ the “signed number of points” of $X$.
If, where $V,W,M$ are smooth oriented manifolds, $f\co V\to M$ and $g\co W\to M$ are smooth maps such that $\dim V+\dim W=\dim M$ and such that the fiber product $W {}_g\times_{f} V$ is cut out transversely and is compact (and so is an oriented compact zero-manifold), then the *intersection number* $\iota(f,g)$ of $f$ and $g$ is by definition $$\iota(f,g)=\#\left(W {}_g\times_{f} V\right).$$ Note the reversal of the order of $f$ and $g$; this reversal is justified by the fact (noted in [@BC] and easily checked) that if $f$ and $g$ are embeddings of compact submanifolds $f(V)$ and $g(W)$ then the usual intersection number between $f(V)$ and $g(W)$ (given by counting intersections $m\in f(V)\cap g(W)$ with signs according to whether $T_mf(V)\oplus T_mg(W)$ has the same orientation as $T_mM$) is equal to $\iota(f,g)$ as we have just defined it. Evidently by (\[commutid\]) we have $$\iota(f,g)=(-1)^{(\dim M-\dim V)(\dim M-\dim W)}\iota(g,f).$$
Morse functions. {#or:morse}
----------------
Let $f\co M\to \mathbb{R}$ be a Morse function where $M$ is a smooth oriented compact $n$-dimensional manifold and $h$ a Riemannian metric on $M$ making the negative gradient flow $\phi_t\co M\to M$ of $f$ Morse–Smale. For all critical points $p$ of $f$ we have the unstable and stable manifolds $$\begin{aligned}
W^{u}_{f}(p)&=\left\{x\in M\left|\lim_{t\to -\infty}\phi_t(x)=p\right.\right\} \\
W^{s}_{f}(p)&=\left\{x\in M\left|\lim_{t\to \infty}\phi_t(x)=p\right.\right\} \end{aligned}$$
We choose arbitrarily orientations of the unstable manifolds $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ (recall that these are diffeomorphic to open disks of dimension equal to the index $|p|_f$ of $p$), with the provisos that if $|p|_f=n$, so that $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ is an open subset of $M$, then the orientation of $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ should coincide with the orientation of $M$; and that if $|p|_f=0$, so that $W^{u}_{f}(p)=\{p\}$, then $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ should be oriented positively. Let $i_{u,p}\co W^{u}_{f}(p)\to M$ and $i_{s,p}\co W^{s}_{f}(p)\to M$ be the inclusions. Having oriented the $W^{u}_{f}(p)$, we orient the $W^{s}_{f}(p)$ by noting that $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ and $W^{s}_{f}(p)$ intersect transversely in the single point $p$, and requiring that $$\iota(i_{s,p},i_{u,p})=1$$ (in other words, $W^{u}_{f}(p){}_{i_{u,p}}\times_{i_{s,p}} W^{s}_{f}(p)$ is a single positively-oriented point).
The space of parametrized negative gradient trajectories[^4] $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ from $p$ to $q$ may be identified with the fiber product $W^{u}_{f}(p){}_{i_{u,p}}\times_{i_{s,q}}W^{s}_{f}(q)$; the Morse–Smale condition precisely states that this fiber product is cut out transversely, and we orient $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ by means of this identification, using the aforementioned convention for fiber products to orient $W^{u}_{f}(p){}_{i_{u,p}}\times_{i_{s,q}}W^{s}_{f}(q)$. For $p\neq q$, the negative gradient flow provides a free $\mathbb{R}$-action on $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$. We denote the quotient of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ by this $\mathbb{R}$ action by $\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)$, and we orient $\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)$ according to \[or:actions\]. In the case that $|p|_f-|q|_f=1$, the Morse–Smale condition implies that $\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)$ is a compact oriented zero-manifold, and we denote by $$m_f(p,q)=\#\left(\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)\right)$$ its signed number of points.
There are tautological identifications $W^{u}_{f}(p)\cong W^{s}_{-f}(p)$ and $W^{s}_{f}(p)\cong W^{u}_{-f}(p)$. Having already oriented $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ and $W^{s}_{f}(p)$ as in the last two paragraphs, we first orient $W^{u}_{-f}(p)$ by requiring the tautological identification $W^{s}_{f}(p)\cong W^{u}_{-f}(p)$ to be orientation-preserving. These orientations of $W^{u}_{-f}(p)$ then yield orientations of $W^{s}_{-f}(p)$ and of the spaces $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(q,p;-f)$ and $\mathcal{M}(q,p;-f)$ by the same prescription as before. Routine calculation then shows that the obvious identifications provide the following diffeomorphisms of oriented manifolds, where as usual we write $n=\dim M$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{su} W_{-f}^{s}(p)&\cong (-1)^{|p|_f(n-|p|_f)}W_{f}^{u}(p) \\ \label{tmqp} \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(q,p;-f)& \cong(-1)^{(|p|_f+|q|_f)(n-|p|_f)}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f) \\ \label{mqp} \mathcal{M}(q,p;-f)& \cong(-1)^{1+(|p|_f+|q|_f)(n-|p|_f)}\mathcal{M}(p,q;f) \end{aligned}$$ (the last equation takes into account that the actions of $\mathbb{R}$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(q,p;-f)$ go in opposite directions).
In the special case that $|p|_f=|q|_f+1$ we obtain $$\label{dualm} m_{-f}(q,p)=(-1)^{n-|q|_f}m_f(p,q)=(-1)^{|q|_{-f}}m_f(p,q).$$
As described in [@S99 Section 4] (see also [@BC A.1.14] for the relevant signs in the conventions that we are using), the unstable manifolds $W^u(x)$ admit partial compactifications $\bar{W}^u(p)$, whose oriented boundaries are given by[^5] $$\label{delu} \partial\bar{W}^u(p)=\coprod_{|r|_f=|p|_f-1}\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times W^u(r).$$ Extending the embedding $i_{u,p}\co W^u(p)\to M$ to a map on all of $\bar{W}^u(p)$ by means of the embeddings $i_{u,r}$ of the $W^u(r)$, we obtain a smooth map $\bar{i}_{u,p}\co \bar{W}^u(p)\to M$ which is a “pseudochain” in the sense to be described later: essentially this means that its image may be compactified by adding sets of codimension at least two (namely the unstable manifolds of some other critical points of index at most $|p|_f-2$).
Likewise, one obtains pseudochains whose domains will be denoted $\bar{W}^s(q)$ and $\tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)$ which partially compactify the stable manifolds and the parametrized gradient trajectory spaces, respectively. By using the various formulas and conventions specified above (in particular using that $W^{s}_{f}(q)=W^{u}_{-f}(q)$, so that the boundary orientation of $W^s(q)$ can be deduced from (\[delu\])), one obtains that the oriented (codimension-one) boundaries of the domains of these pseudochains are given by:$$\begin{aligned}
\label{delws}
\partial\bar{W}^s(q)&=\coprod_{|r|_f= |q|_f+1}(-1)^{n-|q|_f}W^s(r)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)
\\ \nonumber \partial \tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)&=\left(\coprod_{|r|_{f}=|p|_f-1}\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\right)\sqcup (-1)^{|p|_f+|q|_f}
\left(\coprod_{|r|_{f}=|q|_f+1}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\right),\end{aligned}$$and these boundaries are mapped into $M$ by using the inclusions of $W^s(r)$ in the case of $\partial\bar{W}^s(q)$ and by using the inclusions of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ in the case of $\partial \tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)$.
Linking of pseudoboundaries {#pseudolink}
===========================
The appropriate level of generality for the consideration of linking numbers in this paper seems to be given by some natural extensions of the formalism of pseudocycles, as described in [@MS Section 6.5]. Given a smooth map $f\co V\to M$, where $V$ is a smooth manifold (possibly with boundary) and $M$ is a smooth manifold without boundary, recall that the $\Omega$-limit set of $f$ is by definition $$\Omega_f=\bigcap_{A\Subset V}\overline{f(V\setminus A)},$$ where the notation $\Subset$ means “is a compact subset of.” As can easily be checked, one has $$\overline{f(V)}=f(V)\cup \Omega_f.$$ If $S\subset M$ is any subset, $S$ is said to have “dimension at most $d$” if there is a smooth map $g\co W\to M$ such that $S\subset g(W)$ where $W$ is a smooth manifold all of whose components have dimension at most $d$.
\[pseudodef\] Let $V$ and $M$ be smooth oriented manifolds, where $V$ might have boundary and $\dim V=k$, and let $f\co V\to M$ be a smooth map.
- $f$ is called a *$k$-pseudochain* if $\overline{f(V)}$ is compact and $\Omega_f$ has dimension at most $k-2$.
- $f\co V\to M$ is called a *$k$-pseudocycle* if $f$ is a $k$-pseudochain and $\partial V=\varnothing$.
- $f\co V\to M$ is called a *$k$-pseudoboundary* if $f$ is a $k$-pseudocycle and there is a $(k+1)$-pseudochain $g\co W\to M$ such that $\partial W=V$ as oriented manifolds and $g|_{\partial W}=f$. In this case the pseudochain $g$ is called a *bounding pseudochain* for $f$.
In the above definition we have required $V$ to be oriented. Deleting all references to orientation gives in the obvious way definitions of “unoriented pseudochains, pseudocycles, and pseudoboundaries;” in the unoriented situation one may straightforwardly modify the following discussion to obtain intersection and linking numbers which are defined modulo $2$. We remark that the restriction to the boundary of a pseudochain will not necessarily be a pseudoboundary, since the $\Omega$-limit set of the restriction might have codimension one in the boundary.
As explained in [@Z], a pseudocycle naturally determines a homology class in $M$, in a way which induces an isomorphism between the group $\mathcal{H}_*(X)$ of pseudocycles modulo pseudoboundaries (with addition given by disjoint union) and the integral homology $H_*(M;\mathbb{Z})$. Moreover, there is a well-defined intersection pairing on $\mathcal{H}_{*}(X)$ given by the construction of [@MS p. 161], and under the isomorphism $\mathcal{H}_*(X)\cong H_*(X;\mathbb{Z})$ this corresponds to the standard intersection pairing.
Essentially the same construction as was used for the intersection pairing on $\mathcal{H}_*(X)$ in [@MS] may be used to define linking numbers between pseudoboundaries, as we now describe.
We begin with a technical transversality result.
\[diffu\] $M,N,Y$ be smooth manifolds, let $f\co M\to Y$, $g\co N\to Y$ be smooth functions, and let $S$ be a compact subset of $Y$ such that, for every pair $(m,n)\in M\times N$ such that $f(m)=g(n)$ and $(f\times g)_*\co T_m M\times T_n N\to T_{(f(m),f(m))}Y\times Y$ is not transverse to $\Delta$, it holds that $f(m)\in int(S)$ (where $int(S)$ denotes the interior of $S$). Let $\Diff_{S}(Y)$ denote the space of diffeomorphisms of $Y$ having support contained in $S$, equipped with the (restriction of the) Whitney $C^{\infty}$ topology. Then $$\mathcal{S}=\left\{\phi\in \Diff_{S}(Y)\left|\left( (\phi\circ f)\times g\right)\co M\times N\to Y\times Y \mbox{ is transverse to }\Delta \right.\right\}$$ is a residual subset of $\Diff_{S}(Y)$.
See Section \[app\].
The following consequence of Lemma \[diffu\] is a small generalization of [@MS Lemma 6.5.5(i)].
\[tvs1\] Let $F_0\co X\to M$ be a pseudochain (where $X$ is a smooth manifold with boundary), and let $g\co W\to M$ be a pseudocycle such that $\overline{F_0(\partial X)}\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$. Then if $\mathcal{U}$ is any neighborhood of $F_0$ in the Whitney $C^{\infty}$ topology there exists a pseudochain $F\co X\to M$ such that $F\in \mathcal{U}$ and
- $F|_{\partial X}=F_{0}|_{\partial X}$
- $(F\times g)\co X\times W\to M\times M$ is transverse to the diagonal $\Delta$.
- $\Omega_F\cap \overline{g(W)}$ and $\overline{F(X)}\cap \Omega_g$ both have dimension at most $\dim X+\dim W-\dim M-2$.
Write $\dim X=k$, $\dim W=l$, and $\dim M=n$. There are smooth maps $\alpha\co A\to M$ and $\beta\co B\to M$, where $A$ and $B$ are smooth manifolds whose components all have dimension at most $k-2$ and at most $l-2$ respectively, such that $\Omega_{F_0}\subset \alpha(A)$ and $\Omega_g\subset \beta(B)$.
Since $\overline{F_0(\partial X)}\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$, and since $\overline{F_0(X)}\cap\overline{g(W)}$ is compact, we can find an open set $U\subset M$ containing $\overline{F_0(X)}\cap\overline{g(W)}$ and whose closure is disjoint from $\overline{F_0(\partial X)}$. According to repeated applications of Lemma \[diffu\] the following subsets of the group $\Diff_{\bar{U}}(M)$ of diffeomorphisms with support in $\bar{U}$ are all residual in the $C^{\infty}$ topology: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{U}_1&=\left\{\phi\in \Diff_{\bar{U}}(M)\left| \left((\phi\circ F_0)\times g \right)\co X\times W\to M\times M\mbox{ is transverse to $\Delta$}\right.\right\} \\
\mathcal{U}_2&=\left\{\phi\in \Diff_{\bar{U}}(M)\left| \left((\phi\circ \alpha)\times g \right)\co A\times W\to M\times M\mbox{ is transverse to $\Delta$}\right.\right\} \\
\mathcal{U}_3&=\left\{\phi\in \Diff_{\bar{U}}(M)\left| \left((\phi\circ \alpha)\times \beta \right)\co A\times B\to M\times M\mbox{ is transverse to $\Delta$}\right.\right\}.\\
\mathcal{U}_4&=\left\{\phi\in \Diff_{\bar{U}}(M)\left| \left(F_0 \times (\phi\circ \beta) \right)\co X\times B\to M\times M\mbox{ is transverse to $\Delta$}\right.\right\} \end{aligned}$$
In particular we can find a diffeomorphism $\phi$, arbitrarily $C^{\infty}$-close to the identity and supported in $\bar{U}$, such that $\phi\in \mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{U}_2\cap\mathcal{U}_3$ and $\phi^{-1}\in\mathcal{U}_4$. We claim that $F=\phi\circ F_0$ will have the desired properties.
Since $F_0(\partial X)\cap (supp(\phi))=\varnothing$ property (i) of the proposition is clear.
The fact that $\phi\in\mathcal{U}_1$ immediately implies property (ii).
As for property (iii), since $\overline{F(X)}=F(X)\cup \Omega_F$ and $\overline{g(W)}=g(W)\cup \Omega_g$, we need to show that $\Omega_F\cap g(W)$, $\Omega_F\cap \Omega_g$, and $F(X)\cap \Omega_g$ all have dimension at most $k+l-n-2$. Now $\Omega_F\cap g(W)\subset (\phi\circ\alpha)(A)\cap g(W)$, and the fact that $\phi\in \mathcal{U}_2$ shows that $A{}_{\phi\circ \alpha}\times_g W$ is cut out transversely, so since all components of $A$ have dimension at most $k-2$ we see that $\Omega_F\cap g(W)$ has dimension at most $k+l-n-2$. Similarly the fact that $\phi\in \mathcal{U}_3$ implies that $\Omega_F\cap \Omega_g$ has dimension at most $k+l-n-4$. Finally, note that $$F(X)\cap \Omega_g\subset F(X)\cap \beta(B)=\phi\left(F_0(X)\cap (\phi^{-1}\circ\beta)(B)\right),$$ so the fact that $\phi^{-1}\in \mathcal{U}_4$ implies that $F(X)\cap \Omega_g$ has dimension at most $k+l-n-2$, completing the proof.
Assume that the target manifold $M$ is oriented with $\dim M=n$, and let $f\co V\to M$ be a $k$-pseudoboundary and $g\co W\to M$ a $(n-k-1)$-pseudoboundary, such that $\overline{f(V)}\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$, and let $F_0\co X\to M$ be a bounding pseudochain for $f$. Use Proposition \[tvs1\] to perturb $F_0$ to $F\co X\to M$ obeying (i)-(iii) above; in particular $F$ is also a bounding pseudochain for $f$. The fiber product $X{}_{F}\times_g W$ is then a smooth oriented manifold of dimension zero, with $\Omega_F\cap \overline{g(W)}=F(X)\cap \Omega_g=\varnothing$ (since in this case $\dim X+\dim W-\dim M-2=-2$).
Moreover $X{}_F\times_g W$ is compact: if $\{(x_n,w_n)\}$ is a sequence in $X{}_F\times_g W$ then since $\overline{F(X)}$ and $\overline{g(W)}$ are compact the sequence $\{(F(x_n),g(w_n))\}$ would have a subsequence (still denoted by $\{(F(x_n),g(w_n))\}$) converging to a point $(m,m)\in (\overline{F(X)}\times \overline{g(W)})\cap \Delta$. Now $\overline{F(X)}=F(X)\cup \Omega_F$, so since $\Omega_F\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$ we must have $m\in F(X)\setminus \Omega_F$. But since $F(X)\cap \Omega_g=\varnothing$ this implies that also $m\in g(W)\setminus \Omega_g$. Since $m$ lies in neither $\Omega_F$ nor $\Omega_g$ there are compact sets $K\Subset X$, $L\Subset W$ such that $m\notin \overline{F(X\setminus K)}$ and $m\notin \overline{g(W\setminus L)}$. So since $F(x_n)\to m$ and $g(w_n)\to m$, infinitely many of the $x_n$ lie in $K$, and infinitely many of the $w_n$ lie in $L$. So since $K$ and $L$ are compact a subsequence of $\{(x_n,w_n)\}$ converges to a pair $(x,w)\in K\times L\subset X\times W$ such that $F(x)=g(w)$, *i.e.* such that $(x,w)\in F{}_X\times_g W$. This confirms our assertion that $X{}_F\times_g W$ is compact provided that $F$ is as in Proposition \[tvs1\].
Since $X{}_F\times_g W$ is a compact oriented zero-manifold we can take the intersection number $\iota(g,F)=\#(X{}_F\times_g W)$ as described at the end of Section \[or\]. We would like to define the *linking number* of the pseudoboundaries $g$ and $f$ to be equal to this intersection number; the justification of this definition requires the following:
\[indep\] Let $f\co V\to M$ and $g\co W\to M$ be two pseudoboundaries such that $\overline{f(V)}\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$ and $\dim V+\dim W+1=\dim M$. Let $F_1\co X_1\to M$ and $F_2\co X_2\to M$ be two bounding pseudochains for $f$ such that, for $i=1,2$,
- $F_i\times g\co X_i\times W\to M\times M$ is transverse to the diagonal $\Delta$.
- $\Omega_{F_i}\cap \overline{g(W)}=\Omega_g\cap \overline{F_i(X_i)}=\varnothing$.
Then $$\iota(g,F_1)=\iota(g,F_2).$$
(Of course, the argument before the proposition shows that (i) and (ii) suffice to guarantee that $X_i\,{}_{F_i}\times_g W$ is a compact oriented zero-manifold, so that $\iota(g,F_i)$ is well-defined.)
We have, as oriented manifolds, $\partial X_i=V$ and $F_i|_{\partial X_i}=f$. Let $\bar{X}_1$ denote $X_1$ with its orientation reversed. There are then neighborhoods $U_1$ of $\partial\bar{X}_1$ in $\bar{X}_1$ and $U_2$ of $\partial X_2$ in $X_2$, and orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms $\phi_1\co [0,\infty)\times V\to U_1$ and $\phi_2\co (-\infty,0]\times V\to U_2$ which restrict as the identity on $\{0\}\times V=\partial X_i$. Gluing $\bar{X}_1$ to $X_2$ along their common boundary $V$ results in a new oriented, boundaryless manifold $X$, with an open subset $U\subset X$ which is identified via a diffeomorphism $\phi=\phi_1\cup \phi_2$ with $\mathbb{R}\times V$.
Define a map $G_0\co X\to M$ by the requirement that $G_0|_{X_i}=F_i$. Now $G_0$ is typically not a smooth map (its derivative in the direction normal to $\{0\}\times V$ will typically not exist), but this is easily remedied: let $\beta\co \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a smooth homeomorphism such that $\beta(t)=t$ for $|t|>1$ and such that $\beta$ vanishes to infinite order at $t=0$. Where $U\subset X$ is identified with $\mathbb{R}\times V$ as above, define $\Phi\co X\to X$ by setting $\Phi(t,v)=\left(\beta(t),v\right)$ for $(t,v)\in U$ and setting $\Phi$ equal to the identity outside $U$. Then $\Phi$ is a smooth homeomorphism, and the function $G:=G\circ \Phi$ will now be smooth, since the normal derivatives to all orders along $\{0\}\times V$ will simply vanish.
Now since $G=G_0\circ \Phi^{-1}$ where $\Phi^{-1}$ is a homeomorphism we have $\Omega_G=\Omega_{G_0}$. But it is easy to check from the definitions that $\Omega_{G_0}=\Omega_{F_1}\cup \Omega_{F_2}$. Thus $\Omega_G$, like $\Omega_{F_1}$ and $\Omega_{F_2}$, has dimension at most $\dim X-2$. So since $\partial X=\varnothing$, $G\co X\to M$ is a pseudocycle. Moreover we have $$\Omega_G\cap \overline{g(W)}=(\Omega_{F_1}\cap \overline{g(W)})\cup(\Omega_{F_1}\cap \overline{g(W)})=\varnothing,$$ and since $G(X)=F_1(X_1)\cup F_2(X_2)$, $$\Omega_g\cap \overline{G(X)}=\varnothing.$$
Furthermore, viewing the $X_i$ as submanifolds-with-boundary of $X$ (with the orientation of $X_1$ reversed) and using that the image under $G$ of $V=X_1\cap X_2$ is disjoint from $g(W)$, we have, as oriented manifolds, $$X{}_G\times_g W=\left(-X_1\,{}_{F_1}\times_{g}W\right)\coprod \left(X_2\,{}_{F_2}\times_{g}W\right).$$ In particular the fiber product $X{}_{G}\times_g W$ is cut out transversely, and the intersection numbers of $G,F_1,F_2$ with $g$ obey $$\iota(g,G)=-\iota(g,F_1)+\iota(g,F_2).$$ But $G\co X\to M$ is a pseudocycle and $g\co W\to M$ is a pseudoboundary, so by [@MS Lemma 6.5.5 (iii)] one has $\iota(g,G)=0$, and so $\iota(g,F_1)=\iota(g,F_2)$.
We can accordingly make the following definition:
\[lk\] Let $M$ be an oriented $n$-manifold and let $f\co V\to M$ and $g\co W\to M$ be pseudoboundaries of dimension $k$ and $n-k-1$ respectively such that $\overline{f(V)}\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$. Then the *linking number* of $g$ and $f$ is $$lk(g,f)=\#\left(X{}_{F}\times_g W\right)$$ where $F\co X\to M$ is any bounding pseudochain for $f$ such that $F\times g\co X\times W\to M\times M$ is transverse to $\Delta$, and $\Omega_g\cap \overline{F(X)}=\Omega_F\cap \overline{g(W)}=\varnothing$.
Of course, the existence of such an $F$ is implied by Proposition \[tvs1\], and the independence of $lk(g,f)$ from the choice of $F$ is given by Proposition \[indep\]. Moreover:
\[linksym\] For $f\co V\to M$ and $g\co W\to M$ as in Definition \[lk\] we have $$lk(g,f)=(-1)^{(k+1)(n-k)}lk(f,g).$$
Let $F_1\co X\to M$ and $G_1\co Y\to M$ be bounding pseudochains for $f$ and $g$ respectively, such that $F_1\times g\co X\times W\to M\times M$ and $G_1\times f\co Y\times V\to M\times M$ are transverse to $\Delta$, and such that $$\Omega_g\cap\overline{F_1(X)}=
\Omega_f\cap\overline{G_1(Y)}=\Omega_{F_1}\cap\overline{g(W)}=\Omega_{G_1}\cap\overline{f(V)}=\varnothing.$$
First, using repeated applications of Lemma \[diffu\], one can perturb $F_1$ and $G_1$ to maps $F\co X\to M$ and $G\co Y\to M$ which (in addition to the above properties of $F_1$ and $G_1$) also have the properties that $F\times G\co X\times Y\to M\times M$ is transverse to $\Delta$, and $\Omega_F\cap \overline{G(Y)}=\Omega_G\cap \overline{F(X)}=\varnothing$ (More specifically, and ignoring issues related to the $\Omega$-limit sets which can be handled as in the proof of Proposition \[tvs1\], first apply Lemma \[diffu\] with one map equal to $G_1$ and the other equal to $F_1|_{F_{1}^{-1}(U)}$ for some small neighborhood $U$ of $\overline{f(V)}$ to perturb $G_1$ to a new map $G_2$ which has no nontransverse intersections with $F_1$ or $f$ near $\overline{f(V)}$. Then similarly perturb $F_1$ to $F_2$ which has no nontransverse intersections with $G_2$ or $g$ near $\overline{g(W)}$. Then finally apply Lemma \[diffu\] to $F_2$ and $G_2$ on a suitable compact subset $S$ which is disjoint from $\overline{f(V)}\cup\overline{g(W)}$. We leave the details to the reader.)
The fiber product $X{}_{F}\times_G Y$ will then be an oriented compact one-manifold with oriented boundary given by, according to (\[bdryid\]) and (\[commutid\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\partial\left(X{}_{F}\times_G Y\right)&=\left(V{}_f\times_G Y\right)\coprod (-1)^{n-k-1}\left(X{}_F\times_g W\right)
\\&\cong (-1)^{k(n-k)}\left(Y{}_G\times_f V\right)\coprod (-1)^{n-k-1}\left(X{}_F\times_g W\right).\end{aligned}$$ So the signed number of points of the boundary the oriented compact one-manifold $X{}_F\times_G Y$ is equal to $$(-1)^{k(n-k)}lk(f,g)+(-1)^{n-k-1}lk(g,f).$$ But the signed number of points of the boundary of any oriented compact one-manifold is zero, and setting the above expression equal to zero yields the result.
While we primarily consider pseudochains and pseudoboundaries in this paper, it is natural to ask when these can be replaced by smooth maps defined on compact smooth manifolds. The following lemma helps to answer this question in some cases.
\[smoothen\] Let $\phi\co V\to M$ be a $k$-pseudoboundary and let $U$ be any open neighborhood of $\overline{\phi(V)}$. Then for some positive integer $N$, there is a compact oriented $k$-manifold $B$ and a smooth map $f\co B\to M$ which is a pseudoboundary, such that $f(B)\subset U$ and such that, for every $(n-k-1)$-pseudoboundary $g\co W\to M$ such that $g(W)\cap U=\varnothing$, we have $$lk(g,f)=N\,lk(g,\phi).$$
Choose an open subset $U_1\subset U$ such that $\bar{U}_1$ is a smooth compact manifold with boundary and $\overline{\phi(V)}\subset U_1\subset \bar{U}_1\subset U$ (for instance, $\bar{U}_1$ could be taken as a regular sublevel set for some smooth function supported in $U$ and equal to $-1$ on $\overline{\phi(V)}$). Let $C_2$ be the image of $\bar{U}_1$ under the time-one flow of some vector field that points strictly into $U_1$ along $\partial \bar{U}_1$ and vanishes on $\overline{\phi(V)}$, so in particular $C_2$ is a smooth compact manifold with boundary and we have $\overline{\phi(V)}\subset C_2\subset U_1$, with the inclusion $i\co C_2\to U_1$ a homotopy equivalence.
Let $[\phi]\in H_k(U_1;\Z)$ denote the homology class of $\phi$, as given by the isomorphism $\Phi$ from [@Z Theorem 1.1] between the homology of $U_1$ and the group of equivalence classes of pseudocycles in $U_1$. Since $C_2$, like any smooth compact manifold with boundary, is homeomorphic to a finite polyhedron, [@T Théorème III.4] gives a positive integer $N$, a smooth compact oriented $k$-manifold $B$ without boundary, and a continuous map $f^{0}\co B\to C_2$ such that $(f^{0})_*[B]=Ni_{*}^{-1}[\phi]$. So if $f\co B\to U_1$ is a small perturbation of $f^0$ which is of class $C^{\infty}$, then $f_{*}[B]=N[\phi]\in H_k(U_1;\Z)$.
We can now think of $f$ as a pseudocycle in $U_1$; as is clear from the construction of the isomorphism $\Phi$ in [@Z Section 3.2], the homology class determined by $f$ under $\Phi$ is just $f_{*}[B]$. Let $NV$ denote the oriented manifold obtained by taking $N$ disjoint copies of $V$, and let $\phi^{N}\co NV\to U_1\subset M$ be the pseudocycle equal to $\phi$ on each copy of $V$. The injectivity of Zinger’s isomorphism $\Phi$ shows that $f$ and $\phi^{N}$ are equivalent as pseudocycles in $U_1$, *i.e.*, there is an oriented manifold with boundary $X_1$ with $\partial X_1=B\coprod (-NV)$ and a pseudochain $F_1\co X_1\to U_1$ such that $F_1|_{B}=f$ and $F_1|_{-NV}=\phi^{N}$.
Now $\phi\co V\to M$ was assumed to be a pseudoboundary, so taking $N$ copies of a bounding pseudochain for $\phi$ gives a bounding pseudochain $F_2\co X_2\to M$ for $\phi^{N}\co NV\to M$. A gluing construction just like the one in the second paragraph of the proof of Proposition \[indep\] then gives a bounding pseudochain $F\co X\to M$ for $f$, where $X$ is the smooth manifold resulting from gluing $X_1$ and $X_2$ along $NV$. In particular this shows that $f$ is a pseudoboundary in $M$. Moreover, since $\bar{U}_1\subset U$ the gluing construction can be arranged in such a way that $F^{-1}(M\setminus U)=F_{2}^{-1}(M\setminus U)$, and $F|_{F^{-1}(M\setminus U)}=F_{2}|_{F_{2}^{-1}(M\setminus U)}$. So if $g\co W\to M$ is any pseudoboundary such that $g(W)\subset M\setminus U$, then we have $$lk(g,f)=\#(X{}_{F}\times_g W)=\#\left(X_2\,{}_{F_2}\times_g W\right)=N\,lk(g,\phi),$$ since $F_2\co X_2\to M$ was obtained by taking $N$ copies of a bounding pseudochain for $\phi$.
Operations on the Morse complex {#ops}
===============================
Let $M$ be a compact smooth oriented $n$-manifold and let $f\co M\to\R$ be a Morse function, and fix a coefficient ring $\mathbb{K}$. We will work with respect to a metric $h$ which belongs to the intersection of the residual sets given by applying the forthcoming Proposition \[genmet\] to various maps into $M$ that will be specified later; in particular, the negative gradient flow of $f$ with respect to $h$ is Morse–Smale. Let $Crit(f)$ denote the set of critical points of $f$, and for $p\in Crit(f)$ write $|p|_f$ for the index of $p$. As in Section \[or:morse\], orient the unstable manifolds $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ in such a way that when $|p|_f=n$ (so that $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ is an open subset of $M$) the orientation of $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ agrees with that of $M$, and when $|p|_f=0$, $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ is a positively oriented point. This then induces orientations of the various $W^{s}_{f}(p)$, $W^{u}_{-f}(p)$, $W^{s}_{-f}(p)$, $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$, and $\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)$ as prescribed in Section \[or:morse\]. Note that these prescriptions also ensure that when $|p|_{-f}=n$ (so $|p|_f=0$) the orientation of $W^{u}_{-f}(p)$ agrees with that of $M$, and when $|p|_{-f}=0$, $W^{u}_{-f}(p)$ is a positively oriented point.
When $|p|_f=|q|_f+1$, the Morse–Smale condition ensures that $\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)$ is a compact $0$-dimensional oriented manifold, and so has a signed number of points $\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)\right)$, evaluated in $\mathbb{K}$ (using the unique unital ring homomorphism $\Z\to\mathbb{K}$).
The Morse complex $(CM_*(f;\mathbb{K}),d_f)$ is defined as usual by letting $CM_k(f)$ be the free $\mathbb{K}$-module generated by the index-$k$ critical points of $f$, setting $CM_{*}(f;\mathbb{K})=\oplus_{k=0}^{n}CM_k(f)$, and defining $d_f=\oplus_k d_{f,k}$ where $d_{f,k}\co CM_{k}(f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{k-1}(f;\mathbb{K})$ is defined by extending linearly from, for $p\in Crit(f)$ with $|p|_f=k$, $$d_{f,k}(p)=\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{c} q\in Crit(f):\\|q|_f=k-1\end{array}}} \#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)\right)q.$$ As is familiar (see *e.g.* [@S93]), one has $d_f\circ d_f=0$, and the resulting homology $HM_*(f;\mathbb{K})$ is canonically isomorphic to the singular homology $H_*(M;\mathbb{K})$ of $M$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{K}$.
Moreover, given our orientation conventions, there is a canonical element $M_f\in CM_n(f;\mathbb{K})$, defined by $$\label{mdef} M_f=\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{c} p\in Crit(f):\\|p|_f=n\end{array}}}p.$$ The following shows that $M_f$ is a cycle in the Morse chain complex; in view of this, it is easy to see that $M_f$ represents the fundamental class of $M$ under the isomorphism with singular homology (using for instance the construction of this isomorphism given in [@S99]).
\[dmzero\] $d_f M_f=0$.
It suffices to show that, for any $q\in Crit(f)$ with $|q|_f=n-1$, the coefficient on $q$ in $d_fM_f$ is equal to zero. This coefficient is equal to $$\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{c} p\in Crit(f):\\|p|_f=n\end{array}}}\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)\right).$$
Now since $|q|_{f}=n-1$, the Morse–Smale condition (and the trivial fact that no critical points of $f$ have index larger than $n$) implies that the partial compactification $\bar{W}^{s}_{f}(q)$ described in Section \[or:morse\] is in fact compact. Consequently $\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(\partial \bar{W}^{s}_{f}(q)\right)=0$, since the signed number of points in the boundary of a compact one-manifold is always zero. Also, our orientation conventions ensure that, for each critical point $p$ with $|p|_f=n$, $W^{s}_{f}(p)$ is a positively-oriented point. So consulting (\[delws\]) we obtain $$0=\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(\partial \bar{W}^{s}_{f}(q)\right)=-\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{c} p\in Crit(f):\\|p|_f=n\end{array}}}\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(\mathcal{M}(p,q;f)\right),$$ as desired.
Of course, this can all be done with respect to $-f$ in place of $f$, and with the prescriptions above the $\mathbb{K}$-modules $CM_{n-k}(-f;\mathbb{K})$ and $CM_k(f;\mathbb{K})$ are defined identically. We may then define a $\mathbb{K}$-bilinear pairing $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi\co CM_{n-*}(-f;\mathbb{K})\times CM_{*}(f;\mathbb{K})&\to \mathbb{K} \\ \left(\sum_{q\in Crit(f)}a_q q,\sum_{p\in Crit(f)}b_p p\right)&\mapsto \sum_{p\in Crit(f)}a_p b_p \end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[dualm\]) then translates to $$\label{adjpi} \Pi\left(d_{-f}x,y\right)=(-1)^{n-k+1}\Pi\left(x,d_f y\right) \quad \mbox{for } x\in CM_{n-k+1}(-f;\mathbb{K}),\,y\in CM_k(f;\mathbb{K}),$$ so that $\Pi$ descends to a pairing $\underline{\Pi}\co HM_*(-f;\mathbb{K})\times HM_*(f;\mathbb{K})\to\K$. Given that the Morse–Smale condition guarantees that if $p$ and $q$ are distinct critical points of the same index then $W^{s}(q)\cap W^{u}(p)=\varnothing$, it is easy to check that, with respect to the identifications of $HM_{*}(\pm f;\K)$ with $H_*(M;\K)$ described in [@S99], this homological pairing coincides with the standard intersection pairing on $M$ (recall from Section \[or:morse\] that for $p\in Crit(f)$ the direct sum decomposition $T_pM=T_{p}W^{u}_{-f}(p)\oplus T_{p}W^{u}_{f}(p)$ respects the orientations, in view of which $\underline{\Pi}$ has the correct sign to agree with the standard intersection pairing).
From the pairing $\Pi$ we may construct a *linking pairing* between the image of $d_{-f}$ and the image of $d_f$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda\co \left(Im(d_{-f})\right)\times \left(Im(d_f)\right)&\to\mathbb{K} \nonumber \\ \label{mlpair}
(x,y)&\mapsto \Pi(x,z) \quad \mbox{for any $z$ such that $d_f z=y$}.\end{aligned}$$ The adjoint relation (\[adjpi\]) and the fact that $x\in Im(d_{-f})$ readily imply that $\Pi(x,z)$ is indeed independent of the choice of $z$ such that $d_f z=y$. Also, for $x\in CM_{n-k-1}(-f;\mathbb{K})\cap Im(d_{-f})$ and $y\in CM_k(f;\mathbb{K})\cap Im(d_f)$ the above definition is equivalent to $$\label{altlam} \Lambda(x,y)=(-1)^{n-k}\Pi(w,y)\quad \mbox{for any $w$ such that $d_{-f}w=x$}.$$
We now turn to a transversality result for intersections of Morse trajectories with smooth maps, which, while following from fairly standard methods, will be of fundamental importance for our operations on the Morse chain complex. Be given an exhausting Morse function $f\co M\to \R$ on an $n$-dimensional smooth manifold $m$, and let $Crit(f)$ denote the set of critical points of $f$. If $h$ is a Riemannian metric and $p,q\in Crit(f)$ we have the inclusions of the stable and unstable manifolds $i_{s,q}\co W^{s}_{f}(q;h)\to M$, $i_{u,p}\co W^{u}_{f}(p;h)\to M$ and the trajectory space $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)=W^{u}_{f}(p;h){}_{i_{u,p}}\times_{i_{s,p}} W^{s}_{f}(q;h)$ In [@S93 Section 2.3] Schwarz constructs a Banach manifold $\mathcal{G}$ all of whose members are smooth Riemannian metrics, and shows that there is a residual subset $\mathcal{R}_0\subset\mathcal{G}$ such that for all $h\in\mathcal{R}_0$ the negative gradient flow of $f$ with respect to $h$ satisfies the Morse–Smale condition, which is to say that the fiber products $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)=W^{u}_{f}(p;h){}_{i_{u,p}}\times_{i_{s,p}} W^{s}_{f}(q;h)$ are all cut out transversely.
Of course, $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)$ may be identified with the space of smooth maps $\gamma\co \mathbb{R}\to M$ such that $\dot{\gamma}(t)+\nabla^h f(\gamma(t))=0$ for all $t$ and $\lim_{t\to -\infty}\gamma(t)=p$ and $\lim_{t\to\infty}\gamma(t)=q$. Under this identification we have an embedding $$\begin{aligned}
e_{pq}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)&\to M \\ \gamma&\mapsto \gamma(0) \end{aligned}$$
Where $\mathbb{R}_+$ denotes the set of positive real numbers, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ define $$\begin{aligned}
E_k\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k-1}&\to M^k
\\ (\gamma,t_1,\ldots,t_{k-1}) & \mapsto \left(\gamma(0),\gamma(t_1),\gamma(t_1+t_2),\ldots,\gamma\left(\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}t_{i}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ (Thus, viewing $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{0}$ as a one-point set, $E_0$ coincides with $e_{pq}$.)
\[genmet\] Let $k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ and for $0\leq i\leq k-1$ let $V_i$ be a smooth manifold and $g_i\co V_i\to M$ be a smooth map such that $g_i(V_i)\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$. Then there is a residual subset $\mathcal{R}\subset \mathcal{G}$ such that for every $h\in\mathcal{R}$ the negative gradient flow of $f$ with respect to $h$ is Morse–Smale, and for all $p,q\in Crit(f)$ the fiber product $$\mathcal{V}(p,q,f,g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1};h):=\left(V_0\times\cdots\times V_{k-1}\right){}_{g_0\times\cdots\times g_{k-1}}\times_{E_k}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k-1}\right)$$ is cut out transversely.
See Section \[app\].
Cap products
------------
Continuing to fix the above Morse function $f$, let $g\co V\to M$ be any pseudochain, where $V$ is an oriented $v$-dimensional manifold with (possibly empty) boundary and $v\leq n$. Thus $\overline{g(V)}=g(V)\cup \Omega_g$, where $\Omega_g$ is covered by the image of a smooth map $\phi\co W\to M$ and all components of $W$ have dimension at most $v-2$. If $v<n$ we additionally assume that $\overline{g(V)}\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$. If $v = n$ we instead additionally assume that $Crit(f)\cap (g(\partial V)\cup \Omega_g)=\varnothing$, and that every point in $Crit(f)$ is a regular value of $g$.
Writing $\partial g=g|_{\partial V}\co \partial V\to M$, we will assume from now on that the Morse–Smale metric $h$ being used to define the gradient flow of $f$ belongs to the intersection of the residual sets obtained by applying Proposition \[genmet\] successively (in each instance with $k=1$) to $g|_{g^{-1}(M\setminus Crit(f))}$, to $\partial g$, and to $\phi$.
This being the case, for all $p,q\in Crit(f)$ the fiber products $V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$, $\partial V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$, and $W{}_{\phi}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ will all be cut out transversely,[^6] where $e_{pq}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\to M$ is the canonical embedding (if elements of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ are thought of as gradient flow trajectories $\gamma$ then $e_{pq}(\gamma)=\gamma(0)$). In particular, in the case that $|p|_{f}-|q|_{f}=n-v$, the latter two fiber products will be empty, and $V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ will be an oriented zero-manifold. Moreover this oriented zero-manifold will be compact: to see this, recall that the images under $e_{pq}$ of a divergent sequence in $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ will, after passing to a subsequence, converge to an element of some $e_{rs}(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,s;f))$ where $|r|_f-|s|_f<|p|_f-|q|_f$, and use the fact that $V{}_{g}\times_{e_{rs}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,s;f)$, $\partial V{}_{\partial g}\times_{e_{rs}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,s;f)$, and $W{}_{\phi}\times_{e_{rs}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,s;f)$ are all cut out transversely and hence are empty by dimension considerations. Consequently we have a well defined $\mathbb{K}$-valued signed count of elements $\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\right)$ whenever $|p|_f-|q|_f=n-v$.
Accordingly, given $g\co V\to M$ as above (and a suitable Morse–Smale metric) we define a map $I_g\co CM_{*}(f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{*}(f;\mathbb{K})$ as a direct sum of maps $$I_g\co CM_{k}(f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{k-(n-v)}(f;\mathbb{K})$$ obtained by extending linearly from the formula $$I_g(p)=\sum_{{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{c} q\in Crit(f):\\|q|_f=k-(n-v)\end{array}}}}\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\right)q$$
$I_g(x)$ might be thought of as a chain-level version of the cap product of $x\in CM_*(f;\mathbb{K})$ with the pseudochain $g\co V\to M$.
Evidently we have an identically-defined map (using the same metric $h$) $I_g\co CM_{k}(-f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{k-(n-v)}(-f;\mathbb{K})$.
\[igprop\] The maps $I_g\co CM_{*}(\pm f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{*-(n-v)}(\pm f;\mathbb{K})$ enjoy the following properties:
- For $x\in CM_{2n-k-v}(-f;\mathbb{K})$ and $y\in CM_{k}(f;\mathbb{K})$, $$\Pi\left(I_g(x),y\right)=(-1)^{(n-v)(n-k)}\Pi\left(x,I_g(y)\right).$$
- Assuming that $\partial g\co \partial V\to M$ is also a pseudochain, so that $I_{\partial g}$ is defined, $$I_{\partial g}-d_fI_g+(-1)^{n-v}I_gd_f=0.$$
Since $\Pi$ is bilinear it suffices to check the equation in (i) when $x=q$ for some critical point $q$ with $|q|_f=k-(n-v)$ (so that $|q|_{-f}=2n-k-v$) and $y=p$ for some critical point $p$ with $|p|_f=k$. By definition we have $$\Pi\left(q,I_g(p)\right)=\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\right)$$ and $$\Pi\left(I_g(q),p\right)=
\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(q,p;-f)\right)$$
In view of (\[tmqp\]), these differ from each other by a factor $(-1)^{(|p|_f+|q|_f)(n-|p|_f)}=(-1)^{(n-v)(n-k)}$, proving (i).
\(ii) is proven by examining the boundary of the one-manifolds $V{}_{g}\times_{\bar{E}_0}\tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)$ where $|p|_f-|q|_f=n-v+1$. Recall here that $\tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)$ is a partial compactification of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$, with oriented boundary given by $$\partial \tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)= \left(\coprod_{|r|_{f}=|p|_f-1}\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\right)\sqcup (-1)^{|p|_f+|q|_f}
\left(\coprod_{|r|_{f}=|q|_f+1}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\right),$$ and the characteristic map $\bar{E}_{0}\co \tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)\to M$ is equal to $e_{pq}$ on the interior $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ and to the canonical embeddings of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ on $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$, respectively.
Now the $\Omega$-limit set $\Omega_{\bar{E}_0}$ of $\bar{E}_0$ is contained in spaces of the form $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,s;f)$ of dimension at most $|p|_f-|q|_f-2=n-v-1$, and so is disjoint from $\overline{g(V)}$ by our transversality assumptions on the metric $h$. For similar dimensional reasons, $\Omega_g$ is disjoint from $\overline{\bar{E}_0\left(\tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)\right)}$, and also $g(\partial V)\cap \bar{E}_0\left(\partial\tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)\right)=\varnothing$. Therefore $V{}_{g}\times_{\bar{E}_0}\tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)$ is a compact oriented one-manifold with boundary (and no corners, since the fiber product of the boundaries is empty); according to (\[bdryid\]) the oriented boundary is given by $$\label{capbdry} \left((\partial V){}_{\partial g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\right)\coprod (-1)^{n-v}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{\bar{E}_0}\partial \tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f) \right)$$ Of course, since (\[capbdry\]) is the boundary of a compact oriented one-manifold, its signed number of points must be zero. The signed number of points (counted in $\mathbb{K}$) in $(\partial V){}_{\partial g}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ is $\Pi(q,I_{\partial g}p)$. As for the other set appearing in (\[capbdry\]), we have, freely using properties of fiber product orientations from Section \[or:fp\], $$\begin{aligned}
V{}_{g}\times_{\bar{E}_0}\partial \tilde{\bar{\mathcal{M}}}(p,q;f)=&\left(\coprod_{|r|_f=|p|_f-1}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{\bar{E}_0}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\right)\times \mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\right)\\& \sqcup (-1)^{|p|_f+|q|_f} \left(\coprod_{|r|_f=|q|_f+1}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{\bar{E}_0}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\right)\times \mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\right)\end{aligned}$$
The signed number of points in the first of the two large unions above is easily seen to be $\Pi\left(q,I_g (d_fp)\right)$, while the signed number of points in the second large union (ignoring the sign $(-1)^{|p|_f+|q|_f}$) is $\Pi\left(q,d_fI_g(p)\right)$. So since in this case $(-1)^{|p|_f+|q|_f}=(-1)^{n-v+1}$, setting the signed number of points in (\[capbdry\]) equal to zero gives $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\Pi(q,I_{\partial g}p)+(-1)^{n-v}\left(\Pi\left(q,I_g (d_fp)\right)+(-1)^{n-v+1}\Pi\left(q,d_fI_g(p)\right)\right)
\\&=\Pi\left(q,\left(I_{\partial g}-d_f I_g+(-1)^{n-v}I_g d_f\right)p\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since this equation holds for all $p,q\in Crit(f)$ of the appropriate indices, we have proven (ii).
We also mention the following somewhat trivial proposition, which we will appeal to later. Recall the canonical cycle $M_f=\sum_{|p|_f=n}p\in CM_n(f;\mathbb{K})$ from (\[mdef\]); similarly we have a canonical cycle $M_{-f}=\sum_{|q|_f=0}q\in CM_{n}(-f;\mathbb{K})$.
\[piint\] Let $V$ be a compact oriented zero-manifold, let $g\co V\to M$ be a map such that $g(V)\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$, and assume that the metric $h$ belongs to the residual set of Proposition \[genmet\] applied with $k=1$ to the map $g$, so that $I_g\co CM_{*}(f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{*-n}(f;\mathbb{K})$ is defined. Then the signed number of points in $V$ is given by $$\#_{\mathbb{K}}(V)=\Pi\left(M_{-f},I_gM_f\right).$$
Since $\dim V=0$, by dimensional considerations our assumption on $h$ amounts to the statement that $V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}} \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)=\varnothing$ unless $|p|_f=n$ and $|q|_f=0$. Now as $p$ varies through index-$n$ critical points of $f$ and $q$ varies through index-$0$ critical points, the $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ are sent by their canonical embeddings $e_{pq}$ to disjoint open subsets of $M$, and our orientation prescription for the unstable manifolds of index-$n$ and index-$0$ critical points ensures that the orientation of each such $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ coincides with its orientation as an open subset of $M$. As a result, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\#_{\mathbb{K}}(V)&=\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(V{}_g\times_{1_M}M\right)=\sum_{|q|_f=0}\sum_{|p|_f=n}\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left(V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pq}}
\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\right) \\&=\sum_{|q|_f=0}\sum_{|p|_f=n}\Pi\left(q,I_g p\right)=\Pi\left(\sum_{|q|_f=0}q,\sum_{|p|_f=n}I_gp\right)
=\Pi\left(M_{-f},I_gM_f\right),\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Gradient trajectories passing through two chains
------------------------------------------------
Having defined the chain-level cap product by using Proposition \[genmet\] with $k=1$, we now set about defining new operations on the Morse chain complex by means of the $k=2$ version of Proposition \[genmet\]. This will require us to understand the boundaries of (compactifications of) moduli spaces of the form $(V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{E_1}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)\right)$, where the map $E_1\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)\to M\times M$ is defined by $$E_1(\gamma,t)=(\gamma(0),\gamma(t)).$$
\[mark2\] Assume that the negative gradient flow of the exhausting Morse function $f\co M\to\R$ on a smooth oriented manifold $M$ is Morse–Smale and that $p,q\in Crit(f)$ are distinct. There is a pseudochain $\bar{E}_1\co \overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}\to M\times M$, where $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$ is an oriented manifold with boundary whose interior is $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$ and whose oriented boundary is given by $$(-1)^{|p|_f-|q|_f}\partial \overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}=\left((-1)^{|p|_f-|q|_f}C_1\right)\sqcup C_2 \sqcup C_3 \sqcup (-C_4)\sqcup C_5\sqcup C_6$$ where
C\_1&=\_[|r|\_f=|p|\_f-1]{} (p,r;f)(r,q;f)(0,)& &|[E]{}\_1|\_[C\_1]{}(\[\_1\],\_2,t)=(\_2(0),\_2(t)),\
C\_2&=\_[|r|\_f=|q|\_f+1]{}(p,r;f)(r,q;f)(0,)& &|[E]{}\_1|\_[C\_2]{}(\_1,\[\_2\],t)=(\_1(0),\_1(t)),\
C\_3&=\_[|q|\_f<|r|\_f<|p|\_f]{}(p,r;f)(r,q;f)& &|[E]{}\_1|\_[C\_3]{}(\_1,\_2)=(\_1(0),\_2(0)),\
C\_4&=(p,q;f)& &|[E]{}\_1|\_[C\_4]{}()=((0),(0)),\
C\_5&=(p,q;f)& &|[E]{}\_1|\_[C\_5]{}()=(p,(0)),\
C\_6&=(p,q;f)& &|[E]{}\_1|\_[C\_6]{}()=((0),q).
Moreover the $\Omega$-limit set $\Omega_{\bar{E}_1}$ is contained in the union of sets of the following form:
- Images of maps $E_1\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(a,b;f)\times (0,\infty)\to M\times M$ $|a|_f-|b|_f\leq |p|_f-|q|_f-2$
- $e_{a,b}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(a,b;f)\right)\times e_{c,d}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(c,d;f)\right)$$(|a|_f-|b|_f)+(|c|_f-|d|_f)\leq |p|_f-|q|_f-1$
- $\delta(e_0(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(a,b;f)))$ where $\delta\co M\to M\times M$ is the diagonal embedding and $|a|_f-|b|_f\leq |p|_f-|q|_f-1$.
- $\left(e_0(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(a,b;f))\times Crit(f)\right)\cup\left(Crit(f)\times e_0(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(a,b;f))\right)$ with $|a|_f-|b|_f\leq |p|_f-|q|_f-1$.
See Section \[app\].
We assume again that $M$ is compact and fix a Morse function $f\co M\to\R$.
Now suppose that we have two pseudochains $g_0\co V_0\to M$ and $g_1\co V_1\to M$; for $i=1,2$ write $v_i=\dim V_i$, $\partial g_i=g_i|_{\partial V_i}$, and let $\phi_i\co W_i\to M$ be a smooth map from a manifold whose components all have dimension at most $v_i-2$ such that $\Omega_{g_i}\subset \phi_i(W_i)$. Furthermore we assume the following:
- $\overline{g_0(V_0)}\cap \Omega_{g_1}=\overline{g_1(V_1)}\cap \Omega_{g_0}=\varnothing$.
- The fiber products $V_{0}\,{}_{g_0}\times_{g_1}V_1$, $(\partial V_{0}){}_{\partial g_0}\times_{g_1}V_1$, $V_{0}\,{}_{g_0}\times_{\partial g_1}(\partial V_1)$, and $(\partial V_{0}){}_{\partial g_0}\times_{\partial g_1}(\partial V_1)$ are all cut out transversely.
- $\overline{g_0(V_0)}\cap Crit(f)=\overline{g_1(V_1)}\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$.
Also, as a general point of notation, if $\alpha\co A\to M$ and $\beta\co B\to M$ are smooth maps such that $A{}_{\alpha}\times_{\beta} B$ is cut out transversely, we will write $\alpha\times_M\beta$ for the map from $A{}_{\alpha}\times_{\beta} B$ to $M$ defined by $(\alpha\times_M\beta)(a,b)=\alpha(a)=\beta(b)$.
\[genwrt\] Where $f,g_0,g_1,\phi_0,\phi_1$ are as above, a Riemannian metric $h$ on $M$ will be said to be *generic with respect to* $f,g_0,g_1$ provided that it belongs to the residual sets given by Proposition \[genmet\] applied with:
- $k=1$, to each of the functions $$g_0,\,g_1,\,\partial g_0,\,\partial g_1,\,\phi_0,\,\phi_1,\, g_0\times_M g_1,\, g_0\times_M\partial g_1,\,\partial g_0\times_M g_1,\partial g_0\times_M\partial g_1$$
- $k=2$, to each of the pairs of functions $$(g_0,g_1),\,(g_0,\partial g_1),\,(g_0,\phi_1),\,(\partial g_0,g_1),\,(\partial g_0,\partial g_1),\,(\partial g_0,\phi_1),\,(\phi_0,g_1),\,(\phi_0,\partial g_1),\,(\phi_0,\phi_1).$$
Choose a Riemannian metric which is generic with respect to $f,g_0,g_1$ and let $p,q\in Crit(f)$ with $v_0+v_1+|p|_f-|q|_f+1=2n$. Then the fiber product $$(V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$$ is cut out transversely and by dimension considerations is an oriented zero-manifold. Moreover the characterization of $\Omega_{\bar{E}_1}$ in Lemma \[mark2\], the assumption on the indices of $p$ and $q$, and the genericity assumption on $h$ ensure that any hypothetical divergent sequence in $(V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)} $ would have a subsequence whose image under $(g_0\times g_1)\times_M\bar{E}_1$ converging to a point in a transversely-cut-out fiber product which has negative dimension and so is empty. Thus $(V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$ is compact and we may define $$I_{g_0,g_1}(p)=\sum_{{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{c} q\in Crit(f):\\|q|_f=|p|_f+1-(2n-v_1-v_2)\end{array}}}}\#_{\mathbb{K}}\left((V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)} \right)q$$ Extending this linearly gives us a map $$I_{g_0,g_1}\co CM_{k}(f;\mathbb{K})\to CM_{k+1-(2n-v_1-v_2)}(f;\mathbb{K}).$$
\[fundid\] The maps $I_{g_0},I_{g_1}$, and $I_{g_0,g_1}$ obey the following identity: $$I_{\partial g_0,g_1}+(-1)^{v_0}I_{g_0,\partial g_1}+(-1)^{v_0+v_1}I_{g_0,g_1}d_f+d_f I_{g_0,g_1}+(-1)^{v_0(n-v_1)}I_{g_1}I_{g_0}+(-1)^{1+n(n-v_1)}I_{g_0\times_M g_1}=0$$
Let $p,q\in Crit(f)$ be critical points whose indices obey $|p|_f-|q|_f+v_0+v_1=2n$. Then the transversely-cut-out fiber product $(V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$ is one-dimensional, and the genericity assumption on $h$ together with dimensional considerations[^7] imply that this fiber product is compact after adding its oriented boundary, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial\left((V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\right)=&\left(\left(\partial\left(V_0\times V_1\right)\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\right) \\& \quad \coprod \left(\left( V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}(-1)^{2n-v_0-v_1}\partial\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\right)\end{aligned}$$
Now $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial \left(V_0\times V_1\right)\right)&{}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\\= &\left(\left((\partial V_0)\times V_1\right){}_{(\partial g_0)\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\right)\\ & \qquad\qquad\sqcup (-1)^{v_0}\left(\left( V_0\times (\partial V_1)\right){}_{g_0\times \partial g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\right) \end{aligned}$$ has signed number of points (evaluated in $\mathbb{K}$) equal to $$\Pi\left(q,I_{\partial g_0,g_1}p\right)+(-1)^{v_0}\Pi\left(q,I_{g_0,\partial g_1}p\right).$$
Meanwhile since $2n-v_0-v_1=|p|_f-|q|_f$ we see that, with notation as in Lemma \[mark2\], $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\left( V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}(-1)^{2n-v_0-v_1}\partial\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\right)\\ &\qquad =
\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\left(((-1)^{v_0+v_1}C_1)\sqcup C_2\sqcup C_3\sqcup(-C_4)\right)\end{aligned}$$
(The fiber products with $C_5$ and $C_6$ are empty since $\overline{g_0(V_0)}$ and $\overline{g_1(V_1)}$ are disjoint from $Crit(f)$.)
Now the signed number of points in $\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}((-1)^{v_0+v_1}C_1)$ is easily seen to be $$(-1)^{v_0+v_1}\Pi\left(q,I_{g_0,g_1}d_fp\right),$$ while that in $\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}C_2$ is $$\Pi\left(q,d_fI_{g_0,g_1}p\right).$$ Meanwhile for any critical point $r$ with $|q|_f<|r|_f<|p|_f$ we have, using (\[prodid\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\left(V_0\times V_1\right)&{}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{e_{pr}\times e_{rq}}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\right)\\&=(-1)^{(n-v_1)(n-|p|_f+|r|_f)}\left(V_0\,{}_{g_0}\times_{e_{pr}} \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f) \right)\times\left( V_1\,{}_{g_1}\times_{e_{rq}} \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f) \right).\end{aligned}$$ In order for neither $V_0\,{}_{g_0}\times_{e_{pr}} \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ nor $V_1\,{}_{g_1}\times_{e_{rq}} \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f) $ to be nonempty it is necessary that $v_0+|p|_f-|r|_f=n$, in view of which it follows that the signed number of points in $\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}C_3$ is $$(-1)^{v_0(n-v_1)}\Pi\left(q,I_{g_1}I_{g_0}p\right).$$
Finally, where $\delta\co M\to M\times M$ for the diagonal embedding, using (\[associd\]) and (\[diagid\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}(-C_4)&=-\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\delta}\left(M{}_{1_M}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\right)
\\&=-\left(\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\delta}M\right){}_{1_M}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)
\\&=(-1)^{1+n(n-v_1)}\left(V_0\,{}_{g_0}\times_{g_1}V_1\right){}_{g_0\times_M g_1}\times_{e_{pq}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\end{aligned}$$ Thus the signed number of points in $\left(V_0\times V_1\right){}_{g_0\times_M g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}(-C_4)$ is $$(-1)^{1+n(n-v_1)}\Pi\left(q,I_{g_0\times_M g_1}p\right).$$
We have now computed the signed number of points in all of the components of the boundary of the compact oriented one-manifold $(V_0\times V_1){}_{g_0\times g_1}\times_{\bar{E}_1}\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$. Of course, the total signed number of boundary points of this manifold is necessarily zero, and so we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0=\Pi & \left(q,I_{\partial g_0,g_1}p +(-1)^{v_0}I_{g_0,\partial g_1}p+(-1)^{v_0+v_1}I_{g_0,g_1}d_fp+d_f I_{g_0,g_1}p\right.\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \left. +(-1)^{v_0(n-v_1)}I_{g_1}I_{g_0}p+(-1)^{1+n(n-v_1)}I_{g_0\times_M g_1}p\right).\end{aligned}$$
Since this holds for all critical points $p$ and $q$ of the appropriate indices the result follows.
\[ainfty\] Of course, one may continue in this fashion and define, for any positive integer $k$ and suitably transverse pseudochains $g_i\co V_i\to M$ for $i=0,\ldots,k-1$ of dimension $v_i$, operations $$I_{g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1}}\co CM_{*}(f;\K)\to CM_{*-1-\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}(n-v_i-1)}(f;\K)$$ by counting elements of fiber products $\left(V_0\times\cdots\times V_{k-1}\right){}_{g_0\times\cdots\times g_{k-1}}\times_{E_k}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k-1}\right)$. One can see that these operations satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^k & d_f I_{g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1}}+(-1)^{\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}(n-v_i)}I_{g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1}}d_f +\sum_{l=0}^{k-1}(-1)^{\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}v_i}I_{\ldots,g_{l-1},\partial g_l,g_{l+1},\ldots}\\&+\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}\left((-1)^{kl+\left(1+\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}(v_i-1)\right)\left(\sum_{j=l}^{k-1}(n-v_j)\right)}I_{g_{l},\ldots,g_{k-1}}I_{g_0,\ldots,g_{l-1}}+(-1)^{k+l+n\sum_{j=l}^{k-1}(n-v_j)}I_{\ldots,g_{l-2},g_{l-1}\times_Mg_{l},g_{l+1},\ldots}\right)
=0\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this identity for the most part follows straightforwardly by the same arguments as were used in the proofs of Lemma \[mark2\] and Proposition \[fundid\]; a little additional effort is required to obtain the sign on $I_{\ldots,g_{l-2},g_{l-1}\times_Mg_{l},g_{l+1},\ldots}$, which entails comparing the orientations of $$\label{fp1} \left(\cdots\times V_{l-2}\times(V_{l-1}\,{}_{g_{l-1}}\times_{g_l}V_l)\times V_{l+1}\times\cdots\right){}_{\ldots\times g_{l-2}\times g_{l-1}\times_Mg_{l}\times g_{l+1},\ldots}\times_{\bar{E}_{k-1}}(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times\R_{+}^{k-2})$$ and $$\label{fp2} (V_0\times\cdots\times V_{k-1}){}_{g_0\times\cdots\times g_{l-1}}\times_{\delta_l\circ\bar{E}_{k-1}} (\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times\R_{+}^{k-2})$$ where $\delta_l\co M^{k-1}\to M^k$ is defined by $\delta_l(m_0,\ldots,m_{k-2})=(m_0,\ldots,m_{l-1},m_{l-1},\ldots,m_{k-2})$. To do this, note that we can rewrite (\[fp2\]) as $$\left((V_0\times\cdots\times V_{k-1}){}_{g_0\times\cdots\times g_{l-1}}\times_{\delta_l}M^{k-1}\right){}_{1_{M^{k-1}}}\times_{\bar{E}_{k-1}} (\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times\R_{+}^{k-2}),$$ so that the problem reduces to comparing the orientation of $(V_0\times\cdots\times V_{k-1}){}_{g_0\times\cdots\times g_{l-1}}\times_{\delta_l}M^{k-1}$ to that of $V_0\times\cdots\times V_{l-2}\times(V_{l-1}\,{}_{g_{l-1}}\times_{g_l}V_l)\times V_{l+1}\times\cdots\times V_{k-1}$. In turn, this can be done by repeated use of (\[prodid\]) and (\[diagid\]). We will not use this construction for $k>2$, so further details are left to the reader.
From linked pseudoboundaries to critical points {#linkcrit}
===============================================
We are now prepared to demonstrate a relationship between linking numbers of pseudoboundaries and the Morse-theoretic linking pairing (\[mlpair\]). We continue to fix a Morse function $f\co M\to\R$ where $M$ is a compact oriented smooth $n$-dimensional manifold.
For any integer $k$ with $0\leq k\leq n-1$,
- $\mathcal{B}_k(M)$ denotes the set of $k$-pseudoboundaries in $M$.
- $\mathcal{T}_k(M,f)$ denotes the collection of pairs $(b_0,b_1)\in \mathcal{B}_{k}(M)\times \mathcal{B}_{n-k-1}(M)$ such that $$\overline{Im(b_{0})}\cap Crit(f)=\overline{Im(b_{1})}\cap Crit(f)=\overline{Im(b_{0})}\cap \overline{Im(b_{1})}=\varnothing.$$
Thus if $(b_0,b_1)\in \mathcal{T}_k(M,f)$ then we obtain a well-defined linking number $lk(b_0,b_1)$, and by Proposition \[genmet\], all metrics $h$ in some residual subset will be generic with respect to $f,b_{0},b_{1}$ in the sense of Definition \[genwrt\]. For any such metric $h$ we may then define the maps $I_{b_0},I_{b_1}\co CM_{*}(\pm f;\K)\to CM_{*}(\pm f;\K)$ and $I_{b_0,b_1}\co CM_{*}(f;\K)\to CM_{*}(f;\K)$.
Recall that the Morse complex $CM_*(f;\K)$ on an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$ carries a distinguished element $M_f\in CM_n(f;\K)$ defined in (\[mdef\]), which is a cycle by Proposition \[dmzero\].
\[linklinkprop\] Let $f\co M\to\R$ be a Morse function on a compact smooth oriented $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, suppose that $(b_0,b_1)\in \mathcal{T}_k(M,f)$ where $0\leq k\leq n-1$, let $\K$ be any ring, and choose a Riemannian metric $h$ which is generic with respect to $f,b_0,b_1$. Then:
- The elements $I_{b_0} M_f$ and $I_{b_1} M_{-f}$ belong to the images of the maps $d_f\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_k(f;\K)$ and $d_{-f}\co CM_{n-k}(-f;\K)\to CM_{n-k-1}(-f;\K)$, respectively.
- Where $lk_{\K}(b_1,b_0)$ is the image of $lk(b_1,b_0)$ under the unique unital ring morphism $\Z\to \K$, $$\label{linklink} \Lambda(I_{b_1}M_{-f},I_{b_0}M_f)=lk_{\K}(b_1,b_0)-(-1)^{(k+1)(n-k)}\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_0,b_1}M_f).$$
\[nomassey\] Observe that the last term in (\[linklink\]) counts integral curves $\gamma\co[0,T]\to M$ of $-\nabla f$ (with $T>0$ arbitrary) such that $\gamma(0)\in b_0(B_0)$ and $\gamma(T)\in b_1(B_1)$. In particular the last term of (\[linklink\]) automatically vanishes if $\inf(f|_{b_1(B_1)})\geq \sup(f|_{b_0(B_0)})$, by virtue of the fact that $f$ decreases along its negative gradient flowlines.
For notational convenience we will first give the proof assuming that $k<n-1$; at the end of the proof we will then indicate how modify the proof if instead $k=n-1$.
Since $b_0$ and $b_1$ are assumed to be pseudoboundaries, there are pseudochains $c_0\co C_0\to M$ and $c_1\co C_1\to M$, of dimensions $k+1$ and $n-k$ respectively, such that $\partial C_0=B_0$, $\partial C_1=B_1$, $c_0|_{B_0}=b_0$, and $c_1|_{B_1}=b_1$. By a suitable perturbation we may assume that the conclusion of Proposition \[tvs1\] holds with $F=c_0$ and $g=b_1$, and moreover that $\Omega_{c_1}\cap Crit(f)=\overline{c_0(C_0)}\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$ (for the latter we use the assumption that $k\neq n-1$) and that each point of $Crit(f)$ is a regular value for $c_1$. We will always assume below that the Riemannian metric is chosen from the intersection of an appropriate collection of the residual subsets given by Proposition \[genmet\].
Statement (i) then follows from Propositions \[dmzero\] and \[igprop\](ii), as we have $$d_f(I_{c_0}M_f)=I_{b_0}M_f+(-1)^{n-k-1}I_{c_0}d_fM_f=I_{b_0}M_f$$ and likewise $d_{-f}(I_{c_1}M_{-f})=I_{b_1}M_{-f}$.
Moreover, by Definition \[lk\] and Proposition \[piint\] we have $$lk_{\K}(b_1,b_0)=\Pi\left(M_{-f},I_{c_0\times_M b_1}M_f\right).$$
Now since $\partial B_1=\varnothing$ and since $c_0|_{\partial C_0}=b_0$, Proposition \[fundid\] applied with $g_0=c_0$ and $g_1=b_1$ gives (bearing in mind that $(-1)^{k(k+1)}=1$) $$\label{pq} I_{c_0\times_M b_1}-(-1)^{(n-k)(k+1)}I_{b_0,b_1}=(-1)^nI_{c_0,b_1}d_f+(-1)^{n(k+1)}d_fI_{c_0,b_1}+(-1)^{(n+1)(k+1)}I_{b_1}I_{c_0}.$$ Now since $d_fM_f=0$ and $d_{-f}M_{-f}=0$ we have $$\Pi(M_{-f},I_{c_0,b_1}d_f M_f)=0\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad \Pi(M_{-f},d_fI_{c_0,b_1}M_f)=(-1)^n\Pi(d_{-f}M_{-f},I_{c_0,b_1}M_f)=0.$$
So by (\[pq\]) and Proposition \[igprop\](i) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
lk_{\K}(b_1,b_0)-&(-1)^{(n-k)(k+1)}\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_0,b_1}M_f)=(-1)^{(n+1)(k+1)}\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_1}I_{c_0}M_f)\\&=(-1)^{(n+1)(k+1)}(-1)^{(k+1)(n-k-1)}\Pi(I_{b_1}M_{-f},I_{c_0}M_f)=\Pi(I_{b_1}M_{-f},I_{c_0}M_f)\end{aligned}$$
Since $d_f\left(I_{c_0}M_f\right)=I_{b_0}M_f$, we have by definition $\Pi(I_{b_1}M_{-f},I_{c_0}M_f)=\Lambda(I_{b_1}M_{-f},I_{b_0}M_f)$, proving (\[linklink\]). This completes the proof if $k<n-1$. Now suppose that $k=n-1\geq 1$. Then $n-k-1< n-1$, so in the first paragraph of the proof we may instead arrange for $\overline{c_1(C_1)}\cap Crit(f)=\Omega_{c_0}\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$ and for every point of $Crit(f)$ to be a regular value for $c_0$. Just as in the $k<n-1$ case we have $I_{b_0} M_f=d(I_{c_0}M_f)$ and $I_{b_1} M_{-f}=d(I_{c_1}M_{-f})$. If the image of $c_0$ intersects $Crit(f)$ then the operator $I_{c_0,b_1}$ is no longer defined; however now $I_{b_0,c_1}$ is defined, and using Proposition \[linksym\] we have $lk(b_1,b_0)=-\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_0\times_M c_1}M_f)$. Then using Proposition \[fundid\] with $g_0=b_0$ and $g_1=c_1$ together with (\[altlam\]), an identical argument to the one given above yields (\[linklink\]).
The only remaining case is where $n=1$ and $k=0$, *i.e.* where $M$ is a disjoint union of circles and the pseudoboundaries $b_0$ and $b_1$ are homologically trivial linear combinations of points on these circles. In this case the proposition is an exercise in the combinatorics of points on one-manifolds equipped with a Morse function, for which we give the following outline, leaving details to the reader. The linking number $lk(b_1,b_0)$ is computed by pairwise connecting the points of $b_0$ by a collection $\mathcal{I}_0$ of intervals and then counting the intersections of these intervals with the points of $b_1$. To compute $\Lambda(I_{b_1} M_{-f},I_{b_0} M_f)$, one modifies the intervals of $\mathcal{I}_0$ by, for each point $p$ of $b_0$, adding or deleting the segment from $p$ to the local minimum adjacent to $p$, and then counts the intersections of these modified intervals with the points of $b_1$. The difference $\Lambda(I_{b_1} M_{-f},I_{b_0} M_f)-lk_{\K}(b_1,b_0)$ then counts the points of $b_1$ which lie between a point of $b_0$ and its adjacent minimum, *i.e.*, the points of $b_1$ which lie below a point of $b_0$ on a gradient flowline of $f$. Such points are precisely counted by $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_0,b_1}M_f)$, proving (\[linklink\]).
\[linkcor1\] Let $\K$ be a field, let $f\co M\to\R$ be a Morse function on a compact smooth oriented $n$-manifold $M$, and suppose that, for $1\leq i\leq r$, $1\leq j\leq s$, we have $b_{i,+}\in \mathcal{B}_k(M)$ and $b_{j,-}\in \mathcal{B}_{n-k-1}(M)$ such that, for all $i,j$, $(b_{j,-},b_{i,+})\in \mathcal{T}_k(M,f)$. Choose a Riemannian metric which is generic with respect to $f,b_{i,+},b_{j,-}$ for all $i$ and $j$ and consider the $r\times s$ matrix $L$ with entries $$L_{ij}=lk_{\K}(b_{j,-},b_{i,+})-(-1)^{(n-k)(k+1)}\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_{i,+},b_{j,-}}M_f)$$ Then the rank of the operator $d_{f,k+1}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_k(f;\K)$ is at least equal to the rank of the matrix $L$. Thus where $c_j(f)$ denotes the number of critical points of $f$ with index $j$, and where $\mathfrak{b}_j(M;\K)$ is the rank of the $j$th singular homology of $M$ with coefficients in $\K$, we have $$c_{k}(f)\geq \mathfrak{b}_k(M;\K)+\rk(L)\qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad c_{k+1}(f)\geq \mathfrak{b}_{k+1}(M;\K)+\rk(L).$$
Denote $$B_{k}^{f}=Im\left(d_f\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_k(f;\K)\right) \quad B_{n-k-1}^{-f}=Im\left(d_{-f}\co CM_{n-k}(-f;\K)\to CM_{n-k-1}(-f;\K)\right).$$ The Morse-theoretic linking form $\Lambda$ gives a linear map $\Lambda^{\diamond}\co B_{k}^{f}\to Hom_{\K}(B_{n-k-1}^{-f};\K)$ defined by $(\Lambda^{\diamond}x)(y)=\Lambda(y,x)$. Define $A_f\co \K^{r}\to B_{k}^{f}$ by $A_f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=\sum_i x_i I_{b_{i,+}}M_f$, and $A_{-f}\co \K^s\to B_{n-k-1}^{f}$ by $A_{-f}(y_1,\ldots,y_s)=\sum_j y_jI_{b_{j,-}}M_{-f}$. Then where $A_{-f}^{*}\co Hom_{\K}(B_{n-k-1}^{f},\K)\to Hom_{\K}(\K^{s},\K)$ denotes the adjoint of $A_{-f}$, Proposition \[linklinkprop\] shows that we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\K^r\ar[r]^{A_f} \ar[d]_{L^{\diamond}} & B_{k}^{f} \ar[d]^{\Lambda^{\diamond}} \\ Hom_{\K}(\K^{s},\K) & \ar[l]^{A_{-f}^{*}} Hom_{\K}(B_{n-k-1}^{f},\K)
}$$ where $L^{\diamond}$ is defined by $(L^{\diamond}\vec{x})(\vec{y})=\sum_{i,j}L_{ij}x_iy_j$. The rank of the linear map $L^{\diamond}$ is equal to the rank of the matrix $L$, so since $L^{\diamond}$ factors through $B_{k}^{f}$ it follows that $B_{k}^{f}$ has dimension at least equal to the rank of $L$.
The last sentence of the corollary then follows immediately, since $CM_{k}(f;\K)$ and $CM_{k+1}(f;\K)$ are freely generated over $\K$ by the critical points of $f$ with index, respectively, $k$ and $k+1$, and since the singular homology of $M$ is equal to the homology of the complex $(CM_*(f;\K),d_f)$ (so that $c_k(f)$ and $c_{k+1}(f)$ are each equal to at least the rank of $d_f\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_k(f;\K)$ plus, respectively, $\mathfrak{b}_k(M;\K)$ and $\mathfrak{b}_{k+1}(M;\K)$).
We would now like to connect some of these results to the filtration structure on the Morse complex $CM_*(f;\K)$ of $f$. Define a function $\ell_f\co CM_*(f;\K)\to\R\cup\{-\infty\}$ by $$\ell_f\left(\sum_{p\in Crit(f)}a_p p\right)=\max\{f(p)|a_p\neq 0\},$$ where the maximum of the empty set is defined to be $-\infty$. Then for any $\lambda\in \R$ and $k\in\N$, $$CM^{\lambda}_{*}(f;\K)=\{y\in CM_*(f;\K)|\ell_f(y)\leq \lambda\}$$ is a subcomplex of $CM_*(f;\K)$ (with respect to the Morse boundary operator associated to any Morse–Smale metric), owing to the fact that the function $f$ decreases along its negative gradient flowlines. Of course we have corresponding notions with $f$ replaced by $-f$.
One useful fact is that the *filtered isomorphism type* of the Morse complex $CM_{*}(f;\K)$ is independent of the choice of the Morse–Smale metric $h$ used to define it. This was essentially observed in [@CR Theorem 1.19, Remark 1.23(b)]; see also [@U11 Lemma 3.8] for a proof of the analogous statement in the more complicated setting of Hamiltonian Floer theory.
Let $f\co M\to \R$ be a Morse function on a compact $n$-dimensional manifold and fix a coefficient ring $\K$, a metric $h$ with respect to which the negative gradient flow of $f$ is Morse–Smale, and a number $k\in \{0,\ldots,n-1\}$. The *algebraic link separation* of $f$ is the quantity $$\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)=\sup\left(\{0\}\cup\left\{-\ell_{-f}(x)-\ell_f(y)|x\in Im(d_{-f,n-k}),y\in Im(d_{f,k+1}),\,\Lambda(x,y)\neq 0\right\}\right).$$
As the notation suggests, this quantity depends on $\K$ but not on the metric $h$. This can be proven in a variety of different ways; for instance, for a given metric $h$, the complex $CM_{*}(-f;\K)$ is given as the dual of the complex $CM_*(f;\K)$ by means of the pairing $\Pi$ according to (\[adjpi\]). Consequently $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$ is determined by the filtered isomorphism type of $CM_*(f;\K)$, which as mentioned earlier is independent of $h$.
The second sentence of the following is an easy special case of [@U10 Corollary 1.6]; we include a self-contained proof to save the reader the trouble of wading through the technicalities required for the more general version proven there.
\[alg-betaprop\] For any nontrivial coefficient ring $\K$ and any grading $k$ we have $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)=0$ if and only if $d_{f,k+1}=0$. Furthermore, if $\K$ is a field, then $$\label{alg-beta}
\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)=\inf\left\{\beta\geq 0\left|(\forall \lambda\in\R)\left(Im(d_{f,k+1})\cap CM^{\lambda}_{k}(f;\K)\subset d_{f,k+1}(CM_{k+1}^{\lambda+\beta}(f;\K))\right) \right.\right\}.$$
Denote the right-hand side of (\[alg-beta\]) by $\beta_k(f;\K)$. Note first that if $d_{f,k+1}=0$ then (for any ring $\K$, not necessarily a field) it follows immediately from the definitions that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)=\beta_{k}(f;\K)=0$. So for the rest of the proof we assume that $d_{f,k+1}\neq 0$; we now show that this implies that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)>0$.
Since $d_{f,k+1}\neq 0$ let us choose an element $y=\sum_{i=1}^{l}y_ip_i\in Im(d_{f,k+1})\setminus\{0\}$ (where the $p_i$ are are all distinct). Reordering the indices if necessary we may assume that $y_1\neq 0$ and $f(p_1)=\ell_{f}(y)$. Now view $p_1$ as an element of $CM_{n-k}(-f;\K)$ and let $x=d_{-f,n-k} p_1$. By (\[altlam\]) we see that $$\Lambda(x,y)=(-1)^{n-k}\Pi(p_1,y)=(-1)^{n-k}y_1\neq 0.$$ Moreover where $\mu$ is the smallest critical value of $f$ which is strictly larger than $f(p_1)$, one has $\ell_{-f}(x)\leq -\mu$. Thus $$-\ell_{-f}(x)-\ell_f(y)\geq \mu-f(p_1)>0.$$ By the definition of $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$ this completes the proof of the first sentence of the proposition.
Let us now prove the second sentence of the proposition; in fact our argument will show that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\leq \beta_{k}(f;\K)$ for any ring $\K$, with equality if $\K$ is a field.
Consider any $y\in CM_{k}(f;\K)$ with $0\neq y\in Im (d_{f,k+1})$. Suppose that $x\in CM_{n-k-1}(-f;\K)$ obeys $\Lambda(x,y)\neq 0$. Then for any $z\in CM_{k+1}(f;\K)$ such that $d_f z= y$, we have $\Pi(x,z)\neq 0$. But it is easy to see that the fact that $\Pi(x,z)\neq 0$ implies that $\ell_{-f}(x)+\ell_f(z)\geq 0$, *i.e.*, $-\ell_{-f}(x)\leq \ell_f(z)$. Thus, for all $y\in Im (d_{f,k+1})\setminus \{0\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ellell} \sup\{-\ell_{-f}(x)-\ell_{f}(y)&|x\in CM_{n-k-1}(-f;\K), \Lambda(x,y)\neq 0\}\\& \qquad \qquad \leq \inf\{\ell_f(z)-\ell_f(y)|z\in CM_{k+1}(f;\K),\,d_{f,k+1}z=y\}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Now since we have already shown that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)>0$, $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$ is equal to the supremum of the left-hand side of (\[ellell\]) over all $y\in Im (d_{f,k+1})\setminus \{0\}$. On the other hand, given that $d_{f,k+1}\neq 0$, it is easy to see that $\beta_k(f;\K)$ is equal to the supremum of the right-hand side of (\[ellell\]) over all $y\in Im (d_{f,k+1})\setminus \{0\}$. Thus taking the suprema of the two sides of (\[ellell\]) over $y$ establishes that $$\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\leq \beta_{k}(f;\K).$$
It remains to prove the reverse inequality, for which we restrict to the case that $\K$ is a field (it is not difficult to construct counterexamples to this inequality when $\K$ is not a field). Let $\alpha<\beta_k(f;\K)$; we will show that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\geq \alpha$. For notational convenience we may assume that $\alpha$ is not equal to the difference between any two critical values of $f$. By definition there is then some $\lambda\in \R$ and some element $y\in (Im (d_{f,k+1}))\cap CM_{k}^{\lambda}(f;\K)$ such that $y\notin d_{f,k+1}(CM_{k}^{\lambda+\alpha}(f;\K))$; decreasing $\lambda$ if necessary we may assume that $\lambda=\ell(y)$, so that $\lambda$ is a critical value of $f$, and therefore $\lambda+\alpha$ is not a critical value of $f$ by our choice of $\alpha$. Since $y\in Im(d_{f,k+1})$, $y$ is a cycle, but since $y\notin d_{f,k+1}(CM_{k}^{\lambda+\alpha}(f;\K))$, $y$ represents a nontrivial element $[y]$ in the filtered homology $H_k(CM_{*}^{\lambda+\alpha}(f;\K))$.
Consider the quotient complex $D^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}:=\frac{CM_{*}(-f;\K)}{CM^{-\lambda-\alpha}(-f;\K)}$. Since $\lambda+\alpha$ is not a critical value of $f$ the Poincaré pairing $\Pi$ vanishes on $CM^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}(-f;\K)\times CM^{\lambda+\alpha}_{*}(f;\K)$, and descends to a perfect pairing $\underline{\Pi}\co D^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}\times CM^{\lambda+\alpha}_{*}(f;\K)\to \K$. Moreover by (\[adjpi\]) the differential on the quotient complex $D^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}$ induced by $d_{-f}$ is (up to a grading-dependent sign) dual via $\underline{\Pi}$ to the differential $d_f$ on $CM^{\lambda+\alpha}_{*}(f;\K)$. Therefore by the field-coefficient case of the universal coefficient theorem the pairing $\underline{\Pi}$ induces a nondegenerate pairing between the homologies of $D^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}$ and $CM^{\lambda+\alpha}_{*}(f;\K)$. In particular since our element $y$ is homologically nontrivial in $CM^{\lambda+\alpha}_{*}(f;\K)$ there is a degree-$(n-k)$ *cycle* $\bar{w}\in D^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}=\frac{CM_{*}(-f;\K)}{CM^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}(-f;\K)}$ which pairs nontrivially with $y$; thus where $w\in CM_{n-k}(-f;\K)$ is a representative of $\bar{w}$ we have $\Pi(w,y)\neq 0$. Now the fact that $\bar{w}$ is a degree-$(n-k)$ cycle in $D^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{*}$ implies that $x:=d_{-f}w\in CM^{-\lambda-\alpha}_{n-k-1}(-f;\K)$. By (\[altlam\]) we have $\Lambda(x,y)=(-1)^{n-k}\Pi(w,y)\neq 0$. Moreover $\ell_{-f}(x)+\ell_f(y)\leq -\lambda-\alpha+\lambda=-\alpha$. Thus we have found $x\in Im(d_{-f,n-k})$ and $y\in Im(d_{f,k+1})$ such that $\Lambda(x,y)\neq 0$ and $-\ell_{-f}(x)-\ell_f(y)\geq \alpha$, proving that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\geq\alpha$. Since $\alpha$ was an arbitrary number smaller than $\beta_k(f;\K)$ (and not equal to the difference between any two critical values of $f$), this implies that $$\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\geq \beta_k(f;\K),$$ completing the proof.
If $f\co M\to\R$ is a Morse function on a compact $n$-dimensional manifold, $\K$ is a ring, and $k\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$, the *geometric link separation* of $f$ is $$\beta_{k}^{geom}(f;\K)=\sup\left\{\min(f|_{\overline{Im(b_-)}})-\max(f|_{\overline{Im(b_+)}}) \left|\begin{array}{c} b_-\co B_-\to M\mbox{ is an $(n-k-1)$-pseudoboundary,}\\ b_+\co B_+\to M \mbox{ is a $k$-pseudoboundary,}\\ \overline{b_-(B_-)}\cap \overline{b_+(B_+)}=\varnothing,\,lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)\neq 0\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$
\[betasmooth\] If the ring $\K$ has characteristic zero (*i.e.*, if for every nonzero integer $n$ one has $n1\neq 0$ where $1$ is the multiplicative identity in $\K$ and we view $\K$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module), then one could restrict the pseudoboundaries $b_{\pm}$ in the definition of $\beta_{k}^{geom}(f;\K)$ to have domains which are compact smooth oriented manifolds. Indeed this follows easily from two instances of Lemma \[smoothen\], applied using appropriately small open sets around $\overline{b_{\pm}(B_{\pm})}$. In this regard note also that if $B$ is a compact smooth oriented manifold without boundary and $b\co B\to M$ is a smooth map, then it follows from results of [@Z] that $b$ is a pseudoboundary if and only if $b_*[B]=0\in H_{*}(M;\Z)$.
The following is one of our main results.
\[alggeom\] For any Morse function $f\co M\to\R$ on a compact $n$-dimensional manifold, any nontrivial ring $\K$, and any $k\in \{0,\ldots,n-1\}$, we have $$\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)=\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K).$$
We will prove the inequality “$\geq$” in Theorem \[alggeom\] now, and the reverse inequality in the following section.
Suppose that $\alpha<\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)$. There are then an $(n-k-1)$-pseudoboundary $b_-\co B_-\to M$ and a $k$-pseudoboundary $b_+\co B_+\to M$ such that $\overline{b_-(B_-)}\cap \overline{b_+(B_+)}=\varnothing$, $lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)\neq 0$, and $\min (f|_{\overline{b_-(B_-)}}) - \max (f|_{\overline{b_+(B_+)}}) >\alpha$. By replacing $b_-$ and $b_+$ by $\phi\circ b_-$ and $\phi\circ b_+$ where $\phi$ is an appropriately-chosen diffeomorphism which is close to the identity, we may arrange that the above properties still hold and additionally $\overline{b_-(B_-)}\cap Crit(f)=\overline{b_+(B_+)}\cap Crit(f)=\varnothing$.
We intend to show that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)> \alpha$. If $\alpha< 0$ this is obvious, since by definition $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\geq 0$, so assume $\alpha\geq 0$. So $\min f|_{\overline{b_-(B_-)}}>\max f|_{\overline{b_+(B_+)}}$, and (with respect to a suitably generic metric in order to define the relelvant operations on the Morse complex $CM_*(f;\K)$) we may apply Proposition \[linklinkprop\]. This gives elements $I_{b_-} M_{-f}\in Im(d_{-f,n-k})$ and $I_{b_+} M_f\in Im(d_{f,k+1})$ such that $\Lambda(I_{b_-} M_{-f},I_{b_+}M_f)=lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)\neq 0$ (the other term in (\[linklink\]) vanishes by Remark \[nomassey\]). Now the fact that $f$ decreases along its negative gradient flowlines is easily seen to imply that $$\ell_f(I_{b_+} M_f)< \max f|_{\overline{b_+(B_+)}},$$ since the critical points contributing to the Morse chain $I_{b_+} M_f$ are the limits in positive time of negative gradient flowlines of $f$ that pass through the image of $b_+$. Similarly we have $$\ell_{-f}(I_{b_-} M_{-f})< \max \left(-f|_{\overline{b_-(B_-)}}\right)=-\min f|_{\overline{b_-(B_-)}}.$$ Thus $$-\ell_{-f}(I_{b_-} M_{-f})-\ell_f(I_{b_+} M_f)>\min f|_{\overline{b_-(B_-)}}-\max f|_{\overline{b_+(B_+)}}>\alpha.$$ Since $I_{b_-} M_{-f}$ and $I_{b_+} M_f$ have nontrivial linking pairing over $\K$ this shows that $\beta^{alg}(f;\K)>\alpha$. So since $\alpha$ was an arbitrary nonnegative number smaller than $\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)$ this proves that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)\geq \beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)$.
From critical points to linked pseudoboundaries {#crittolink}
===============================================
We now turn attention to the proof of the inequality $\beta^{alg}\leq \beta^{geom}$ in Theorem \[alggeom\], and to the implications “(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii)” in Theorems \[main1\] and \[main2\]. Throughout this section we fix a Morse function $f\co M\to\R$ where $M$ is a compact $n$-dimensional manifold without boundary, and we fix a Riemannian metric $h$ such that the gradient flow of $f$ with respect to $h$ is Morse–Smale; we moreover assume that the pair $(f,h)$ is *locally trivial* in the sense that around each critical point $p$ there are coordinates $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ such that $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=f(p)-\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i}^{2}+\sum_{i=k+1}^{n}x_{i}^{2}$ and such that $h$ is given by the standard Euclidean metric in some coordinate ball around the origin. Metrics which simultaneously have this local triviality property and make the gradient flow of $f$ Morse–Smale exist in abundance by [@BH Proposition 2] (note that, in constrast to our usage, the definition of “Morse–Smale” that is used in [@BH] already incorporates the local triviality property). Our purpose in assuming local triviality is that, by [@BH Theorem 1(2)], it guaranteees that the standard broken-flowline compactification of the unstable manifolds is a smooth manifold with corners (indeed, with faces), with the evaluation map extending smoothly up to the corners.
Manifolds with corners
----------------------
Let us briefly recall some facts about manifolds with corners; see [@Do],[@J Section 1.1] for more details. An $n$-dimensional smooth manifold with corners is by definition a second-countable Hausdorff space $X$ locally modeled on open subsets of $[0,\infty)^n$, with smooth transition functions. For $x\in X$ and a coordinate patch $\phi\co U\to [0,\infty)^n$ with $x\in U$, the number of coordinates of $\phi(x)$ which are equal to $0$ is independent of the choice of coordinate patch $\phi$, and will be denoted by $c(x)$. For $k\in\{0,\ldots,n\}$, the subset $\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X =\{x\in X|c(x)=k\}$ is an $(n-k)$-dimensional smooth manifold. One has $\overline{\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X}=\cup_{l=k}^{n}\partial^{{}^{\circ}l}X$, and $\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X$ is open as a subset of $\overline{\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X}$. Of course, $X\setminus \cup_{k\geq 2}\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X$ is naturally a manifold with boundary.
We intend to build pseudochains and pseudoboundaries out of maps defined on manifolds with corners; since both of the former have domains which do not have corners the following will be useful.
\[resolve\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold with corners such that $\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X=\varnothing$ for all $k\geq 3$. Then there is a smooth manifold with boundary $X'$ and a smooth homeomorphism $\pi\co X'\to X$ which restricts to $\pi^{-1}(X\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X)$ as a diffeomorphism between $\pi^{-1}(X\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X)$ and $X\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$.
(Of course, if $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X\neq \varnothing$, the inverse $\pi^{-1}$ must not be smooth.)
The manifold $X'$ will be formed by removing $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ and then gluing in a smooth manifold with boundary which is homeomorphic to a tubular neighborhood of $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2}X$.
In this direction, note that the structure group of the normal bundle $E$ to $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ reduces to that subgroup $G$ of $O(2)$ which preserves the quadrant $\{(x,y)\in \R^2|x\geq 0,y\geq 0\}$. Of course $G$ is just given by $G=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1 & 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\right\}$. In other words, there is a principal $G$-bundle $P\to \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ with $E$ given as the associated bundle $$E=P\times_G \R^2=\frac{P\times \R^2}{(pg,v)\sim (p,gv)}$$ (Geometrically, given a Riemannian metric on $X$, the fiber of $P$ over a point $x\in\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ can be identified with the pair of unit vectors which are normal to $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2}X$ and tangent to $\overline{\partial^{{}^{\circ}1} X}$.)
Write $Q=\{(x,y)\in\R^2|x\geq 0,y\geq 0\}$ and $\mathbb{H}=\{(x,y)\in \R^2|x+y\geq 0\}$, so the standard action of $G$ on $\R^2$ restricts to actions on both $Q$ and $\mathbb{H}$. Moreover, there exists a $G$-equivariant smooth homeomorphism $\phi\co \mathbb{H}\to Q$ with $\phi(0,0)=(0,0)$ such that $\phi|_{\mathbb{H}\setminus\{(0,0)\}}$ is a diffeomorphism; for instance, identifying $\R^2$ with $\mathbb{C}$, one can use the map $$\phi(re^{i\theta})=\beta(r)e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta+\frac{\pi}{4}\right)} \quad\left(\mbox{for}-\frac{\pi}{4}\leq\theta\leq \frac{3\pi}{4}\right),$$ where $\beta\co \R\to\R$ is a smooth surjective map with $\beta'(r)>0$ for all $r\neq 0$ such that $\beta$ vanishes to infinite order at $r=0$.
Now the normal cone to $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ in $X$ (*i.e.*, the subset of the normal bundle $E$ consisting of tangent vectors $\gamma'(0)$ to smooth curves $\gamma\co [0,1)\to X$ with $\gamma(0)\in\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$) is naturally identified with the associated bundle $B=P\times_G Q$ over $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$, with fiber the quadrant $Q$. By a special case of [@Do Théorème 1], there is a neighborhood $N\subset X$ of $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ and a diffeomorphism $\Psi\co N\to B$, which restricts to $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ as the standard embedding of the zero-section.
Now form the associated bundle $C=P\times_G \mathbb{H}$; this has an obvious manifold-with-boundary structure, with $\partial C=\{[p,(x,y)]\in C|x+y=0\}$. Where $\phi\co\mathbb{H}\to Q$ is as above, the $G$-equivariance of $\phi$ implies that we have a well-defined map $\tilde{\phi}\co C\to B$ defined by $\tilde{\phi}[p,h]=[p,\phi(h)]$; evidently $\tilde{\phi}$ is a smooth homeomorphism which restricts to the complement of $\{[p,(0,0)]\}\subset C$ as a diffeomorphism to the complement of $\{[p,(0,0)]\}\subset B$.
The assumption that $\partial^{{}^{\circ}k} X=\varnothing$ for all $k\geq 3$ implies that $\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ is a closed subset of $X$. We now define $$X'=\frac{C\coprod \left(X\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X\right)}{c\sim \Psi^{-1}(\tilde{\phi}(c))\mbox{ if }\tilde{\phi}(c)\in \Psi(N\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X)}.$$ Since $\Psi^{-1}\circ \tilde{\phi}$ restricts to the open set $\tilde{\phi}^{-1}(\Psi(N\setminus\partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X))\subset C$ as a diffeomorphism to its image, which is open in $X$, and since $C$ and $X\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2} X$ are both manifolds with boundary (and without corners), $X'$ inherits the structure of a manifold with boundary from $C$ and $X\setminus \partial^{{}^{\circ}2}X$. The desired map $\pi\co X'\to X$ is then obtained by setting $\pi$ equal to $\Psi^{-1}\circ\tilde{\phi}$ on $C$ and equal to the inclusion on $X\setminus\partial^{{}^{\circ}2}X$.
If $X$ is a manifold with corners, following [@J], a *connected face* of $X$ is by definition the closure of a connected component of $\partial^{{}^{\circ}1}X$. $X$ is then said to be a *manifold with faces* if every point $x\in X$ belongs to $c(x)$ distinct connected faces (said differently, if $U$ is a small connected coordinate neighborhood of $x$ then the inclusion-induced map $\pi_0(U\cap\partial^{{}^{\circ}1}X)\to \pi_0(\partial^{{}^{\circ}1}X)$ should be injective). A *face* of a manifold with faces is a (possibly empty) union of pairwise disjoint faces. If $X$ is a manifold with faces and if $F\subset X$ is a face then $F$ inherits the structure of a manifold with corners, with $\partial^{{}^{\circ}k}F=F\cap \partial^{{}^{\circ}k+1}X$.
\[fuse\] Let $X$ be a manifold with faces, let $F_-,F_+\subset X$ be two disjoint faces of $X$, and let $\phi\co F_-\to F_+$ be a diffeomorphism. Then the topological space $$X^{\phi}=\frac{X}{x\sim\phi(x)\mbox{ if }x\in F_-}$$ may be endowed with the structure of a smooth manifold with corners in such a way that, where $\pi\co X\to X^{\phi}$ is the quotient projection, for any other smooth manifold $Y$ and any smooth map $g\co X\to Y$ such that $g(x)=g(\phi(x))$ for all $x\in F_-$, the unique map $\bar{g}\co X^{\phi}\to Y$ obeying $g=\bar{g}\circ \pi$ is smooth. The corner strata of $X^{\phi}$ are determined by $$\overline{\partial^{{}^{\circ}k}X^{\phi}}=\overline{\pi(\partial^{{}^{\circ}k}X\setminus(F_-\cup F_+))}.$$
Moreover, if $X$ is oriented and if $\phi\co F_-\to F_+$ is orientation-reversing with respect to the induced boundary orientations on $F_{\pm}$, then $X^{\phi}$ carries an orientation such that $\pi|_{ X\setminus(F_-\cup F_+)}$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism onto its image.
The faces $F_{\pm}$ are, in the sense of [@Do], submanifolds without relative boundary of $X$ having coindex and codimension both equal to $1$; consequently the tubular neighborhood theorem [@Do Théorème 1] applies to give diffeomorphisms $\Phi_{\pm}\co (-1,0]\times F_{\pm}\to U_{\pm}$ where $U_{\pm}$ is a neighborhood of $F_{\pm}$ with $U_+\cap U_-=\varnothing$, $\Phi_{\pm}|_{\{0\}\times F_{\pm}}$ restricts as the identity map to $F_{\pm}$, and $(-1,0]\times F_{\pm}$ is endowed with its obvious product manifold-with-corners structure. If $X$ is oriented then $\Phi_{\pm}$ will necessarily be orientation preserving with respect to the standard product orientation on $(-1,0]\times F_{\pm}$.
Given these tubular neighborhoods, the lemma is a straightforward generalization of a standard gluing construction from the theory of manifolds without corners; we briefly indicate the argument, leaving details to the reader. Let $V=(-1,1)\times F_-$ and $F=\{0\}\times F_-\subset V$. Let $\beta\co (-1,1)\to (-1,1)$ be a smooth homeomorphism such that $\beta(t)=t$ for $|t|>1/2$, $\beta'(t)>0$ for all $t\neq 0$, and $\beta$ vanishes to infinite order at $t=0$. We can then define a diffeomorphism $\Psi\co V\setminus F\to (U_-\setminus F_-)\cup (U_+\setminus F_+)$ by $\Psi(t,x)=\Phi_-(\beta(t),x)$ for $t<0$ and $\Psi(t,x)=\Phi_+(-\beta(t),\phi(x))$ for $t>0$. Then $$\frac{(X\setminus (F_-\cup F_+))\coprod V}{v\sim \Psi(v)\mbox{ for }v\in V\setminus F}$$ inherits the structure of a smooth manifold with corners, and is clearly homeomorphic to $X^{\phi}$. The various required properties are easy to check; we just note that, if $g\co X\to Y$ is a smooth map with $g|_{F_-}=g\circ \phi$, then the induced map $\bar{g}\co X^{\phi}\to Y$ restricts to $V$ as the map $$(t,x)\mapsto\left\{\begin{array}{ll} (g\circ \Phi_-)(\beta(t),x) & \mbox{ if }t\leq 0, \\ (g\circ\Phi_+)(-\beta(t),\phi(x)) & \mbox{ if } t\geq 0.\end{array}\right.$$ This map is smooth along $F$ by virtue of the facts that $g|_{F_{\pm}}$ is smooth and that $\beta$ vanishes to infinite order at $t=0$, so that the derivatives of all orders of $\bar{g}$ in directions normal to $F$ vanish as well.
Constructing pseudochains from Morse chains
-------------------------------------------
Our Morse–Smale pair $(f,h)$ where $h$ is locally trivial determines Morse complexes $CM_{*}(\pm f;\K)$ and stable and unstable manifolds $W^{s}_{f}(p)=W^{u}_{-f}(p)$ and $W^{u}_{f}(p)=(-1)^{|p|_f(n-|p|_f)}W^{s}_{-f}(p)$, oriented as in Section \[or:morse\]. We intend to construct, for any given pair $b_-\in d_{f,n-k}(CM_{n-k}(-f;\K))$, $b_+\in d_{f,k+1}(CM_{k+1}(f;\K))$ with $\Lambda(b_-,b_+)\neq 0$, a corresponding pair of pseudoboundaries $\beta_-\co B_-\to M$, $\beta_+\co B_+\to M$ such that $lk_{\K}(\beta_-,\beta_+)=\Lambda(b_-,b_+)$ and $\min(f|_{\overline{\beta_-(B_-)}})-\max(f|_{\overline{\beta_+(B_+)}})=-\ell_{-f}(b_-)-\ell_f(b_+)$. This construction generalizes one found in [@S99 Section 4], in which Schwarz associates a pseudocycle to any Morse cycle. Before formulating the key lemma we introduce a definition:
Let $X,Y,Z$ be smooth oriented manifolds, possibly with boundary, let $f\co X\to Z$ and $g\co Y\to Z$ be smooth maps, and $z\in Z$. We say that *$f$ is coincident to $g$ near $z$* if there is a neighborhood $U$ of $z$ and an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $\phi\co f^{-1}(U)\to g^{-1}(U)$ such that $f|_{f^{-1}(U)}=g\circ\phi$.
Also, as a point of notation, if $X$ is an oriented manifold and $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ we denote by $mX$ the oriented manifold obtained by taking $|m|$ disjoint copies of $X$, all oriented in the same way as $X$ if $m>0$ and oriented oppositely to $X$ if $m<0$.
For any $j\in \N$ let $Crit_j(f)$ denote the collection of index-$j$ critical points of $f$.
\[chainconstruct\] Let $a=\sum_{i=1}^{l}a_i p_i\in CM_{k+1}(f;\Z)$, with $d_{f,k+1}a=\sum_{j=1}^{m} z_j q_j$, where we assume all $a_i$ and $z_j$ are nonzero and the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are all distinct. Then there is a smooth map $\alpha_a\co Y_a\to M$, where $Y_a$ is a smooth oriented $(k+1)$-manifold with boundary, having the following properties:
- $\alpha_a$ is a $(k+1)$-pseudochain, and $\alpha_a|_{\partial Y_a}$ is a $k$-pseudoboundary.
- $$\overline{\alpha_a(Y_a)}\subset \bigcup_{p\in Crit(f),|p|_f\leq k+1} W^{u}_{f}(p) \quad\mbox{and}\quad \overline{\alpha_a(\partial Y_a)}\subset \bigcup_{q\in Crit(f),|q|_f\leq k} W^{u}_{f}(q)$$
- For each $i$, $\alpha_a$ is coincident near $p_i$ to the map $\coprod a_i W^{u}_{f}(p_i)\to M$ which is equal to the inclusion on each component of the domain. Similarly, for each $j$, $\alpha_{a}|_{\partial Y_a}$ is coincident near $q_j$ to the map $\coprod z_j W^{u}_{f}(q_j)\to M$ which is equal to the inclusion on each component of the domain.
- If $p\in Crit_{k+1}(f)\setminus \{p_1,\ldots,p_l\}$ then $p\notin \overline{\alpha_a(Y_a)}$. Similarly, if $q\in Crit_{k}(f)\setminus \{q_1,\ldots,q_m\}$ then $q\notin \overline{\alpha_a(\partial Y_a)}$.
- $$\max(f|_{\overline{\alpha_a(\partial Y_a)}})=\max\{f(q_j)|j=1,\ldots,m\}.$$
Following [@S99], let $\Delta a$ denote the compact oriented zero-manifold obtained as a disjoint union of $a_i$-many copies of each of the oriented zero-manifolds $\mathcal{M}(p_i,q)$, as $i$ varies from $1$ to $l$ and as $q$ varies through $Crit_k(f)$. For $q_0\in Crit_k(f)$ write $\Delta a(q_0)$ for the oriented zero-submanifold of $\Delta a$ consisting of the copies of those $\mathcal{M}(p_i,q;f)$ with $q=q_0$. Thus we have $$d_{f,k+1}a=\sum_{q\in Crit_j(f)}\#\left(\Delta a(q)\right) q,$$ and so $$\#\left(\Delta a(q)\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} z_j & \mbox{if }q=q_j, \\ 0 &\mbox{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.$$
Now it is a general combinatorial fact that, if $S$ is a compact oriented zero-manifold, then an equivalence relation may be constructed on $S$ so that $|\#(S)|$-many of the equivalence classes are singletons (oriented consistently with $sign(\#(S))$) and the rest of the equivalence classes are two-element sets $\{s_-,s_+\}$ where $s_-$ is negatively oriented and $s_+$ is positively oriented. Choose such an equivalence relation on each of the oriented zero-manifolds $\Delta a(q)$, and let $\sim_{\Delta}$ denote the union of these equivalence relations, so that $\sim_{\Delta}$ is an equivalence relation on $\Delta a$. For $i=1,2$ let $\Delta^ia(q)$ denote the set of elements of $\Delta a(q)$ whose equivalence class has cardinality $i$, and let $\Delta^i a=\cup_{q}\Delta^ia(q)$, so $\Delta a=\Delta^1 a\cup \Delta^2a$.
The disjoint union $\coprod_{i=1}^{l}a_iW^{u}_{f}(p_i)$ has a broken-trajectory compactification $\widehat{Y}$ as in [@BH Theorem 1(2)] which is a smooth compact manifold with faces and a smooth evaluation map; a general codimension-$c$ connected stratum of this compactification is given by a connected component of a product $\mathcal{M}(p_i,r_1;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r_1,r_2;f)\times \cdots \mathcal{M}(r_{c-1},r_c;f)\times W^{u}_{f}(r_c)$ where $|r_c|_f<\cdots<|r_1|_f<|p_i|_f$, with the evaluation map restricting to the stratum as the natural embedding of $W^{u}_{f}(r_c)$ (and, of course, we take $a_i$ copies of each of these strata). Here and below a “codimension-$c$ connected stratum” of a manifold with corners $X$ refers to a connected component of $\partial^{{}^{\circ}c} X$, and a “codimension-$c$ stratum” is a disjoint union of codimension-$c$ connected strata. We will first form a manifold with faces $Y_0$, defined to be the open subset of $\widehat{Y}$ given as the union of the following types of strata:
- All of the codimension-zero strata (*i.e.*, $a_i$ copies of $W^{u}_{f}(p_i)$ for each $i$);
- Those codimension-one strata of the form $\mathcal{M}(p_i,q;f)\times W^{u}_{f}(q)$ where $|q|_f=k$;
- Those codimension-one strata of the form $\mathcal{M}(p_i,r;f)\times W^{u}_{f}(r)$ where $|r|_f=k-1$ and where, for some $j$, we have $\mathcal{M}(q_j,r;f)\neq\varnothing$.
- Those codimension-two strata of the form $\mathcal{M}(p_i,q;f)\times \mathcal{M}(q,r;f)\times W^{u}_{f}(r)$ where $|q|_f=k$ and $|r|_f=k-1$ is such that, for some $j$, we have $\mathcal{M}(q_j,r;f)\neq\varnothing$.
(The fact that this is indeed open in $\widehat{Y}$ follows from the fact that the connected faces which contain any of the strata in (2) are closures of connected components of strata appearing in (1A) or (1B).)
Among the connected faces of the manifold with corners $Y_0$ are the closures $\overline{\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)}$ where $\gamma\in \Delta a$; an element of such a closure is represented by a broken trajectory whose first component is $\gamma$, and so all of these faces are disjoint as $\gamma$ varies through $\Delta a$. Let $F_-$ be the union of the connected faces $\overline{\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)}$ as $\gamma$ varies through those elements of $\Delta^2 a$ which are negatively oriented, and let $F_+$ be the union of the connected faces $\overline{\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)}$ as $\gamma$ varies through those elements of $\Delta^2 a$ which are positively oriented. Our equivalence relation $\sim_{\Delta}$ induces an orientation-reversing diffeomorphism $\phi\co F_-\to F_+$ which maps $\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)$ to $\{\gamma'\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)$ by the identity on $W^{u}_{f}(q)$ whenever $\gamma\sim_{\Delta}\gamma'$ and $\gamma$ is negatively-oriented while $\gamma'$ is positively oriented. Thus we may apply Lemma \[fuse\] to glue $F_-$ to $F_+$, resulting in a new oriented manifold with corners $Y_{0}^{\phi}$.
The faces of $Y_{0}^{\phi}$ include (the images under the projection $\pi\co Y_{0}\to Y_{0}^{\phi}$ of) the faces $\overline{\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)}$ where $\gamma\in \Delta^1a$ (and so $q=q_j$ for some $j$), as well as unions of images under $\pi$ of faces $\overline{\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times W^{u}_{f}(r)}$ where $|r|_f=k-1$ and $\mathcal{M}(p_j,r;f)\neq\varnothing$ (in some cases, different faces of this form have been joined together along their boundary by the gluing process that created $Y_{0}^{\phi}$ from $Y_0$).
Lemma \[resolve\] then gives a smooth oriented manifold with boundary $Y_a$ and a smooth homeomorphism $\pi_1\co Y_a\to Y_{0}^{\phi}$. Since the evaluation map $E\co Y_0\to M$ descends to a smooth map $\bar{E}\co Y_{0}^{\phi}\to M$ by Lemma \[fuse\], the composition $\alpha_a=\bar{E}\circ \pi_1\co Y_a\to M$ is smooth. We will now show that $\alpha_a$ is a pseudochain and that $\alpha_a|_{\partial Y_a}$ is a pseudoboundary. In other words we must show that the $\Omega$-limit sets $\Omega_{\alpha_a}$ and $\Omega_{\alpha_a|_{\partial Y_a}}$ have dimensions at most $k-1$ and $k-2$ respectively.
Now evidently $\Omega_{\alpha_a}=\Omega_{E}$ and $\Omega_{\alpha_a|_{\partial Y_a}}=\Omega_{E|_{\pi^{-1}(\pi_1(\partial Y_a))}}$. Any divergent sequence in $Y_0$ has a subsequence which converges in the compactification $\widehat{Y}$ to a point which is sent by the evaluation map to an element of an unstable manifold $W^{u}_{f}(s)$ where $|s|_f\leq k-1$; it quickly follows from this that $\Omega_{E}$ (and hence also $\Omega_{\alpha_a}$) has dimension at most $k-1$.
As for $\Omega_{\alpha_a|_{\partial Y_a}}=\Omega_{E|_{\pi^{-1}(\pi_1(\partial Y_a))}}$, note that $\pi_1(\partial Y_a)$ is just the union of the boundary and corner strata of $Y_{0}^{\phi}$, and so $\pi^{-1}(\pi_1(\partial Y_a))$ is the union of all of the boundary and corner strata of $Y_0$ *except* those of the form $\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)$ where $\gamma\in \Delta^2a(q)$. If $\{x_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a divergent sequence in $\pi^{-1}(\pi_1(\partial Y_a))$, then after passing to a subsequence either each $x_n$ belongs to some $\{\gamma\}\times \overline{W^{u}_{f}(q_j)}$ where $\gamma\in \Delta^1a(q_j)$ (and where the closure is taken in $Y_0$, not in $\widehat{Y}$), or else each $x_n$ belongs to some $\overline{\mathcal{M}(p_i,r;f)\times W^{u}_{f}(r)}$ where $|r|_f=k-1$ and where $\mathcal{M}(q_j,r;f)\neq\varnothing$ for some $j$. Now in view of the codimension-two strata that were included in $Y_0$ (all of which are still contained in $\pi^{-1}(\pi_1(\partial Y_a))$, though some of them will project to subsets of $\partial^{{}^{\circ}1}Y_{0}^{\phi}$), if such a sequence diverges in $\pi^{-1}(\pi_1(\partial Y_a))$ then, considering it now as a sequence in the compact space $\widehat{Y}$, it must have a subsequence which converges to a point which is sent by the evaluation map to an element of an unstable manifold $W^{u}_{f}(s)$ where $|s|_f\leq k-2$. Thus indeed $\Omega|_{\alpha|_{\partial Y_a}}$ has dimension at most $k-2$.
We have now proven property (i) of Lemma \[chainconstruct\]; the other properties follow quickly from the construction. Indeed property (ii) follows directly from the facts that $\alpha_a(Y_a)\subset E(Y_0)$, that $\alpha_a(\partial Y_a)\subset E(\overline{\partial^{{}^{\circ}1} Y_0})$, and that for $p\in Crit_l(f)$ the closure of $W^{u}_{f}(p)$ is (thanks in part to the Morse–Smale property) contained in the union of unstable manifolds of critical points of index at most $l$. This latter fact also implies that for each $\gamma\in \Delta^2 a(q)$ the face $\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q)$ is disjoint from some neighborhood $V$ of the index $k+1$ critical points, and therefore the evaluation maps $E\co Y_0\to M$ and $\bar{E}\co Y_{0}^{\phi}\to M$ are coincident near each $p\in Crit_{k+1}(f)$. Moreover the region on which $\pi_1\co Y_a\to Y_{0}^{\phi}$ fails to be a diffeomorphism (namely, the preimage of the corner locus of $Y_{0}^{\phi}$) is also disjoint from a neighborhood of $\alpha_{a}^{-1}(Crit_{k+1}(f))$, in view of which $\alpha_a$ is coincident to $\bar{E}$, and so also to $E$, near each $p\in Crit_{k+1}(f)$. This immediately implies the first sentences of both (iii) and (iv).
The second sentences of (iii) and (iv) follow similarly, since any point of $\partial Y_a$ which is mapped to a suitably small neighborhood of $Crit_k(f)$ is contained in the preimage under $\pi_1$ of the image under $\pi$ of a face of the form $\{\gamma\}\times W^{u}_{f}(q_j)$ where $\gamma\in \Delta^1 a(q_j)$, and $\pi_{1}^{-1}\circ\pi$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism onto its image when restricted to such a face.
Finally, $\alpha_a(\partial Y_a)$ contains each of the points $q_j$ since we assume $z_j\neq 0$ for all $j$, while any point $x\in\alpha_a(\partial Y_a)$ lies either on an unstable manifold $W^{u}_{f}(q_j)$ or on an unstable manifold $W^{u}_{f}(r)$ where $\mathcal{M}(q_j,f;r)\neq \varnothing$ for some $j$. Since $f$ decreases along its negative gradient flowlines, in either case we will have $f(x)\leq f(q_j)$ for some $j$, proving (v).
\[twoboundaries\] Let $a_-\in CM_{n-k}(-f;\Z)$ and $a_+\in CM_{k+1}(f;\Z)$, giving via Lemma \[chainconstruct\] pseudochains $\alpha_{a_-}\co Y_{a_-}\to M$ and $\alpha_{a_+}\co Y_{a_+}\to M$ (using the Morse function $-f$ for the former and $f$ for the latter). Write $B_{\pm}=\partial Y_{a_{\pm}}$, so that $b_-:=\alpha_{a_-}|_{B_-}$ is a $(n-k-1)$-pseudoboundary and $b_+:=\alpha_{a_+}|_{B_+}$ is a $k$-pseudoboundary. These pseudoboundaries satisfy the following properties:
- $\min(f|_{\overline{ b_-(B_-)}})-\max(f|_{\overline{b_+(B_+)}})=-\ell_{-f}(d_{-f,n-k}a_-)-\ell_f(d_{f,k+1}a_+)$.
- The linking number of the pseudoboundaries $b_-$ and $b_+$ is well-defined, and given by $$lk(b_-,b_+)=\Lambda(d_{-f,n-k}a_-,d_{f,k+1}a_+).$$
- For all $\phi$ belonging to a $C^{\infty}$-residual subset of $Diff(M)$, our given Morse–Smale locally trivial Riemannian metric $h$ is generic with respect to $f,\phi\circ b_+,\phi\circ b_-$ in the sense of Definition \[genwrt\], so we have a well-defined map $I_{\phi\circ b_+,\phi\circ b_-}\co CM_{n}(f;\K)\to CM_{0}(f;\K)$. If additionally $\phi$ is sufficiently $C^1$-close to the identity then $I_{\phi\circ b_+,\phi\circ b_-}$ is equal to zero.
Write $z_-=d_{-f,n-k}a_-$ and $z_+=d_{f,k+1}a_+$. The statement (i) follows directly from Lemma \[chainconstruct\](v), as $$\max(\pm f|_{\overline{b_{\pm}(B_{\pm}) }})=\ell_{\pm f}(b_{\pm}),$$ and so $$\min(f|_{\overline{b_-(B_-)}})-\max(f|_{\overline{b_+(B_+)}})=-\ell_{-f}(z_-)-\ell_f(z_+).$$
Turning to (ii), by Lemma \[chainconstruct\](ii) $\overline{b_+(B_+)}$ is contained in the union of the unstable manifolds of the critical points of $f$ with index at most $k$, while $\overline{b_-(B_-)}$ is contained in the union of the unstable manifolds of the critical points of $-f$ with index at most $n-k-1$ (*i.e.*, the stable manifolds of the critical points of $f$ with index at least $k+1$). The Morse–Smale condition therefore implies that $\overline{b_+(B_+)}\cap \overline{b_-(B_-)}=\varnothing$, and so these two pseudoboundaries have a well-defined linking number, given by $$lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)=\#(Y_{a_+}{}_{\alpha_{a_+}}\times_{b_-}B_-).$$ Now $\overline{\alpha_{a_+}(Y_{a_+})}$ is contained in the union of the unstable manifolds of critical points of $f$ with index at most $k+1$; again by the Morse–Smale condition we have, if $p,q\in Crit(f)$ obey $|p|_f\leq k+1\leq |q|_f$, then $$W^{u}_{f}(p)\cap W^{s}_{f}(q)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \{p\} & \mbox{if }p=q\mbox{ and }|p|_f=|q|_f=k+1, \\ \varnothing & \mbox{otherwise}. \end{array}\right.$$ Let us write $a_+=\sum_i a_{i,+}p_i$ and $z_-=\sum_j z_{j,-}q_j$. It then follows from Lemma \[chainconstruct\](iii) and (iv) and the fact that $W^{u}_{-f}(q_j)=W^{s}_{f}(q_j)$ as oriented manifolds that $$\#(Y_{a_+}{}_{\alpha_{a_+}}\times_{b_-}B_-)=\sum_{i,j}a_{i,+}z_{j,-}\#_{\K}(W^{u}_{f}(p_i){}_{i_{u,p_i}}\times_{i_{s,q_j}}W^{s}_{f}(q_j)).$$ By our orientation conventions and index considerations, $W^{u}_{f}(p_i){}_{i_{u,p_i}}\times_{i_{s,q_j}}W^{s}_{f}(q_j)$ consists of a single positively-oriented point if $p_i=q_j$ and is empty otherwise. We thus have $$lk(b_-,b_+)=\sum_{\{(i,j)|p_i=q_j\}}a_{i,+}z_{j,-}=\Pi(z_-,a_+)=\Lambda(z_-,z_+),$$ proving (ii).
As for (iii), the fact that $h$ is generic with respect to $f,\phi\circ b_+,\phi\circ b_-$ for a $C^{\infty}$-residual set of $\phi\in Diff(M)$ follows straightforwardly by applying Lemma \[diffu\] to the various relevant fiber products. If the final statement of the proposition were false, then we could find a sequence $\{\phi_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in $Diff(M)$ which $C^1$-converges to the identity, critical points $p,q\in Crit(f)$, and a sequence $(\gamma_n,T_n)\in\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$ such that $\gamma_n(0)\in \phi_n(\overline{b_+(B_+)})$ and $\gamma_n(T_n)\in \phi_n(\overline{b_-(B_-)})$. A standard compactness result (*e.g.* [@S93 Proposition 2.35]) would then give a possibly-broken Morse trajectory for $f$ which passes first through $\overline{b_+(B_+)}$ and then, either strictly later or at precisely the same time, through $\overline{b_-(B_-)}$. But since $\overline{b_+(B_+)}$ is contained in the union of the unstable manifolds of critical points with index at most $k$, while $\overline{b_-(B_-)}$ is contained in the union of the stable manifolds of critical points with index at least $k+1$, this is forbidden by the Morse–Smale property. This contradiction completes the proof.
We can now finally complete the proof of Theorem \[alggeom\] and thus Theorem \[main1\]. For clarity we will, unlike elsewhere in the paper, incorporate the ring over which we are working into the notation for the Morse boundary operator and the Morse-theoretic linking pairing: thus we have maps $d_{f,k+1}^{\K}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_{k}(f;\K)$ and $\Lambda_{\K}\co Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\K})\times Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})\to\K$. We first make the following almost-obvious algebraic observation:
\[extboundary\] Let $0\neq z\in d_{f,k+1}^{\K}(CM_{k+1}(f;\K))$. Then there are $z_1,\ldots,z_N\in d_{f,k+1}^{\Z}(CM_{k+1}(f;\Z))$ and $r_1,\ldots,r_N\in \K$ such that $z=\sum_{i=1}^{N}z_i\otimes r_i$ and $\ell_f(z_i)\leq \ell_f(z)$ for all $z$.
The lemma amounts to the statement that, for all $\lambda\in\R$, the natural map $$\left(Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\Z})\cap CM^{\lambda}_{k}(f;\Z)\right)\otimes \K \to Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})\cap CM^{\lambda}_{k}(f;\K)$$ is surjective. Write $A=Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\Z})$ and $B=CM_{k}^{\lambda}(f;\Z)$ and view them as submodules of the $\Z$-module $CM_{k}(f;\Z)$; we then have $Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})=A\otimes \K$ and $CM^{\lambda}_{k}(f;\K)=B\otimes \K$, and so we wish to show that the natural map $$j_{\K}\co (A\cap B)\otimes \K\to (A\otimes\K)\cap (B\otimes\K)$$ is surjective. But this is true on quite general grounds: there is a short exact sequence $$0\to A\cap B\to A\oplus B\to A+B\to 0$$ where the first map is $x\mapsto (x,x)$ and the second is $(a,b)\mapsto a-b$. The right exactness of the tensor product functor then shows that the induced sequence $$(A\cap B)\otimes \K\to (A\otimes\K)\oplus(B\otimes\K)\to (A+B)\otimes \K\to 0$$ is exact, and exactness at the second term implies that $j_{\K}$ is surjective.
First of all we observe that, for any nontrivial ring $\K$ and any grading $k$, we have $\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)\geq 0$. Indeed, in any coordinate chart $U\subset M$ it is straightforward to construct smooth maps $\alpha_-\co B^{n-k}\to U$, $\alpha_+\co B^{k+1}\to U$ (where $B^l$ denotes the closed $l$-dimensional unit ball), the images of whose boundaries are disjoint, such that $lk(\alpha_{-}|_{\partial B^{n-k}},\alpha_+|_{\partial B^{k+1}})=1$ (and so since $\K$ is a nontrivial ring $lk_{\K}(\alpha_{-}|_{\partial B^{n-k}},\alpha_+|_{\partial B^{k+1}})\neq 0)$. For any $\ep>0$, by taking the coordinate chart $U$ so small that $\max f|_{\bar{U}}-\min f|_{\bar{U}}<\ep$ we guarantee that $\min(f|_{\alpha_-(\partial B^{n-k})})-\max(f|_{\alpha_+(\partial B^{k+1})})>-\ep$. This proves that $\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)\geq 0$.
So for the rest of the proof we may assume that $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)>0$, since otherwise the inequality $\beta^{alg}_{k}\leq \beta^{geom}_{k}$ is immediate. Since $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$ is independent of the choice of Morse–Smale metric, we may use one which is locally trivial near $Crit(f)$, allowing us to use the constructions of Lemma \[chainconstruct\]. Let $a_-\in CF_{n-k}(-f;\K)$ and $a_+\in CF_{k+1}(f;\K)$ be such that, where $z_-=d_{-f,n-k}^{\K}a_-$ and $z_+=d_{f,k+1}^{\K}a_+$, we have $\Lambda_{\K}(z_-,z_+)\neq 0$ (such $a_{\pm}$ do exist, since $\beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)>0$). By Lemma \[extboundary\] we may write $$z_-=\sum_{i=1}^{N_-}z_{-,i}\otimes r_i\qquad z_+=\sum_{i=1}^{N_+}z_{+,i}\otimes s_i$$ where $r_i,s_i\in \K$, $z_{-,i}\in Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\Z})$, $z_{+,i}\in Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\Z})$, and $$\label{elldec}\ell_{\pm f}(z_{\pm,i})\leq \ell_{\pm f}(z_{\pm})$$ for all $i$. We then have $$0\neq \Lambda_{\K}(z_-,z_+)=\sum_{i,j}\Lambda_{\Z}(z_{-,i},z_{+,j})r_is_j,$$ so there must be some indices $i_0,j_0$ such that, where $\ep_{\K}\co \Z\to \K$ denotes the unique unital ring morphism, $\ep_{\K}(\Lambda_{\Z}(z_{-,i_0},z_{+,j_0}))\neq 0$.
Applying Proposition \[twoboundaries\] to $z_{-,i_0}$ and $z_{+,j_0}$ gives an $(n-k-1)$-pseudoboundary $b_-$ and a $k$-pseudoboundary $b_+$ such that $lk_{\K}(b_-,b_+)=\ep_{\K}(lk(b_-,b_+))=\ep_{\K}(\Lambda_{\Z}(z_{-,i_0},z_{+,j_0}))\neq 0$ and such that $$\min(f|_{\overline{Im(b_-)}})-\max(f|_{\overline{Im(b_+)}})=-\ell_{-f}(z_{-,i_0})-\ell_f(z_{+,j_0})\geq -\ell_{-f}(z_-)-\ell_{f}(z_+)$$ where the last inequality uses (\[elldec\]).
Since $z_-\in Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\K})$ and $z_+\in Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})$ were arbitrary elements subject to the condition that $\Lambda_{\K}(z_-,z_+)\neq 0$, it immediately follows that $\beta^{geom}_{k}(f;\K)\geq \beta^{alg}_{k}(f;\K)$.
We also obtain the following, which shows that Corollary \[linkcor1\] is sharp and completes the proof of Theorem \[main2\].
\[cormain2\] Let $\K$ be a field, and let $h$ be a metric such that the gradient flow of $f$ with respect to $h$ is Morse–Smale and such that $h$ is locally trivial. Then the rank of the operator $d_{f,k+1}^{\K}\co CM_{k+1}(f;\K)\to CM_{k}(f;\K)$ is the largest integer $m$ such that there exist $b_{1,-},\ldots,b_{s,-}\in\mathcal{B}_{n-k-1}(M)$, $b_{1,+},\ldots,b_{r,+}\in\mathcal{B}_{k}(M)$ with the properties that for each $i,j$ we have $(b_{i,+},b_{j,-})\in\mathcal{T}_k(M,f)$ and the metric $h$ is generic with respect to $f,b_{i,+},b_{j,-}$, and that the matrix $L$ with entries given by $$L_{ij}=lk_{\K}(b_{j,-},b_{i,+})-(-1)^{(n-k)(k+1)}\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_{i,+},b_{j,-}}M_f)$$ has rank $m$. Moreover, given an integer $m$, if any such $b_{i,+}$ and $b_{j,-}$ exist, they may be chosen in such a way that $\Pi(M_{-f},I_{b_{i,+},b_{j,-}}M_f)=0$.
The statement that the rank of $d_{f,k+1}^{\K}$ is at least equal to $m$ is proven in Corollary \[linkcor1\]. For the reverse inequality, note first that if the inequality holds for some field $\K_0$, then it must also hold for all field extensions of $\K_0$ since the relevant ranks are not affected by the field extension. Therefore for the rest of the proof we may assume that $\K$ is equal either to $\mathbb{Q}$ or to $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ for some prime $p$, since any field is an extension of one of these.
Denote $m=rank(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})$. Of course since $d_{-f,n-k}^{\K}$ is adjoint to $d_{f,k+1}^{\K}$ by (\[adjpi\]), we also have $m=rank(d_{-f,n-k}^{\K})$. Now the linking pairing $\Lambda_{\K}\co Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\K})\times Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})\to\K$ is nondegenerate by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition \[alg-betaprop\]: if $z=\sum_q z_q q\in Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})\setminus\{0\}$, then choosing any $q_0$ such that $z_{q_0}\neq 0$, we have $\Lambda_{\K}(d_{-f,n-k}q_0,z)\neq 0$. Consequently since $\K$ is a field there are $x_{1,-},\ldots,x_{m,-}\in Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\K})$ and $x_{1,+},\ldots,x_{m,+}\in Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})$ such that $$\label{kron} \Lambda_{\K}(x_{j,-},x_{i,+})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{if }i=j,\\ 0 & \mbox{if }i\neq j.\end{array}\right.$$ Suppose that $\K=\mathbb{Q}$, so we may consider $Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\Z})$ and $Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\Z})$ as subgroups of $Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\K})$ and $Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\K})$, respectively. Then for some nonzero integer $N$ each of the elements $z_{i,\pm}=Nx_{i,\pm}$ will belong to $Im(d_{-f,n-k}^{\Z})$ or $Im(d_{f,k+1}^{\Z})$. Apply Proposition \[twoboundaries\] (using primitives $a_{i,\pm}$ for $z_{i,\pm}$) to obtain pseudoboundaries $b_{i,\pm}^{0}\co B_{i,\pm}\to M$ so that $$lk(b_{j,-}^{0},b_{i,+}^{0})=\Lambda_{\Z}(z_{j,-},z_{i,+})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} N^2 & \mbox{if }i=j,\\ 0 & \mbox{if }i\neq j,\end{array}\right.$$ and, for generic diffeomorphisms $\phi$ which are $C^1$-close to the identity, $I_{\phi\circ b_{i,+}^{0},\phi\circ b_{j,-}^{0}}=0$. Of course, for such a diffeomorphism $\phi$ we will have $lk(\phi\circ b_{j,-}^{0},\phi\circ b_{i,+}^{0})=lk(b_{j,-}^{0},b_{i,+}^{0})$. So where $b_{i,+}=\phi\circ b_{i,+}^{0}$ and $b_{j,-}=\phi\circ b_{j,-}^{0}$, the matrix $L$ described in the proposition is $N^2$ times the $m\times m$ identity, and in particular has rank $m$. This completes the proof in the case that $\K=\mathbb{Q}$.
Finally suppose that $\K=\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ where $p$ is prime. We again have $x_{i,\pm}$ as in (\[kron\]). Choose $a_{i,-}\in CM_{n-k}(-f;\Z)$ and $a_{i,+}\in CM_{k+1}(f;\Z)$ such that $d_{-f,n-k}^{\Z}a_{i,-}$ and $d_{f,k-1}^{\Z}a_{i,+}$ reduce modulo $p$ to, respectively, $x_{i,-}$ and $x_{i,+}$. Applying Proposition \[twoboundaries\] to obtain pseudoboundaries $b_{i,\pm}^{0}$, and then letting $b_{i,\pm}=\phi\circ b_{i,\pm}^{0}$ for a suitably generic diffeomorphism $\phi$ which is $C^1$-close to the identity, we see that $I_{b_{i,+},b_{j,-}}=0$ (over $\Z$, and hence also over $\Z/p\Z$), and $$lk(b_{j,-},b_{i,+})=lk(b_{j,-}^{0},b_{i,+}^{0})=\Lambda_{\Z}(d_{-f,n-k}^{\Z}a_{j,-},d_{f,k-1}^{\Z}a_{i,+}).$$ But $\Lambda_{\Z}(d_{-f,n-k}^{\Z}a_{j,-},d_{f,k+1}^{\Z}a_{i,+})$ reduces modulo $p$ to $\Lambda_{\Z/p\Z}(x_{j,-},x_{i,+})$, which is $1$ when $i=j$ and $0$ otherwise. Thus the matrix $L$ described in the proposition is the $m\times m$ identity, which has rank $m$.
Some technical proofs {#app}
=====================
This final section contains proofs of Lemmas \[diffu\], \[genmet\], and \[mark2\].
This is a fairly standard sort of application of the Sard–Smale theorem [@S]; as in [@MS] a minor complication is caused by the fact that $\Diff_{S}(Y)$ is not a Banach manifold, but this is easily circumvented by first considering the Banach manifold $\Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$ of $C^k$ diffeomorphisms supported in $S$ for sufficiently large integers $k$.
Namely, for any positive integer $k>\dim M+\dim N-\dim Y$ consider the map $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\co \Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)\times M\times N&\to Y\times Y
\\ (\phi,m,n)&\mapsto \left(\phi(f(m)),g(n)\right). \end{aligned}$$ This is a $C^k$ map of $C^k$-Banach manifolds and we will show presently that it is transverse to $\Delta\subset Y\times Y$.
Let $(\phi,m,n)\in \Theta^{-1}(\Delta)$, so that $\phi(f(m))=g(n)$. If $\phi(f(m))\notin int(S)$, then since $\{y|\phi(y)\neq y\}$ is an open subset contained in $S$ we must have $\phi\left(\phi(f(m))\right)=\phi(f(m))$, and therefore $f(m)=\phi(f(m))\in Y\setminus int(S)$. Now since $\phi$ is the identity on the open set $Y\setminus S$, the linearization $\phi_*$ acts as the identity at every point of $Y\setminus S$, and therefore (by continuity) also at every point of $\overline{Y\setminus S}=Y\setminus int(S)$. In particular $\phi_*\co T_{f(m)}Y\to T_{f(m)}Y$ is the identity. Consequently our assumption on $S$ implies that $\left((\phi\times f)\times g\right)_*\co T_m M\times T_n N\to T_{(f(m),f(m))}Y\times Y$ is already transverse to $\Delta$, and so $\Theta$ is certainly transverse to $\Delta$ at $(\phi,m,n)$.
There remains the case that $\phi(f(m))\in int(S)$. But then a small perturbation of $\phi$ in $\Diff_{S}^{k}(Y)$ can be chosen which moves $\phi(f(m))$ in an arbitrary direction in $Y$; in other words, there are elements of form $(\xi,0,0)\in T_{\phi}\Diff_{S}^{k}(Y)\oplus T_{m}M\oplus T_n N$ such that $\Theta_*(\xi,0,0)$ is equal to an arbitrary element of $T_{\phi(f(m))}Y\times\{0\}\leq T_{(\phi(f(m)),\phi(f(m)))}(Y\times Y)$. So since $T_{\phi(f(m))}Y\times\{0\}$ is complementary to $T_{(\phi(f(m)),\phi(f(m)))}\Delta$ in $T_{(\phi(f(m)),\phi(f(m)))}(Y\times Y)$ this proves that $\Theta$ is transverse to $\Delta$.
Consequently the implicit function theorem for Banach manifolds shows that $\Theta^{-1}(\Delta)$ is a $C^k$-Banach submanifold of $\Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)\times M\times N$. The projection $\pi\co \Theta^{-1}(\Delta)\to \Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$ is Fredholm of index $\dim M+\dim N-\dim Y$ (which we arranged to be less than $k$), and so the Sard–Smale theorem applies to show that the set of regular values of $\pi$ is residual in $\Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$. Moreover a standard argument (see for instance the proof of [@S93 Proposition 2.24]) shows that $\phi\in \Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$ is a regular value for $\pi$ if and only if the restriction $\Theta|_{\{\phi\}\times M\times N}$ is transverse to $\Delta$.
This shows that, for all positive integers $k>\dim M+\dim N-\dim Y$, the set $\mathcal{S}^k$ of $\phi\in \Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$ such that $(m,n)\mapsto (\phi(f(m)),g(n))$ is transverse to $\Delta$ is residual in $\Diff^{k}(S)$. To complete the proof of the lemma it remains only to replace the integer $k$ by $\infty$, which we achieve by an argument adapted from [@MS p. 53]. Write $M=\cup_{r=1}^{\infty}M_r$ and $N=\cup_{s=1}^{\infty}N_s$ where each $M_r$ and $N_s$ is compact, and let $$\mathcal{S}_{rs}=\{\phi\in \Diff_{S}(Y)|\left((\phi\circ f)\times g\right)\mbox{ is transverse to $\Delta$ at all points of $M_r\times N_s$}\}.$$ For each $r,s\in\mathbb{Z}_+$, $\mathcal{S}_{rs}$ is easily seen to be open in the $C^1$ (and so also the $C^k$ for all $1\leq k\leq \infty$) topology on $\Diff_{S}(Y)$. Likewise the set $$\mathcal{S}^{k}_{rs}=\{\phi\in \Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)|\left((\phi\circ f)\times g\right)\mbox{ is transverse to $\Delta$ at all points of $M_r\times N_s$}\}$$ is open in the $C^k$-topology on $\Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$.
We now show that $\mathcal{S}_{rs}$ is dense in $\Diff_{S}(Y)$. Let $\phi_{\infty}\in \Diff_{S}(Y)$ be arbitrary. For any sufficiently large integer $k$, since $\mathcal{S}^k=\cap_{r,s}\mathcal{S}^{k}_{rs}$ is residual and therefore dense in $\Diff^{k}_{S}(Y)$ there is $\phi_k\in \mathcal{S}^k$ such that $d_{C^k}(\phi_k,\phi_{\infty})<3^{-k}$, where $d_{C^k}$ denotes $C^k$ distance (with respect to an arbitrary auxiliary Riemannian metric; since our diffeomorphisms are the identity off a fixed compact set, different choices of Riemannian metrics will result in uniformly equivalent distances $d_{C^k}$). Now the smooth diffeomorphisms $\Diff_{S}(Y)$ are dense in $\Diff_{S}^{k}(Y)$, and $\mathcal{S}^{k}_{rs}$ is open, so there is $\phi'_k\in \mathcal{S}_{rs}=\mathcal{S}^{k}_{rs}\cap \Diff_{S}(Y)$ arbitrarily $C^k$-close to $\phi_k$; in particular this allows us to arrange that $d_{C^k}(\phi'_k,\phi_{\infty})< 2^{-k}$. Letting $k$ vary, we have constructed a sequence $\{\phi'_k\}$ in $\mathcal{S}_{rs}$ such that $d_{C^k}(\phi'_k,\phi_{\infty})< 2^{-k}$, which implies that the $\phi'_k$ converge to $\phi_{\infty}$ in the $C^{\infty}$ topology. Thus $\mathcal{S}_{rs}$ is indeed dense in $\Diff_{S}(Y)$. Since we have already shown that $\mathcal{S}_{rs}$ is open, this proves that the countable intersection $\mathcal{S}=\cap_{r,s}\mathcal{S}_{rs}$ is residual, as desired.
The argument is similar to that in [@S99 Lemma 4.10]. Let $p,q\in Crit(f)$. Of course the fiber product is empty in case $p=q$, so from now on we assume $p\neq q$. In [@S93 Appendix A] Schwarz constructs a Banach manifold $\mathcal{P}_{p,q}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},M)$ consisting of class $H^{1,2}$ maps $\gamma\co \R\to M$ suitably asymptotic to $p$ as $t\to -\infty$ and to $q$ as $t\to +\infty$. Moreover there is a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}_{p,q}\to \mathcal{P}_{p,q}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},M)$ whose fiber over $\gamma\in \mathcal{P}_{p,q}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},M)$ is $\gamma^* TM$, and the section $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi\co \mathcal{G}\times \mathcal{P}_{p,q}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},M)&\to L^{2}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{E}_{p,q}) \\ (h,\gamma)&\mapsto \dot{\gamma}+(\nabla^h f)\circ \gamma \end{aligned}$$ is shown to be smooth as a map of Banach manifolds and to be transverse to the zero-section on [@S93 p. 47].
Write $$\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)=\{(h,\gamma)\in \Phi\co \mathcal{G}\times \mathcal{P}_{p,q}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},M)| \Phi(h,\gamma)=0\}.$$ In other words, $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)$ consists of those pairs $(h,\gamma)$ where $\gamma$ is a negative $h$-gradient flowline of $f$ asymptotic in large negative time to $p$ and in large positive time to $q$. Since $\Phi$ is transverse to the zero-section, $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)$ is a smooth Banach manifold. Where $\pi_{p,q}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)\to \mathcal{G}$ is the projection, the statement that $h\in\mathcal{G}$ is a regular value of $\pi_{p,q}$ for each $p,q$ is equivalent to the statement that the negative gradient flow of $f$ with respect to the metric $h$ is Morse–Smale (see [@S93 pp. 43–45] for more details).
We have a map $\tilde{E}_k\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k-1}\to M^k$ defined by $$\tilde{E}_k(\gamma,h,t_1,\ldots,t_{k-1})=\left(\gamma(0),\gamma(t_1),\ldots,\gamma\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}t_i\right)\right),$$ and we now claim that $\tilde{E}_k$ is a submersion. Indeed, more specifically, we claim that for any $(\gamma,h,t_1,\ldots,t_{k-1})\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k-1}\to M^k$, writing $s_j=\sum_{i=1}^{j}t_i$ for $j=0,\ldots,k-1$, the linearization of $\tilde{E}_k$ at $(\gamma,h,t_1,\ldots,t_{k-1})$ restricts to $T_{(\gamma,h)}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)\times\{\vec{0}\}$ as a surjection to $\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}T_{\gamma(s_{j})}M$. As in [@S99 (4.15)], with respect to a suitable frame along $\gamma$ the linearization of the operator $\Phi\co \mathcal{G}\times \mathcal{P}_{p,q}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},M)\to L^{2}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{E}_{p,q})$ takes the form $\Phi_*(\xi,A)=\dot{\xi}+S(t)\xi + A\cdot\nabla^h f$. Here $\xi$ varies through $H^{1,2}(\gamma^*TM)\cong H^{1,2}(\mathbb{R},\R^n)$ and $A$ varies through a Banach space consisting of smooth sections (and containing in particular all compactly supported smooth sections) of the bundle of symmetric endomorphisms of $\gamma^*TM$. Moreover $t\mapsto S(t)$ is a certain smooth path of symmetric operators on $\mathbb{R}^n$. To prove our claim we need to check that if $v_j\in T_{\gamma(s_j)}M$ are arbitrary vectors then there is an element $(\xi,A)\in \ker\Phi_*$ such that $\xi(s_j)=v_j$ for each $j=0,\ldots,k-1$. Now $\gamma$ is a nonconstant (since $p\neq q$) flowline of $-\nabla^h f$, and so the points $\gamma(s_j)$ are all distinct, and $\nabla^h f$ is nonvanishing at each $\gamma(s_j)$. But then we can simply choose $\xi\in H^{1,2}(\gamma^*TM)$ to be an arbitrary smooth section which is compactly supported in a union of small disjoint neighborhoods of the various $s_j$, and such that $\xi(s_j)=v_j$. Having chosen this $\xi$, since $\nabla^h f$ is nonvanishing on the support of $\xi$ it is straightforward to find a section $A$ of the bundle of symmetric endomorphisms of $\gamma^*TM$, having the same compact support as $\xi$, with the property that $A\cdot\nabla^h f=-\dot{\xi}-S(t)\xi$ everywhere. This pair $(\xi,A)$ will be as desired, confirming that $\tilde{E}_k$ is a submersion.
In view of this, given our maps $g_i\co V_i\to M$, the fiber product $$\mathcal{V}^{univ}(p,q,f,g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1};h)=\left( V_0\times\cdots V_{k-1} \right){}_{g_0\times \cdots\times g_{k-1}}\times_{\tilde{E}_k}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{univ}(p,q;f)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k-1}\right)$$ is cut out transversely, and so is a Banach manifold. If the metric $h\in\mathcal{G}$ is a regular value for the projection $\pi_{\mathcal{V},p,q}\co \mathcal{V}^{univ}(p,q,f,g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1};h)\to \mathcal{G}$, then the original fiber product $\mathcal{V}(p,q,f,g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1};h)$ appearing in the proposition will be cut out transversely. Using the Sard–Smale theorem, the residual subset of the proposition is then given by the intersection of the sets of regular values of $\pi_{\mathcal{V},p,q}$ as $p$ and $q$ vary through $Crit(f)$ with the sets of regular values of the maps $\pi_{p,q}$ from the second paragraph of the proof.
First we need to construct $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$ as a manifold with boundary by providing collars for the various parts of the boundary $C_1,\ldots,C_6$, in such a way that $E_1$ extends smoothly to the boundary in accordance with the formulas given in the lemma. To prepare for this, let us recall some features of the trajectory spaces $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(x,y;f)$ and of the gluing map constructed in [@S93 Section 2.5].
Assuming that $x,y\in Crit(f)$ with $x\neq y$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(x,y;f)\neq\varnothing$, so that in particular $f(y)<f(x)$, choose a regular value $a$ for $f$ with $f(y)<a<f(x)$. Where for a trajectory $\gamma\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(x,y;f)$ we denote its equivalence class in $\mathcal{M}(x,y;f)$ by $[\gamma]$, the choice of $a$ induces an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $\alpha_{a,x,y}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(x,y;f)\to \mathcal{M}(x,y;f)\times\R$ defined by $\alpha_{a,x,y}(\gamma)=\left([\gamma],s_{a.\gamma}\right)$, where $s_{a,\gamma}$ is the real number characterized by the property that $f(\gamma(-s_{a,\gamma}))=a$. For any $s\in\R$ and $\gamma\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(x,y;f)$ define $\sigma_s\gamma\in\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(x,y;f)$ by $$(\sigma_s\gamma)(t)=\gamma(s+t).$$ Then if for an element $[\gamma]\in \mathcal{M}(x,y;f)$ we write $\gamma_0$ for the unique representative of $[\gamma]$ such that $f(\gamma_0(0))=a$, the inverse of $\alpha_{a,x,y}$ is given by $\alpha_{a,x,y}^{-1}([\gamma],s)=\sigma_s\gamma_0$.
Now let $r\in Crit(f)$ be any critical point distinct from $p$ and $q$ such that $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$ is nonempty. Choose regular values $a$ and $b$ of $f$ such that $f(q)<a<f(r)<b<f(p)$. Then if $V$ is any open subset of $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$ such that $\bar{V}$ is compact, [@S93 Proposition 2.56] gives a number $\rho_V>0$ and a smooth embedding $\#_V\co (\rho_V,\infty)\times V\to \mathcal{M}(p,q;f)$ having the following features. For an element $([\gamma],[\eta])\in V\subset \mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$ choose the unique representatives $\gamma\in\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ and $\eta\in\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ such that $\gamma(0)=b$ and $\eta(0)=a$. Then a suitable representative $\gamma\#_{\rho}\eta$ of $\#(\rho,[\gamma],[\eta])$ has the property that, on any fixed compact subset of $\R$, $\sigma_{-\rho}(\gamma\#_{\rho}\eta)\to \gamma$ uniformly exponentially fast as $\rho\to\infty$, and $\sigma_{\rho}(\gamma\#_{\rho}\eta)\to \eta$ uniformly exponentially fast as $\rho\to\infty$ (with the constants independent of the choice of $([\gamma],[\eta])$ from the precompact subset $V$). Furthermore, if $V_1$ and $V_2$ are two open subsets of $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$ each with compact closure, the gluing maps $\#_{V_1}$ and $\#_{V_2}$ coincide on their common domain of definition (as follows from examination of the construction and was also noted in [@S99 Proof of Lemma 4.4]). Consequently if $\{\chi_{\beta}\}$ is a partition of unity subordinate to an open cover $\{V_{\beta}\}$ of $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$ by open sets with compact closure, and if we define $\rho_0\co \mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\to \R$ by $\rho_0=\sum_{\beta}\chi_{\beta}\rho_{\beta}$, then the gluing maps $\#_{V_{\beta}}$ piece together to give a smooth map $$\label{glue} \#\co \{(\rho,[\gamma],[\eta])\in \R\times \mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)|\rho>\rho_0([\gamma],[\eta])\}\to \mathcal{M}(p,q;f),$$ which (in view of the convergence properties of the $\gamma\#_{\rho}\eta$) can be arranged to be an embedding after possibly replacing $\rho_0$ by a larger smooth function.
With respect to our orientation conventions from Section \[or:morse\], the gluing map $\#$ can be seen to affect the orientation by multiplication by $(-1)^{|p|_f-|r|_f-1}$ (see also [@BC A.1.14]).
We now use these facts to produce collars for the parts $C_1,\ldots,C_6$ of $\partial \overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$. More specifically, for each $i$ we will construct, for a suitable smooth function $\ep_i\co C_i\to (0,\infty)$, a smooth embedding $$\psi_i\co \{(t,x)\in\R\times C_i|0<t<\ep_i(x)\}\times C_i\to \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty),$$ such that $E_1\circ\psi_i$ extends smoothly to $\{0\}\times C_i$ in a way that agrees with the formulas for $\bar{E}_1|_{C_i}$ in the statement of the lemma. Let $\hat{C}_i=\{(t,x)\in\R\times C_i|0\leq t<\ep_i(x)\}$, so that $\hat{C}_i$ has the structure of a manifold with boundary $\{0\}\times C_i$. We can then set $$\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}=\frac{\hat{C}_1\sqcup \hat{C}_2\sqcup\cdots\sqcup \hat{C}_6\sqcup \left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)\right)}{z\sim \psi_i(z)\mbox{ for }z\in \hat{C}_i\setminus \partial\hat{C}_i,\,i=1,\ldots,6}.$$ This will be a Hausdorff topological space, since our formulas imply that the continuous extension $\bar{E}_1\co\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}\to M\times M$ of $E_1$ is injective, and any space that admits an injective continuous map to a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff. The $\psi_i$ will be diffeomorphisms to their images by dimensional considerations, so $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$ will inherit a smooth manifold-with-boundary atlas from $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)$ and from the $\hat{C}_i$, making $\bar{E}_1$ a smooth function. Since if $C_i$ is oriented, one has $\partial\hat{C}_i=-C_i$ as oriented manifolds (as we use the outer-normal-first convention), the boundary orientation of $C_i$ induced by the orientation of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)$ will be the orientation of $C_i$ that makes $\psi_i$ into an orientation-*reversing* embedding.
So we now construct the $\psi_i$, starting with $\psi_1$. Let $r\in Crit(f)$ with $|r|_f=|p|_f-1$ and $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\neq\varnothing$, and let $a$ and $b$ be regular values of $f$ with $f(q)<a<f(r)<b<f(p)$, inducing an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $\alpha_{a,r,q}\co\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\to \mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\times\R$ and a gluing map $\#$ as in (\[glue\]). Recall that the map $\#$ lifts to a map into $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$, given by $(\rho,[\gamma],[\eta])\mapsto \gamma\#_{\rho}\eta$ where the representatives $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are chosen so that $f(\gamma(0))=b$ and $f(\eta(0))=a$. Using $\alpha_{a,r,q}$ to identify $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ with $\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\times\R$, the part of our collar $\psi_1$ corresponding to the critical point $r$ is the map $$\left\{\left.(\delta,[\gamma],[\eta],s,T)\in (0,\infty)\times\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\times \R\times(0,\infty)\right| 0<\delta<\frac{1}{\rho_0([\gamma],[\eta])}\right\}\to \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)$$ defined by $$\psi_1\left(\delta,[\gamma],[\eta],s,T\right)=\left(\sigma_{s+\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta),T\right).$$ The fact that the map $\#$ of (\[glue\]) is a smooth embedding readily implies that $\psi_1$ is a smooth embedding as well (at least after possibly lowering the upper limit on $\delta$ to prevent overlap between the images of maps from overlapping for different choices of the finitely many $r$). Our identification of $\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\times\R$ with $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ has $([\eta],s)$ corresponding to $\sigma_s\eta$, so the fact that $\sigma_{s+\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta)$ converges exponentially quickly on any compact subset of $\R$ to $\sigma_s\eta$ as $\delta^{-1}\to\infty$ readily implies that the function $E_1\circ\psi_1$ extends smoothly to $\{0\}\times C_1\subset \hat{C}_1$ by the formula stated in the lemma. (The exponential nature of the convergence yields, on compact subsets of $C_1$, uniform estimates $dist(E_1\circ\psi_1(\delta,z),\bar{E}_1|_{C_1}(z))\leq Be^{-\beta/\delta}$, which ensures smoothness up to the boundary, with normal derivatives of all orders vanishing.) As for the orientation, using the orientation preserving identification $\alpha_{a,p,q}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\cong \mathcal{M}(p,q;f)\times \R$ and the fact that (since $|p|_f=|r|_f+1$ in this case) the gluing map $(\delta,[\gamma],[\eta])\mapsto ([\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta])$ is orientation-reversing, it is clear that $\psi_1$ is orientation-reversing. Consequently $C_1$’s orientation as part of the boundary of $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$ coincides with its usual orientation.
The construction of $\psi_2$ is very similar to that of $\psi_1$: Given $r\in Crit(f)$ with $|r|_f=|q|_f+1$ and $\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\neq\varnothing$, choose a regular value $b$ with $f(r)<b<f(p)$, inducing an identification $\alpha_{b,p,r}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\cong \mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\R$. With respect to this identification, for $0<\delta<\frac{1}{\rho_0([\gamma],[\eta])}$ define $$\label{psi2} \psi_2(\delta,[\gamma],s,[\eta],T)=(\sigma_{s-\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta),T)$$ where the representatives $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are chosen just as in the definition of $\psi_1$. The exponential convergence of $\sigma_{-\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta)$ to $\gamma$ on compact subsets can be seen to imply that this $\psi_2$ has the properties that we require. The boundary orientation of $C_2$ may be computed by switching the positions of the parameters $s$ and $[\eta]$ in the domain and using the facts that the gluing map $\#$ of (\[glue\]) affects the orientation by a sign $(-1)^{|p|_f-|r|_f-1}=(-1)^{|p|_f-|q|_f}$, and that $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)$ is zero-dimensional.
As for $\psi_3$, now let $r$ be any critical point distinct from $p$ and $q$ such that $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\neq\varnothing$, and as usual choose regular values $a$ and $b$ with $f(q)<a<f(r)<b<f(p)$. This induces an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $$\alpha_{b,p,r}\times \alpha_{a,r,q}\co \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\cong \mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\R\times \mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\times\R.$$ With respect to this identification, define, for $([\gamma],[\eta])\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ and $0<\delta<\rho_0([\gamma],[\eta])$, $$\psi_3(\delta,[\gamma],s,[\eta],u)=\left(\sigma_{s-\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta),2\delta^{-1}-s+u\right),$$ where as usual the representatives $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are chosen so that $f(\gamma(0))=b$ and $f(\eta(0))=a$. The convergence of $\sigma_{-\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta)$ to $\gamma$ on compact subsets gives that $\sigma_{s-\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta)(0)$ converges to $\sigma_s\gamma(0)$ as $\delta\to 0$ for all $s$, and the convergence of $\sigma_{\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta)$ to $\eta$ on compact subsets gives that $\sigma_{s-\delta^{-1}}(\gamma\#_{\delta^{-1}}\eta)(2\delta^{-1}-s+u)$ converges to $\sigma_u\eta(0)$ as $\delta\to 0$ for all $u$. This implies that $E_1\circ\psi_3$ extends continuously to $C_3\times\{0\}$ in the manner asserted in the statement of the lemma. The fact that $\psi_3$ is an embedding (at least after appropriately shrinking the domain) and that the extension of $E_1$ is smooth follows just as in the case of $\psi_1$. To compute the boundary orientation of $C_3$, note that moving the parameter $s$ past $[\eta]$ in the domain leads to a sign $(-1)^{|r|_f-|q|_f-1}$, which when combined with the usual sign coming from the gluing map $\#$ leads to the boundary orientation of $C_3$ being $(-1)^{|p|_f-|q|_f}$ times its usual orientation, as stated in the lemma.
For $i=4,5,6$ we have $C_i=\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$, and we can use the following rather simpler collars $\psi_i\co (0,1)\times \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\to \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_4(\delta,\gamma)&=(\gamma,\delta) \\
\psi_5(\delta,\gamma)&=(\sigma_{-\delta^{-1}}\gamma,\delta^{-1}) \\
\psi_6(\delta,\gamma)&=(\gamma,\delta^{-1})\end{aligned}$$
That $\psi_4,\psi_5,\psi_6$ satisfy the required properties and induce the stated orientations is in each case straightforward; perhaps the only point to mention is that the fact that the extension of $E_1$ is smooth up to the boundary along $C_5$ and $C_6$ follows from the fact that any $\gamma\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ has $\gamma(t)\to p$ exponentially fast as $t\to -\infty$, and $\gamma(t)\to q$ exponentially fast as $t\to\infty$ (see *e.g.* [@S93 Lemma 2.10]).
This completes the construction of $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$; it remains to show that the $\Omega$-limit set of $\bar{E}_1$ is as described. In other words we need to show that if $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is any sequence in $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$ then after passing to a subsequence $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ will either converge in $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$ or else will have the property that $E_1(\gamma_n,t_n)=(\gamma_n(0),\gamma_n(t_n))$ converges to a point in one of the sets described in (i)-(iv) of the statement of the Lemma. (Since $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$ is dense in $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$ we need only consider sequences in $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$).
So let $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence in $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$. By the basic compactness result [@S93 Proposition 2.35], we may pass to a subsequence such that, for some $\nu\in\{1,\ldots,|p|_f-|q|_f\}$, some critical points $p=p_0,p_1,\ldots,p_{\nu}=q$ of $f$, some trajectories $\gamma^j\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p_{j-1},p_j;f)$, and some sequences $\{\tau_{n,j}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in $\R$ for $j=1,\ldots,\nu$, we have for each $j$, $$\label{recvg} \sigma_{\tau_{n,j}}\gamma_n\to \gamma^j \quad \mbox{uniformly with all derivatives on each compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$}.$$ (In this case $\{\gamma_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is said to converge weakly to the broken trajectory $(\gamma^1,\gamma^2)$.)
These conditions continue to hold if we remove all constant trajectories $\gamma^j$ from consideration, so without loss of generality we assume that each $\gamma^j$ is nonconstant, so that $p_j\neq p_{j-1}$ for all $j$.
Since the values $f(\gamma_n(0))$ and $f(\gamma_n(t_n))$ are confined to the compact interval $[f(q),f(p)]$ and have $f(\gamma_n(0))>f(\gamma_n(t_n))$, and since $f$ is exhausting, by passing to a further subsequence we may assume that $\gamma_n(0)\to x_0$ and $\gamma_n(t_n)\to x_T$ for some $x_0,x_T\in M$ with $f(q)\leq f(x_T)\leq f(x_0)\leq f(p)$.
We may then choose $j\in \{1,\ldots,\nu\}$ such that $f(p_j)\leq f(x_0)\leq f(p_{j-1})$. Passing to a further subsequence, we may assume that $\{\tau_{n,j}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ either converges to a limit $-\tau_0$ or diverges to $+\infty$ or diverges to $-\infty$. In the first case we obtain by (\[recvg\]) that $$\gamma_n(0)=\sigma_{\tau_{n,j}}\gamma_n(-\tau_{n,j})\to \gamma^j(\tau_0)\mbox{ as }n\to\infty,$$ and thus $x_0\in e_{p_{j-1},p_j}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p_{j-1},p_j;f)\right)$. Suppose that instead $\tau_{n,j}\to +\infty$. Then for any given $t\in\R$, for large enough $n$ we will have $$f\left(\gamma_n(0)\right)=f\left((\sigma_{\tau_{n,j}}\gamma_n)(-\tau_{n,j})\right)\geq f\left((\sigma_{\tau_{n,j}}\gamma_n)(t)\right).$$ Thus $f(x_0)\geq f(\gamma^j(t))$ for all $t\in\R$, and since $j$ was chosen so that $f(x_0)\leq f(p_{j-1})$ this forces $f(x_0)=f(p_{j-1})$. We will now show that, continuing to assume that $\tau_{n,j}\to +\infty$, we in fact have $x_0=p_{j-1}$. For any small open ball $B$ around $p_{j-1}$ and any $\ep>0 $ there is $T>0$ such that $\gamma^j(-T)\in B$ and $f(\gamma^j(-T))>f(p_{j-1})-\ep$, and therefore for large enough $n$ we will have $\gamma_n(\tau_{n,j}-T)\in B$ and $f\left(\gamma_n(\tau_{n,j}-T)\right)>f(p_{j-1})-\ep$. So since $\gamma_n$ is a negative gradient trajectory of $f$ and $f(\gamma_n(0))<f(p_{j-1})+\ep$ for large enough $n$ we have $$\int_{0}^{\tau_{n,j}-T}\|\dot{\gamma_n}(t)\|^2dt=f(\gamma_n(0))-f(\gamma_n(\tau_{n,j}-T))<2\ep$$ for all sufficiently large $n$. Now if $x_0=\lim \gamma_n(0)$ were not equal to $p_{j-1}$, we could find[^8] $\ep$-independent constants $\delta,D>0$ and disjoint balls $B$ around $p_{j-1}$ and $B'$ around $x_0$ such that for any path $\eta\co [0,R]\to \{x|f(x)\leq f(p_{j-1})+1\}$ beginning in $B'$ and ending in $B$ there would be a segment $\eta|_{[r_1,r_2]}$ having length at least $D$ and such that $\|\nabla f(\eta(t))\|\geq \delta$ for all $t\in [r_1,r_2]$. In particular for large $n$ this would apply to $\eta=\gamma_n|_{[0,\tau_{n,j}-T]}$, where $T$ has been chosen based on an arbitrary $\ep>0$ as above. We would then obtain $$2\ep>\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \|\nabla f(\gamma_n(t))\|^2dt\geq (r_2-r_1)\delta^2,$$ so $r_2-r_1<\frac{2\ep}{\delta^2}$. But if $C$ is the maximum of $\|\nabla f\|$ on $\{f\leq f(p_{j-1})+1\}$, $\gamma_n|_{{[r_1,r_2]}}$ would then have length at most $\frac{2C\ep}{\delta^2}$, which if we choose $\ep$ sufficiently small is a contradiction with the fact that $\eta|_{[r_1,r_2]}$ needs to have length at least $D$. This contradiction shows that we must indeed have $x_0=p_{j-1}$.
The same argument shows that if $\tau_{n,j}\to -\infty$ then $x_0=p_j$. Moreover, applying the same argument to the sequence $\{\gamma_n(t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in place of $\{\gamma_n(0)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ shows that, if $k$ is chosen so that $f(p_k)\leq f(x_T)\leq f(p_{k-1})$, then $x_T=\lim_{n\to\infty}\gamma_n(t_n)$ is given by $$x_T=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \gamma^k(\tau_T) & \mbox{ if }\lim_{n\to\infty}\tau_{n,k}-t_n=-\tau_T \\ p_{k-1}&\mbox{ if } \lim_{n\to\infty}\tau_{n,k}-t_n=+\infty \\ p_{k}&\mbox{ if } \lim_{n\to\infty}\tau_{n,k}-t_n=-\infty \end{array}\right.$$ (and of course we may and do pass to a subsequence such that one of the above three alternatives holds).
So we can now check case-by-case based on the number $\nu$ of trajectories that appear in the limit and on the behavior of the sequences $\{\tau_{n,j}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ that, having passed to this subsequence, either $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges in $\overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)}$ or else $\{E_1(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to a point in one of the sets (i)-(iv) in the statement of the lemma.
First suppose that $\nu=1$. If neither $\{\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ nor $\{t_n-\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges in $\mathbb{R}$ then it follows from the last few paragraphs that both $x_0=\lim_{n\to\infty}\gamma_n(0)$ and $x_T=\lim_{n\to\infty}\gamma_n(t_n)$ converge to $p$ or $q$ and so $E_1(\gamma_n,t_n)$ converges to a point of (iv) (allowing the possibilities $a=b=p$ or $a=b=q$). If $\{\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges, say to $-\tau_0$, then since $\sigma_{\tau_{n,1}}\gamma_n\to \gamma^1$ it follows that $\gamma_n\to \sigma_{\tau_0}\gamma^1\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$. Thus if $\{t_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to a positive real number $T$ then $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to a point (namely $(\sigma_{\tau_0}\gamma^1,T)$) of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times(0,\infty)$; if $t_n\to 0$ then (as follows directly from the formula for $\psi_4$) $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ lies in the image of $\psi_4$ for large $n$ and finally converges to a point of $C_4$; and if $\{t_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ diverges to $\infty$ then $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ similarly converges to a point of $C_6$. The only remaining possibility when $\nu=1$ is that $\{\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ diverges but $\{t_n-\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges, say to $\tau_T$. So in this case $t_n\to\infty$ and $\sigma_{t_n}\gamma\to \sigma_{\tau_T}\gamma^1$, in view of which $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ lies in the image of $\psi_5$ for large $n$ and converges to the element $\sigma_{\tau_T}\gamma^1$ of $C_5$.
Now suppose $\nu=2$; thus the trajectories $\gamma_n$ converge weakly to the broken trajectory $(\gamma^1,\gamma^2)$, where for some $r\in Crit(f)$ distinct from $p$ and $q$, $\gamma^1\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ and $\gamma^2\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$. Now the analysis above shows that, where $x_0=\lim_{n\to\infty}\gamma_n(0)$ and $x_T=\lim_{n=0}^{\infty}\gamma_n(t_n)$, we have $x_0,x_T\in \{p,q,r\}\cup\gamma^1(\R)\cup\gamma^2(\R)$. If either $x_0$ or $x_T$ belongs to $\{p,q,r\}$ then $E_1(\gamma_n,t_n)$ converges to a point in a set in (iv) of the statement of the lemma. Also, if $x_0=x_T$, then $E_1(\gamma_n,t_n)$ converges to a point in a set in (iii) of the statement of the lemma. Thus we may assume that $x_0$ and $x_T$ are distinct points, each lying on $\gamma^1(\R)\cup\gamma^2(\R)$. Also, in the case that both $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^1(\R)$, if $|r|_f>|q|_f+1$ then $E_1(\gamma_n,t_n)$ converges to a point in a set in (i) of the statement of the lemma; the same also holds if $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^2(\R)$ and $|r|_f<|p|_f-1$. So if $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^1(\R)$ we may assume that $|r|_f=|q|_f+1$, and if $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^2(\R)$ we may assume that $|r|_f=|p|_f-1$.
Suppose that $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^1(\R)$. As noted earlier, this implies that the sequences $\{\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ and $\{\tau_{n,1}-t_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ both converge, say to $-\tau_0$ and $-\tau_T$, respectively, and in this case we have $x_0=\gamma^1(\tau_0)$ and $x_T=\lim_{n\to\infty}\gamma^1(\tau_T)$, so $\tau_T>\tau_0$ since $x_T\neq x_0$. Recall that in defining the collar $\psi_2$ for $C_2$ we made a choice of regular values $a$ and $b$ such that $f(q)<a<f(r)<b<f(q)$. By the last sentence of [@S93 Proposition 2.57], for large $n$ the equivalence class $[\gamma_n]$ of $\gamma_n$ will lie in the image of the gluing map (\[glue\]); thus there will be $\gamma^{1}_{n}\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ and $\gamma^{2}_{n}\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ such that $f(\gamma^{1}_{n})=b$, $f(\gamma^{2}_{n})=a$, and sequences of real numbers $\rho_n,u_n$ such that $\rho_n\to\infty$ and $$\gamma_n=\sigma_{u_n}\left(\gamma^{1}_{n}\#_{\rho_n}\gamma^{2}_{n}\right),$$ with $\rho_n$ remaining in an interval $[\bar{\rho},\infty)$ and $([\gamma^{1}_{n}],[\gamma^{2}_{n}])$ remaining in a fixed compact subset of $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times \mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$.
Consequently, keeping in mind that the formula for $\psi_2$ used the identification of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ with $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\R$ determined by the regular value $b$, we obtain that for large $n$, $$(\gamma_n,t_n)=\psi_2\left(\rho_{n}^{-1},\sigma_{\rho_n+u_n}\gamma_{n}^{1},[\gamma^{2}_{n}],t_n\right),$$ and in particular our sequence eventually enters and never leaves the collar around $C_2$. By considering the properties of the function $\bar{E}_1$ on the image of $C_2$, the weak convergence properties of the $\gamma_n$ then imply that, as $n\to\infty$, $$\psi_{2}^{-1}(\gamma_n,t_n)\to (0,\sigma_{\tau_0}\gamma^1,[\gamma^2],\tau_T-\tau_0)\in \{0\}\times \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\times(0,\infty),$$ proving that the sequence $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to a point of $C_2\subset \overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$ when $\nu=2$ and $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^1(\mathbb{R})$.
In the case that $\nu=2$ and $x_0,x_T\in \gamma^2(\R)$, an identical analysis based on the sequences $\{\tau_{n,2}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ and $\{\tau_{n,2}-t_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ shows that $\{(\gamma_n,t_n)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to a point of $C_1\subset \overline{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)\times (0,\infty)}$.
The remaining case when $\nu=2$ is where $x_0\in \gamma^1(\R)$ and $x_T\in \gamma^2(\R)$ (since $t_n>0$ the opposite is impossible). Then the sequence $\{\tau_{n,1}\}_{n=1}$ converges (say to $-\tau_0$) since $x_0\in \gamma^1(\R)$, and the sequence $\{\tau_{n,2}-t_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges (say to $-\tau_T$) since $x_T\in\gamma^2(\R)$. For large enough $n$, the weak convergence of $\{\gamma_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ and [@S93 Proposition 2.57] give large real numbers $\rho_n$ and trajectories $\gamma^{1}_{n}\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)$ and $\gamma^{2}_{n}\in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)$ with $f(\gamma^{1}_{n}(0))=b$ and $f(\gamma^{2}_{n}(0))=a$ such that $$\gamma_n=\sigma_{u_n}\left(\gamma_{n}^{1}\#_{\rho_n}\gamma_{n}^{2}\right)$$ for some real numbers $u_n$, with $\rho_n$ remaining in an interval $[\bar{\rho},\infty)$ and $([\gamma^{1}_{n}],[\gamma^{2}_{n}])$ remaining in a fixed compact subset of $\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times \mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$. From this one obtains that, for large $n$, $$(\gamma_n,t_n)=\psi_3\left(\rho_{n}^{-1}, \sigma_{\rho_n+u_n}\gamma_{n}^{1},\sigma_{u_n+t_n-\rho_n}\gamma_{n}^{2}\right).$$ Thus our sequence eventually enters and never leaves the collar around $C_3$, and the weak convergence properties of the sequence imply that $$\psi_{3}^{-1}(\gamma_n,t_n)\to (0,\sigma_{\tau_0}\gamma^1,\sigma_{\tau_T}\gamma^2)\in\{0\}\times \tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f).$$ This completes the proof in case $\nu=2$.
Finally suppose that $\nu>2$. Since all of the trajectories $\gamma^j$ are nonconstant and so (by the Morse-Smale condition) $1\leq |p_j|_{f}-|p_{j+1}|_f\leq |p|_f-|q|_f-2$ for all $j$, and since $x_0,x_T\in Crit(f)\cup\gamma^1(\R)\cup\cdots\cup \gamma^{\nu}(\R)$, it is straightforward to see that in any case $(x_0,x_T)=\lim_{n\to\infty}E_n(\gamma_n,t_n)$ belongs to one of the sets (i)-(iv).
[99]{}
P. Biran and O. Cornea. *Lagrangian topology and enumerative geometry*. Geom. Topol. **16** (2012), 963–1052.
D. Burghelea and S. Haller. *On the topology and analysis of a closed one form. I (Novikov’s theory revisited)*. Essays on geometry and related topics, Vol. 1, 2, Monogr. Enseign. Math., 38, Enseignement Math., Geneva, 2001, 133–175. MR1929325.
K.-C. Chang. *Infinite-dimensional Morse theory and multiple solution problems*. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, **6**. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1993. MR1196690.
O. Cornea and A. Ranicki. *Rigidity and gluing for Morse and Novikov complexes*. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) **5** (2003), no. 4, 343–394. MR2017851.
A. Douady. *Variétés à bord anguleux et voisinages tubulaires*. 1961/1962 Séminaire Henri Cartan, 1961/62, Exp. 1 11 pp. Secrétariat mathématique, Paris. MR0160221.
K. Fukaya. *Morse homotopy, $A^{\infty}$-category, and Floer homologies*. Proceedings of GARC Workshop on Geometry and Topology ’93 (Seoul, 1993), 1–102, Lecture Notes Ser., **18**, Seoul Nat. Univ., Seoul, 1993. MR1270931.
K. Fukaya, Y.-G. Oh, H. Ohta, and K. Ono. *Lagrangian intersection Floer theory: anomaly and obstruction. Part I*. AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, **46.1**. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence; International Press, Somerville, 2009. MR2553465.
K. Jänich. *On the classification of $O(n)$-manifolds*. Math. Ann. **176** (1968), 53–76. MR0226674
D. McDuff and D. Salamon. *$J$-holomorphic curves and symplectic topology*. AMS Colloquium Publications **52**, AMS, Providence, 2004. MR2045629.
L. Qin. *An application of topological equivalence to Morse theory*. arXiv:1102.2838.
P. Rabinowitz. *Minimax methods in critical point theory with applications to differential equations*. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, **65**. AMS, Providence, 1986. MR0845785.
M. Schwarz. *Morse homology*. Progr. Math. **111**. Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel, 1993. MR1239174.
M. Schwarz. *Equivalences for Morse homology*. In *Geometry and topology in dynamics (Winston-Salem, NC, 1998/San Antonio, TX, 1999)*, 197–216, Contemp. Math., **246**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999. MR1732382.
S. Smale. *An infinite dimensional version of Sard’s theorem*. Amer. J. Math. **87** (1965), 861–866. MR0185604.
R. Thom. *Quelques propriétés globales des variétés différentiables*. Comment. Math. Helv. **28**, (1954). 17–86. MR0061823.
M. Usher. *Duality in filtered Floer–Novikov complexes*. J. Topol. Anal. **2** (2010), no. 2, 233–258. MR2652908.
M. Usher. *Boundary depth in Floer theory and its applications to Hamiltonian dynamics and coisotropic submanifolds*. Israel J. Math. **184** (2011), 1–57. MR2823968.
A. Zinger. *Pseudocycles and integral homology*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **360** (2008), no. 5, 2741–2765. MR2373332.
[^1]: In this paper “ring” means “commutative ring with unity.”
[^2]: To construct the Morse boundary operator one needs to choose an auxiliary Riemannian metric; however its triviality or nontriviality is independent of this choice.
[^3]: To be clear, the existence of this $A_{\infty}$-module structure is not proven either in this paper or, as far as I know, anywhere else in the literature; this paper does however contain detailed proofs of the only consequences of the conjectural $A_{\infty}$-module structure that we require in the proofs of our main theorems, namely Propositions \[igprop\](ii) and \[fundid\].
[^4]: For the most part we will use notation that suppresses the dependence of the trajectory space on the metric $h$; when we wish to record this dependence we will use the notation $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f,h)$.
[^5]: If one prefers, one could use a partial compactification with a larger boundary, namely $\coprod_{|r|_f\leq|p|_f-1}(-1)^{|p|_f-|r|_f-1}\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times W^u(r)$; however since the images in $M$ of those components corresponding to $|r|_f\leq |p|_f-2$ have codimension at least two we do not include them. Similarly, as opposed to what is done below, $W^s(q)$ could be partially compactified to have the larger boundary $\coprod_{|r|_f\geq |q|_f+1}(-1)^{n-|q|_f}W^s(r)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)$, and $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,q;f)$ could be given the larger boundary $\left(\coprod_{|r|_{f}\leq |p|_f-1}(-1)^{|p|_f-|r|_f-1}\mathcal{M}(p,r;f)\times\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(r,q;f)\right)\sqcup (-1)^{|p|_f+|q|_f}
\left(\coprod_{|r|_{f}\geq |q|_f+1}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,r;f)\times\mathcal{M}(r,q;f)\right)$.
[^6]: In the case that $v=n$ the transversality of fiber products of the form $V{}_{g}\times_{e_{pp}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}(p,p;f)$ follows from the assumption that the critical points of $f$ are all regular values for $g$
[^7]: *i.e.*, any hypothetical divergent sequence would converge to a transversely-cut-out fiber product of negative dimension
[^8]: Specifically, choose disjoint balls around all of the critical points of $f$ with critical value at most $f(p_{j-1})+1$ and also a ball around $x_0$, let $\delta$ be the infimum of $\|\nabla f\|$ in $\{x|f(x)\leq f(p_{j-1})+1\}$ off of these balls, and let $D$ be the minimal distance between any two of the balls.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we prove modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for canonical ensembles with superquadratic single-site potential. These inequalities were introduced by Bobkov and Ledoux, and are closely related to concentration of measure and transport-entropy inequalities. Our method is an adaptation of the iterated two-scale approach that was developed by Menz and Otto to prove the usual logarithmic Sobolev inequality in this context. As a consequence, we obtain convergence in Wasserstein distance $W_p$ for Kawasaki dynamics on the Ginzburg-Landau model.
*Keywords:* Modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities; Spin system; Coarse-graining
author:
- 'Max Fathi [^1]'
title: 'Modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for canonical ensembles.'
---
[**Introduction**]{}
The logarithmic Sobolev inequality is an inequality allowing to embed the Sobolev space $H^1(\mu)$ in the Orlicz space $L^2\log L(\mu)$, just like the usual Sobolev inequalities embed $H^1$ in $L^p$ for some $p > 2$. It was introduced by Gross in [@Gr], and has been shown to be very useful in some problems of statistical physics, such as long-time convergence to equilibrium, and hydrodynamic limits (see for example [@GOVW]).
One case of measures where such an inequality has been useful is for canonical ensembles, which are probability measures $\mu(dx) = \exp(-\sum \psi(x_i))$ on the hyperplane $\{\sum x_i = Nm\}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$. In the recent contribution [@MO], Menz and Otto proved that, if the function $\psi$ is a bounded perturbation of a uniformly convex function, then the canonical ensemble satisfies a logarithmic Sobolev inequality, with a constant independent of the mean $m$ and the dimension $N$.
The result of [@MO] covers potentials which behave like $|x|^p$ for some $p \geq 2$. A natural question is whether we can improve the LSI when $p$ is strictly larger than 2. For this purpose, we investigate whether a variant of the LSI called the modified logarithmic Sobolev inequality, which was introduced by Bobkov and Ledoux in [@BL], is satisfied by canonical ensembles. Our method is a generalization of the iterated two-scale approach that was used in [@MO] to obtain the usual LSI.
[**Notations**]{}
- $p$ will always denote a real number satisfying $p \geq 2$, and $q$ will always be the dual exponent of $p$, that is the only real number satisfying $\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1.$
- We denote by $||\cdot||_p$ the usual $\ell^p$ norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ the scalar product associated to the $\ell^2$ norm.
- When $X$ is an affine subspace of $\mathbb{R}^N$ and $f : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function, we define the gradient of $f$ at point $x$ by $(\nabla f)_i(x) := \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x),$ where the function $f$ has been extended to be constant in the direction normal (for the $L^2$ structure) to $X$ in $\mathbb{R}^N$. This definition coincides with the usual one.
- $Z$ is a constant enforcing unit mass for a probability measure.
- $C$ is a positive constant, which may change from line to line, or even within a line.
- $\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f) := \int{f \log f d\mu} - \left(\int{fd\mu}\right) \log \int{fd\mu}$ is the entropy of the (nonnegative) function $f$ with respect to the probability measure $\mu$.
- $P^t$ is the adjoint of the linear operator $P$.
- $\mathcal{L}^N$ is the $N$-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
Background and Main Results
===========================
In this paper, we are interested in the following family of inequalities, which generalizes the logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
A probability measure $\mu$ satisfies a p-modified logarithmic Sobolev inequality with parameter $\rho$ if, for all positive compactly supported $C^1$ function f, we have $$\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f) \leq \frac{1}{\rho}\int{\frac{||\nabla f||_q^q}{f^{q-1}}d\mu},$$ where $q$ is the dual exponent of $p$, that is $$\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1.$$ Equivalently, $\mu$ satisfies this inequality if for any such function $f$, we have $$\label{mlsi2}
\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f^q) \leq \frac{q^q}{\rho}\int{||\nabla f||_q^qd\mu}.$$
In the case $p = 2$, this is the usual logarithmic Sobolev inequality. Many results on these inequalities can be found in [@BZ], and we recall some of them in the sequel. It is well known that the usual LSI implies Gaussian concentration properties. In the same way, modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities are linked to the following form of concentration of measure :
A probability measure $\mu$ on a metric space $(X,d)$ has the p-exponential concentration property with parameter $c$ if, for any 1-Lipschitz function $f : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and every $r \geq 0$, we have $$\mu \left( f \geq \int{fd\mu} + r \right) \leq \exp \left( -\frac{c t^p}{p(p-1)^{p-1}}\right).$$
\[LTC\] If $\mu$ satisfies $p-$LSI($\rho$), then $\mu$ satisfies p-exponential concentration for the $\ell^p$ distance
We refer to \[BZ, Theorem 1.3\] for a proof of this result.
We consider a (periodic) lattice spin system of N continuous variables governed by a Ginzburg-Landau type potential $\psi : {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$. The grand canonical measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ has density
$$\frac{d\mu_{N}}{d\mathcal{L}^N}(x) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp \left( - \underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \psi(x_i) \right).$$
We shall assume that the potential $\psi$ is of class $C^1$ and is of the form $$\label{assumption_potential}
\psi(x) = \psi_c(x) + \delta\psi(x); \hspace{5mm} \psi_c''(x) \geq c(1 + |x|^{p-2}); \hspace{5mm} ||\delta\psi||_{\infty} + ||\delta\psi'||_{\infty} < +\infty.$$ Under these assumptions, $\psi_c$ is a uniformly p-convex and uniformly convex function. A typical example would be the quartic double-well potential $\psi(x) = (x^2-1)^2$. For a definition of p-convexity see Theorem \[be\]
Our results are still valid if we only ask $\psi_c$ to satisfy $\psi_c''(x) \geq c(1 + |x-x_0|^{p-2})$ for some $x_0$. The proof is exactly the same, but the extra assumption makes the calculations easier to read.
To simplify notations, we define the Hamiltonian
$$H(x) := \underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \psi(x_i) + \log Z,$$
so that $\mu(dx) = \exp(-H(x))dx$.
We will add to the situation a constraint of fixed mean spin. The phase state space is $$\label{e_definition_of_X_N_M}
X_{N,m} := \left\{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N, \ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N x_i =m \right\},$$
where $m$ is an arbitrary real number. This space is a hyperplane of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ with a fixed mean constraint. We endow this space with the $\ell^2$ inner product $$\langle x, \tilde{x} \rangle_X = \underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} x_i \tilde{x}_i.$$
For a given $m \in {\mathbb{R}}$, we consider the restriction $\mu_{N,m}$ of the grand canonical measure to $X_{N,m}$, that is $$\label{def_grand_can}
\frac{d\mu_{N,m}}{d\mathcal{L}^{N-1}}(x) = \frac{1}{Z}\mathbbm{1}_{(1/N)\sum x_i = m}\exp \left( - \underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \psi(x_i) \right).$$
This measure is called the canonical ensemble. It gives the distribution of the random variables $x_i$ conditioned on the event that their mean value is given by $m$.
It was shown in [@MO] that when the single site potential satisfies assumption (\[assumption\_potential\]) with $p = 2$, then the canonical ensemble satisfies the classical logarithmic Sobolev inequality for some constant $\rho > 0$ that is independent of both $m$ and $N$. Our aim in this paper is to generalize this result for the modified LSI, and we obtain the following :
\[main\_thm\] Under the assumption (\[assumption\_potential\]), the canonical ensemble $\mu_{N,m}$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$) for some constant $\rho > 0$ that is independent of both $N$ and $m$.
The proof in [@MO] uses a method called the iterated two-scale approach, which generalizes a method that was developed in [@GOVW]. The idea is to use a decomposition of the system into a macroscopic component and a fluctuations component, obtained by coarse-graining. There are then two main ideas: then first is to prove that if the laws of both the macrscopic and fluctuations part satisfy the desired functional inequality, then the law of the full system also satisfies the inequality. The second idea is tho show that, if we iterate this decomposition often enough for the successive macroscopic component, then we obtain additional convexity properties, which allow us to prove that the macroscopic component satisfies the inequality we are looking for.
Our proof here follows the iterated two-scale approach, but uses several new ingredients :
- To deduce the modified LSI for the full measure from the inequality for the macroscopic measure, we use the $L^1$ Poincaré inequality to bound a crucial covariance term;
- In addition to uniform convexity, we must prove uniform p-convexity for the macroscopic Hamiltonian, as soon as we have coarse-grained the system often enough;
- We use the Prekopa-Leindler inequality to show that, if the single-site potential satisfies assumption (\[assumption\_potential\]), then the coarse-grained potential also does.
It was shown in [@OV] (and then in [@BGL] and [@Go] with alternative proofs) that the classical logarithmic Sobolev inequality implies that the square root of the entropy controls the Wasserstein distance of order two (up to a multiplicative constant). Such an inequality is known as Talagrand’s inequality. Similarly, we can define a class of inequalities which generalizes the Talagrand inequality to Wasserstein distances of order $p$, which is linked to the modified logarithmic Sobolev inequality we just defined.
A probability measure $\mu$ satisfies a Talgrand inequality with parameter $p$ and constant $\rho$ if, for any probability measure $\nu$, we have $$W_p^p(\mu, \nu) \leq \frac{p}{\rho}\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(\nu).$$ We will denote this inequality by $T_p(\rho)$.
Some people define $T_p(\rho)$ as $W_p(\mu, \nu)\leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\rho}\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(\nu)}.$ These two definitions are **not** equivalent.
It was shown by Marton in \[M\] that transport-entropy inequalities such as Talagrand inequalities imply concentration properties. These inequalities are also linked to modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities through the following result, which was proven in [@GRS] :
If $\mu$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$), then it satisfies $T_p(\tilde{\rho})$, with constant $\tilde{\rho} = ((p-1)\rho)^{p-1}$ and the $\ell^p$ distance.
Combining this Proposition and Theorem \[main\_thm\], we obtain
\[thm\_tal\] Under the assumption (\[assumption\_potential\]), the canonical ensemble $\mu_{N,m}$ satisfies $T_p(\tilde{\rho})$ for some constant $\tilde{\rho} > 0$ that is independent of $N$ and $m$.
In section 3, an application of these modified LSI is presented, to obtain rates of convergence in the Wasserstein distance $W_p$ for for the Kawasaki dynamic on the Ginzburg-Landau model.
These inequalities can also be used to obtain quantitative rates on the speed of convergence to the hydrodynamic limit in $W_p$ of Kawasaki dynamics, in conjunction with the results in [@F] on convergence in relative entropy.
The iterated two-scale approach for modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities
=============================================================================
In this section, we shall prove Theorem \[main\_thm\]. The proof is based on a coarse-graining argument. The coarse-graining operator we shall use is defined as follows : Assume $N = 2^K$ for some large $K \in {\mathbb{N}}$. We define $P : X_{N,m} \rightarrow X_{N/2, m}$ by $$P(x_1, x_2, ..., x_N) := \left( \frac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \frac{x_3 + x_4}{2}, ..., \frac{x_{N-1} + x_N}{2} \right).$$ Using this operator, we can decompose $\mu_{N,m}$ as $$\mu_{N,m}(dx) = \mu(dx|y) \bar{\mu}(dy)$$ where $\bar{\mu}$ is the push forward of $\mu$ under $P$ and $\mu(dx|y)$ is the conditional measure of $x$ given $Px = y$.
The key element of the iterated two-scale approach of [@MO] is that, when the coarse-grained measure $\bar{\mu}$ satisfies a logarithmic Sobolev inequality, the full measure $\mu$ also does. We shall prove the same result for modified logarithmic Sobolev inequalities :
\[hierarchic\_criterion\] If $\bar{\mu}$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$) with $\rho$ independent of $N$ and $m$, then $\mu_{N,m}$ satisfies p-LSI($\tilde{\rho}$) with $\tilde{\rho}$ also independent of $N$ and $m$.
To prove Theorem \[main\_thm\], we shall iteratively apply Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\]. To be able to do so, we need to show that the coarse-grained measure has the same form as the original measure, *i.e.* that it has the structure $\exp(-\sum \tilde{\psi}(y_i))$ with $\tilde{\psi}$ a bounded perurbation of a p-convex and uniformly convex function. To do this, lets look at the structure of $\bar{\mu}$. We have
$$\bar{\mu}(dy) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp\left( - 2\underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N/2}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \textit{R}\psi(y_i) \right)dy$$ where $$\textit{R}\psi(y) := -\frac{1}{2}\log \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\exp(-\psi(x + y) - \psi(-x + y))dy}\right)$$ is the renormalized single-site potential. We denote by $\textit{R}^M\psi$ the M-times renormalized single-site potential. We then have the following result :
\[structure\] If $\psi = \psi_c + \delta\psi$ is a bounded perturbation of a p-convex, uniformly convex potential, then $\textit{R}\psi$ also is.
The last element of the proof is that, after a large but finite number of coarse-grainings, the measure we obtain will be uniformly p-convex, and therefore satisfy p-LSI($\rho$) for some $\rho > 0$. This convexification phenomenon is well-known in statistical physics, as a consequence of the equivalence of ensembles principle. We state is as the following lemma :
\[lem\_convexification\] Let $\psi$ be a a bounded perturbation of a p-convex, uniformly convex potential. Then there is an integer $M_0$ such that for all $M \geq M_0$ the M-times renormalized single-site potential $\textit{R}^M\psi$ is uniformly p-convex with constant $\rho$ independent of the system size $N$, $M$ and of the mean $m$.
The proof of Theorem \[main\_thm\] is a direct consequence of these three results : we just have to iterate Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\] a large, but finite, number of times. Lemma \[structure\] guarantees that this iteration is legitimate, while Lemma \[lem\_convexification\] tells us that after a finite number of coarse-grainings, the macroscopic measure we obtain is uniformly p-convex, and therefore satisfies p-LSI($\rho$) for some $\rho$ independent of $N$ and $m$. Since Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\] allows us to deduce the inequality for the microscopic measure as long as the coarse-grained measure also satisfies it, we can conclude that the original measure $\mu_{N,m}$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$) for some constant $\rho > 0$ that is independent of both $N$ and $m$. So all that remains is to prove these three results.
\[Proof of Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\]\] First we use the decomposition $$\label{dec_ent}
\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f) = \operatorname{Ent}_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar{f}) + \int{\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu(\cdot|y)}(f)\bar{\mu}(dy)},$$ which can easily be verified through conditioning. We will then bound the two terms on the right-hand side of (\[dec\_ent\]) by using modified LSI for the measures $\mu(dx|y)$ and $\bar{\mu}$.
\[lem\_ineq\_micro\] There exists $\lambda > 0$ such that $\mu(dx|y)$ satisfies p-LSI($\lambda$) for all $y \in Y$.
Since $\mu(dx|y) = \bigotimes \mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})$, by the tensorization property (see Proposition \[tensor\]), we just have to show that $\mu_{2,m}$ satisfies p-LSI($\lambda$) for some $\lambda > 0$ which does not depend on the real number $m$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{2,m}(dx_1, dx_2) &= \frac{1}{Z} \mathbbm{1}_{x_1 + x_2 = 2m}\exp(-\psi(x_1) - \psi(x_2))dx \notag \\
&= \frac{1}{Z} \mathbbm{1}_{x_1 + x_2 = 2m}\exp(-\psi_c(x_1) - \psi_c(x_2) - \delta\psi(x_1) - \delta\psi(x_2))dx \notag \end{aligned}$$ It is immediate that $(x_1, x_2) \rightarrow \psi_c(x_1) + \psi_c(x_2)$ is uniformly p-convex, so an application of Theorem \[be\] yields that the measure $\tilde{\mu}(dx) = Z^{-1} \mathbbm{1}_{x_1 + x_2 = 2m}\exp(-\psi_c(x_1) - \psi_c(x_2))dx$ satisfies p-LSI($\tilde{\lambda}$) for some $\tilde{\lambda} > 0$ which doesn’t depend on $m$. Since $\delta\psi$ is bounded, $\mu_{2,m}$ is a bounded perturbation of $\tilde{\mu}$, and we immediately deduce from Proposition \[hol\_str\] that it satisfies p-LSI($\lambda$) for some $\lambda > 0$ which does not depend on $m$. This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem\_ineq\_micro\]
We can now continue the proof of Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\]. As a consequence of Lemma \[lem\_ineq\_micro\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dec_ent2}
\int{\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu(\cdot|y)}(f)\bar{\mu}(dy)} &\leq \int_Y{\frac{1}{\lambda}\int_{ \{Px = y\}}{\frac{|(id_X - 2P^tP)\nabla f|_q^q}{f^{q-1}} \mu(dx|y)} \bar{\mu}(dy)} \notag \\
&= \frac{1}{\lambda}\int_X{\frac{|(id_X - 2P^tP)\nabla f|_q^q}{f^{q-1}} \mu(dx)}.\end{aligned}$$
By assumption, $\bar{\mu}$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$), so that $$\label{ent_micro}
\operatorname{Ent}_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar{f}) \leq \frac{1}{\rho}\int_Y{\frac{|\nabla_Y \bar{f}|_q^q}{\bar{f}^{q-1}}\bar{\mu}(dy)}$$
To deduce from this inequality a bound on the macroscopic entropy by a function of the microscopic gradient, we need to relate $\nabla_Y \bar{f}$ and $\nabla f$. This is the point of the following lemma :
\[lien\_grad\] $$\nabla_Y \bar{f}(y) = 2P\int{\nabla f(x)\mu(dx|y)} + 2P\operatorname{cov}_{\mu(dx|y)}(f, \nabla H).$$
This lemma was already used for the same reasons in [@GOVW] and [@MO]. For now, we defer its proof. Using this result, the convexity of $(x, b) \rightarrow ||x||^q_q / b^{q-1}$ and the inequality $|a + b|^q \leq C(q)(|a|^q + |b|^q)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ent_macr}
\operatorname{Ent}_{\bar{\mu}}&(\bar{f}) \leq \frac{1}{\rho} \int{\frac{|\nabla \bar{f}|_q^q}{\bar{f}^{q-1}}\bar{\mu}(dy)} \notag \\
&= \frac{1}{\rho} \int{\frac{\left|2P\int{\nabla f(x)\mu(dx|y)} + 2P\operatorname{cov}_{\mu(dx|y)}(f, \nabla H) \right|_q^q}{\left(\int{f(x)\mu(dx|y)}\right)^{q-1}}\bar{\mu}(dy)} \notag \\
&\leq \frac{C}{\rho}\int_X{\frac{|2P\nabla f(x)|_q^q}{f^{q-1}}\mu(dx)} + \frac{C}{\rho} \int{\frac{|2P\operatorname{cov}_{\mu(dx|y)}(f, \nabla H) |_q^q}{\bar{f}}\bar{\mu}(dy)} \end{aligned}$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dec_psi}
|2P&\operatorname{cov}_{\mu(dx|y)}(f, \nabla H) |_q^q = \underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N/2}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \int{|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, (2P\nabla H)_i)|^q \underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \notag \\
&= \underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N/2}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \int{|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, \psi'(x_{2i-1}) + \psi'(x_{2i}))|^q \underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \notag \\
&\leq C(q)\underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N/2}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \int{|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, \psi_c'(x_{2i-1}) + \psi_c'(x_{2i}))|^q \underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \notag \\
& \hspace{5mm} + C(q)\underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N/2}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \int{|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, \delta\psi'(x_{2i-1}) + \delta\psi'(x_{2i}))|^q\underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \end{aligned}$$
To bound the first part term, we use the following inequality, due to [@MO] :
\[Asymmetric Brascamp-Lieb inequality\] \[as\_bl\] Let $\nu(dx) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp(-\psi(x))dx$ a probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$, where $\psi = \psi_c + \delta\psi$ is a bounded perturbation of a strictly convex potential. Then for any functions $f$ and $g$, we have $$|\operatorname{cov}_{\nu}(f,g)| \leq \exp(-3\operatorname{osc}\delta \psi) \hspace{1mm} \underset{x}{\sup} \hspace{1mm} \left| \frac{g'(x)}{\psi_c''(x)} \right| \int{|f'|d\nu}.$$
Using this lemma, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int&{|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, \psi_c'(x_{2i-1}) + \psi_c'(x_{2i}))|^q \underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \notag \\
&\leq C\int{\left(\int{\left| \frac{df}{dx_{2i-1}} \right| + \left| \frac{df}{dx_{2i}} \right| \mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})}\right)^q\underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \notag \\
&\leq \left(\int{\left(\int{f(x)\mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})}\right)^{q/p}\underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})}\right) \notag \\
&\hspace{5mm} \times \left(\int{\left(\int{\frac{|\frac{df}{dx_{2i-1}}|^q + |\frac{df}{dx_{2i}}|^q}{f^{q-1}}\mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})}\right)\underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})}\right) \notag \\
&\leq C \bar{f}(y)^{q-1}\left(\int{\frac{|\frac{df}{dx_{2i-1}}|^q + |\frac{df}{dx_{2i}}|^q}{f^{q-1}} \mu(dx|y)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality uses the fact that $q/p = q-1 \leq 1$, and therefore $a \longrightarrow a^{q-1}$ is concave. Summing up, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{borne_cov1}
\underset{i = 1}{\stackrel{N/2}{\sum}} \hspace{1mm} \int&{|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, \psi_c'(x_{2i-1}) + \psi_c'(x_{2i}))|^q \underset{j \neq i}{\bigotimes} \mu_{2,y_j}(dx_{2j-1}, dx_{2j})} \notag \\
&\leq C\bar{f}(y)^{q-1}\int{\frac{|\nabla f|_q^q}{f^{q-1}} \mu(dx|y)}.\end{aligned}$$
For the second part of (\[dec\_psi\]), we use the following $L^1$ Poincaré inequality, which is Proposition 1.8 of [@L2] :
\[l1\_poincare\] Consider a measure $\mu = \exp(-H)dx$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, and assume that $H$ is a bounded perturbation of a uniformly convex potential. Then there exists a constant $\alpha > 0$ such that, for any smooth function $f$, we have $$\int{\left|f(x) - \int{f(y)\mu(dy)}\right|\mu(dx)} \leq \alpha \int{|\nabla f(x)|\mu(dx)}.$$
Since $\delta \psi'$ is bounded, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|\operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{2,y_i}}(f, \delta\psi'(x_{2i-1}) + \delta\psi'(x_{2i}))|^q \notag \\
& \hspace{4mm} \leq (2||\delta\psi'||_{\infty})^q\left(\int{\left|f(x) - \int{f d\mu_{2,y_i}}\right|\mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})}\right)^q \notag \\
& \hspace{4mm} \leq C\left(\int{|\frac{df}{dx_{2i-1}}| + |\frac{df}{dx_{2i}}| \mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})}\right)^q \notag \\
& \hspace{4mm} \leq C\left(\int{f(x)\mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})}\right)^{q-1}\int{\frac{|\frac{df}{dx_{2i-1}}|^q + |\frac{df}{dx_{2i}}|^q}{f(x)^{q-1}} \mu_{2,y_i}(dx_{2i-1}, dx_{2i})},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Theorem \[l1\_poincare\] and the convexity of the function $(a,b) \rightarrow a^q/b^{q-1}$.
With the previous two bounds, we get
$$\label{borne_cov2}
\int{\frac{|2P\operatorname{cov}_{\mu(dx|y)}(f, \nabla H) |_q^q}{\bar{f}}\bar{\mu}(dy)} \leq C \int{\frac{|\nabla f|_q^q}{f^{q-1}} \mu(dx)}.$$
We then state the elementary inequalities
$$|2Px|_q^q = \underset{i}{\sum} \hspace{1mm} |x_{2i-1} + x_{2i}|^q \leq C(q)\underset{j}{\sum} \hspace{1mm} |x_j|^q = C(q)|x|_q^q$$ and $$|(id - 2P^tP)x|_q^q = \underset{i}{\sum} \hspace{1mm} |\frac{x_{2i-1} - x_{2i}}{2}|^q + |\frac{x_{2i} - x_{2i-1}}{2}|^q \leq \frac{C(q)}{2^q}|x|_q^q.$$
Using these bounds, (\[dec\_ent2\]), (\[ent\_macr\]) and (\[borne\_cov2\]), we get Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\].
Before we move on to the proofs of Lemmas \[structure\] and \[lem\_convexification\], here is a short proof of Lemma \[lien\_grad\], which is taken from [@GOVW].
\[Proof of Lemma \[lien\_grad\]\] Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{f}(y) &= \int_{\{Px = y\}}{f(x)\mu(dx|y)} \notag \\
&= \frac{1}{\int_{\{Px = 0\}}{\exp(-H(2P^ty + z))dz}}\int_{\{Px = 0\}}{f(2P^ty + z)\exp(-H(2P^ty + z))dz}, \notag \end{aligned}$$ and therefore, for any $\tilde{y} \in Y$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_Y \bar{f}(y) \cdot \tilde{y} &= 2\int{\nabla f(x) \cdot P^t \tilde{y} \mu(dx|y)} - 2\int{f(x) \nabla H(x) \cdot P^t \tilde{y} \mu(dx|y)} \notag \\
&\hspace{5mm} - 2 \left(\int{f(x)\mu(dx|y)} \right)\left(\int{-H(x)\cdot P^t\tilde{y} \mu(dx|y)} \right) \notag \\
&= 2\int{P\nabla f(x) \cdot \tilde{y} \mu(dx|y)} - 2\int{f(x) P\nabla H(x) \cdot \tilde{y} \mu(dx|y)}\notag \\
&\hspace{5mm} + 2 \left(\int{f(x)\mu(dx|y)} \right)\left(\int{PH(x)\cdot \tilde{y} \mu(dx|y)} \right), \notag \end{aligned}$$ which is what we wanted to prove.
We are now done with the proof of Proposition \[hierarchic\_criterion\]. The next step is to prove Lemma \[structure\] :
\[Proof of Lemma \[structure\]\] We define $$\bar{\psi}_c(m) := -\frac{1}{2}\log \int{\exp(-\psi_c(m + x) - \psi_c(m - x))dx}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\delta\psi}(m) &:= -\frac{1}{2}\log \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\exp(-\psi(m + x) - \psi(m - x))dx} \notag \\
& \hspace{5mm} + \frac{1}{2}\log \int{\exp(-\psi_c(m + x) - \psi_c(m - x))dx}.\end{aligned}$$
Our aim is to show that $\bar{\delta\psi}$ is bounded in the $C^1$ topology, and that $\bar{\psi}_c$ is uniformly convex and p-convex. Since $\textit{R}\psi = \bar{\psi}_c + \bar{\delta\psi}$, this will show that $\bar{\mu}$ has the desired structure.
The fact that $\bar{\psi}_c$ is uniformly convex has been done in [@MO], using the (symmetric) Brascamp-Lieb inequality. Here we also need to prove that $\bar{\psi}_c$ is uniformly p-convex. To do this, we shall use the Prekopa-Leindler inequality, and the same method will also show that $\bar{\psi}_c$ is uniformly convex (which is not surprising, since the Prékopa-Leindler inequality is stronger than the Brascamp-Lieb inequality, as was shown in [@BL]).
Let $t \in (0,1)$ and $f,g,h$ be non-negative measurable functions defined on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Suppose that these functions satisfy $$h(tx + (1-t)y) \geq f(x)^tg(y)^{1-t}$$ for all $x$ and $y$ in ${\mathbb{R}}$. Then $$\int{h(x)dx} \geq \left(\int{f(x)dx} \right)^t \left(\int{g(x)dx} \right)^{1-t}.$$
Let $h(x,m) = \exp\left( - \psi_c(x+m) - \psi_c(-x + m) \right)$. We have for any $t \in (0,1)$
$$\begin{aligned}
&h(tx+(1-t)y, tm + (1-t)m') \notag \\
&= \exp\left( - \psi_c(tx+(1-t)y+tm + (1-t)m') - \psi_c(-tx -(1-t)y + tm + (1-t)m') \right) \notag \\
&\geq \exp\left( - t\psi_c(x + m) - t\psi_c(-x + m) -(1-t)\psi_c(y + m') - (1-t)\psi_c(-y + m')\right) \notag \\
& \hspace{1cm} \times \exp\left( ct(1-t)|m - m' + x - y|^p + ct(1-t)|m - m' + y - x|^p \right) \notag \\
&\geq \exp\left( - t(\psi_c(x + m) + \psi_c(-x + m)) -(1-t)(\psi_c(y + m') + \psi_c(-y + m')) + 2ct(1-t)|m - m'|^p \right) \notag \\
&= \exp\left( - \psi_c(x + m) - \psi_c(-x + m)+ c(1-t)|m - m'|^p \right)^t \notag \\
& \hspace{1cm} \times \exp\left( -\psi_c(y + m') - \psi_c(-y + m') + ct|m - m'|^p \right)^{1-t}\end{aligned}$$
Applying the Prékopa-Leindler inequality with $$h(x) = h(x, tm + (1-t)m'),$$ $$f(x) = \exp\left( - \psi_c(x + m) - \psi_c(-x + m)+ c(1-t)|m - m'|^p \right)$$ and $$g(x) = \exp\left( -\psi_c(y + m') - \psi_c(-y + m') + ct|m - m'|^p \right)$$ then yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}&{\exp\left( - \psi_c(x + tm + (1-t)m') - \psi_c(- x + tm + (1-t)m') \right)dx} \notag \\
& \hspace{5mm} \geq \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\exp\left( - \psi_c(x + m) - \psi_c(- x + m) + c(1-t)|m - m'|^p \right)dx}\right)^t \notag \\
& \hspace{15mm} \times \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\exp\left( - \psi_c(x + m') - \psi_c(- x + m') + ct|m - m'|^p \right)dx}\right)^{1-t}\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\bar{\psi}_c(tm + (1-t)m') \leq t\bar{\psi}_c(m) + (1-t)\bar{\psi}_c(m') - ct(1-t)|m - m'|^p,$$ which is the inequality we were aiming for.
The same arguments, applied with $p = 2$ also show that $\bar{\psi}_c$ inherits uniform convexity from $\psi_c$.
We still need to prove bounds on $\bar{\delta\psi}$ and its first derivative. These were already proven in [@MO], we reproduce their argument here.
It will be convenient to introduce the probability measures $$\nu(dx) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp(-\psi(-x + m) - \psi(x + m))dx$$ and $$\nu_c(dx) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp(-\psi_c(-x + m) - \psi_c(x + m))dx,$$ so that we have $$\bar{\delta\psi} = -\frac{1}{2} \log \int{\exp(-\delta\psi(-x + m) - \delta\psi(x + m))\nu_c(dx)}$$ and the bound $||\bar{\delta\psi} ||_{\infty} < \infty$ immediately follows from $||\delta\psi ||_{\infty} < \infty$.
A direct calculation yields $$2\bar{\delta\psi}'(m) = \int{(\psi'(-x+m) + \psi'(x+m))\nu(dx)} - \int{(\psi_c'(-x+m) + \psi_c'(x+m))\nu_c(dx)}.$$
We introduce the family of measures $(\nu^s)_{s \in [0,1]}$, defined by $$\nu^s(dx) := \frac{1}{Z}\exp(-\psi_c(-x+m) - \psi_c(x+m) -s\delta\psi(-x+m) -s\delta\psi(x+m))dx.$$ This family interpolates between $\nu^0 = \nu_c$ and $\nu^1 = \nu$. By the mean-value theorem, there exists $s \in [0,1]$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
2\bar{\delta\psi}'(m) &= \frac{d}{ds}\int{(\psi_c'(-x+m) + \psi_c'(x+m) + s\delta\psi'(-x+m) + s\delta\psi'(x+m))\nu^s(dx)} \notag \\
&= \int{(\delta\psi(-x+m) + \delta\psi(x+m))\nu^s(dx)} \notag \\
& \hspace{5mm} - \operatorname{cov}_{\nu^s} \left( \psi_c'(-x+m) + \psi_c'(x+m), \delta\psi(-x+m) + \delta\psi(x+m) \right) \notag \\
& \hspace{5mm} - \operatorname{cov}_{\nu^s} \left( s\delta\psi'(-x+m) + s\delta\psi'(x+m), \delta\psi(-x+m) + \delta\psi(x+m) \right) \notag\end{aligned}$$
The first and third term on the right-hand side of this equation can be bounded uniformly in $m$ by using the assumption that $\delta\psi$ and $\delta\psi'$ are bounded. For the second term, we also use these bounds, as well as the asymmetric Brascamp-Lieb inequality of Lemma \[as\_bl\] to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{cov}_{\nu^s} & \left( \psi_c'(-x+m) + \psi_c'(x+m), \delta\psi(-x+m) + \delta\psi(x+m) \right) \notag \\
&\leq C \underset{x}{\sup} \hspace{1mm} \left| \frac{\psi_c''(-x+m) - \psi_c''(x+m)}{\psi_c''(-x+m) + \psi_c''(x+m)} \right|\int{|-\delta\psi'(-x+m) + \delta\psi'(x+m)|\nu^s(dx)} \notag \\
&\leq C, \notag\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof of $||\bar{\delta\psi}'||_{\infty} < \infty$. This concludes the proof of Lemma \[structure\].
Finally, we prove Lemma \[lem\_convexification\], which is the last remaining step.
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem\_convexification\]\] We define $$\label{def_varphi}
\varphi(m) := \underset{\sigma \in {\mathbb{R}}}{\sup} \hspace{1mm} \left( \sigma m - \log \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\exp(\sigma x - \psi(x))dx} \right).$$ It is the Legendre transform of the function $$\varphi^*(\sigma) := \log \int{\exp(\sigma x - \psi(x))dx}.$$
$$\mu^{\sigma}(dx) = \exp(\sigma x - \psi(x) - \varphi^*(\sigma))dx$$
Let $$\psi_K(m) := -\frac{1}{K} \log \left( \int_{X_{K,m}}{\exp(- \sum \psi(x))dx} \right).$$ If $\psi$ is a bounded pertubation of a uniformly convex potential, we have $$\left| \psi_K''(m) - \varphi''(m) \right| \leq \frac{C}{K}\varphi''(m)$$ uniformly in $m \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
Since the proof of this result is quite long, we will not reproduce it here, and refer the interested reader to [@MO].
We apply this theorem, and since $\textit{R}^M\psi = \psi_{2^M}$, for $M$ large enough we have, uniformly in $m$, $$\textit{R}^M\psi''(m) \geq \frac{1}{2}\varphi''(m).$$ Direct calculation on expression (\[def\_varphi\]) $$\varphi''(m) = \frac{1}{s(\sigma_m)^2},$$ where $$s(\sigma)^2 = \int{(x-m)^2\mu^{\sigma}(dx)},$$
$$\mu^{\sigma}(dx) := \frac{1}{Z}\exp(\sigma x - \psi(x))dx,$$ and $\sigma$ is the unique real number such that $\int{x \mu^{\sigma}(dx)} = m$.
The measures $\mu^{\sigma}$ satisfy a Poincaré inequality with constant independent of $\sigma$, therefore we can show that $s(\sigma)^2$ is bounded above independently of $\sigma$ : $$s(\sigma)^2 \leq \frac{1}{\rho}\int{|\nabla x |^2 \mu^{\sigma}(dx)} = \frac{1}{\rho},$$ and the uniform convexity of $\textit{R}^M\psi''$ follows.
To show that $\textit{R}^M\psi$ is p-convex, it is therefore enough to show that $$\label{p_convexity_coarse}
\varphi''(m) \geq C|m - m_0|^{p-2}$$ for some $C > 0$ and $m_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Let $$m_0 := \int{x \mu^0(dx)}.$$ Since, by the usual properties of the Legendre transform, the real number $\sigma_m$ such that $\varphi(m) = m\sigma_m - \varphi^*(\sigma_m)$ is given by $\varphi'(m) = \sigma_m$, we have $\varphi'(m_0) = 0$, and the unique minimum of $\varphi$ is reached at $m_0$. Since $\mu^0$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$) for some $\rho > 0$ (to show this, use the p-convexity of $\psi_c$ and the Holley-Stroock lemma), applying Proposition \[laplace\], we have $$\frac{1}{\int{\exp(-\psi(x))dx}}\int{\exp(\sigma x - \psi(x))dx} \leq \exp \left(\sigma\int{x\mu^0(dx)} + \frac{|\sigma|^q}{\rho(q-1)} \right)$$ and therefore $$\varphi^*(\sigma) \leq \varphi^*(0) + \sigma m_0 + \frac{|\sigma|^q}{\rho(q-1)}.$$ We then have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aer}
\varphi(m) &= \underset{\sigma \in {\mathbb{R}}}{\sup} \hspace{1mm} \left( \sigma m - \varphi^*(\sigma) \right) \notag \\
&\geq \underset{\sigma \in {\mathbb{R}}}{\sup} \hspace{1mm} \left( \sigma m - \varphi^*(0) - \sigma m_0 - \frac{|\sigma|^q}{\rho(q-1)} \right) \notag \\
&= \varphi(m_0) + \underset{\sigma \in {\mathbb{R}}}{\sup} \hspace{1mm} \left( \sigma (m - m_0) - \frac{|\sigma|^q}{\rho(q-1)} \right) \notag \\
&= \varphi(m_0) + c|m - m_0|^p\end{aligned}$$
where $c$ is a positive constant which only depends on $\rho$ and $p$. We then consider $f(m) = (m - m_0)\varphi'(m) - \varphi(m)$. Since $\varphi''$ is positive, $f$ reaches its minimum at $m_0$, so that for all $m \in {\mathbb{R}}$ we have $(m - m_0)\varphi'(m) - \varphi(m) \geq -\varphi(m_0)$, and therefore, using (\[aer\]) and the fact that $\varphi'$ is increasing, we get $$|\varphi'(m)| \geq c|m - m_0|^{p-1}.$$ To study the behavior of $\varphi''$, we shall now look at $\varphi^{(3)}$. An explicit calculation shows that
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(3)}(m) &= \frac{d}{dm} \left(\int{(x - m)^2\mu^{\sigma}(dx)}\right)^{-1} \notag \\
&= \frac{d\sigma}{dm} \times \frac{d}{d\sigma} \left(\int{(x - m)^2\mu^{\sigma}(dx)}\right)^{-1} \notag \\
&= -\left(\int{(x - m)^3\mu^{\sigma}(dx)}\right)\left(\int{(x - m)^2\mu^{\sigma}(dx)}\right)^{-3}\end{aligned}$$
so that $\varphi^{(3)}(m) = 0$ iff $\int{(x - m)^3\mu^{\sigma}(dx)} = 0$. But we have $$\frac{d}{d\sigma}\int{(x - m)^3\mu^{\sigma}(dx)} = \int{(x-m)^4\mu^{\sigma}(dx)} > 0$$ so that $\int{(x - m)^3\mu^{\sigma}(dx)}$ is a strictly increasing function, and cancels for at most one value of $m$. Therefore there exists some $m_1 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\varphi^{(3)}$ has constant sign on $(m_1, +\infty)$. Without loss of generality, we can assume $m_1 > m_0$. We consider two cases :
If $\varphi^{(3)}$ is non-negative on $(m_1, +\infty)$, then for any $\alpha \in [0, 1]$ the function $(m - m_0)\varphi''(m) - \alpha \varphi'(m)$ is increasing on $(m_1, +\infty)$. Moreover, since $m_1 > m_0$, $\varphi'(m_1) > 0$, and if we take $\alpha = \min (1, \frac{(m_1 - m_0)\varphi''(m_1)}{\varphi'(m_1)})$, this function is nonnegative at $m = m_1$. Therefore, for any $m \in (m_1, +\infty)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi''(m) &\geq \alpha \frac{\varphi'(m)}{m - m_0} \notag \\
&\geq c|m - m_0|^{p-2}.\end{aligned}$$
If $\varphi^{(3)}$ is negative on $(m_1, +\infty)$, then $\varphi''$ is decreasing, and since it is bounded below by a positive constant, it converges to some positive constant $\lambda > 0$ in $+\infty$. We then have $$\varphi'(m) = \int_{m_0}^m{\varphi''(s)dx} \underset{m \rightarrow +\infty}{\sim} \lambda m.$$ But since we know that $\varphi'(m) \geq c|m - m_0|^{p-1}$ with $p > 2$, this is a contradiction, so $\varphi^{(3)}$ must be non-negative on $(m_1, +\infty)$. Therefore we have $$\varphi''(m) \geq c|m - m_0|^{p-2}$$ for all $m > m_1$. With the same reasoning, we can show that $\varphi''(m) \geq c|m - m_0|^{p-2}$ for all $m < m_2$ for some $m_2 < m_0$. But since $\varphi''$ is bounded below by a strictly positive constant, if we take $c$ small enough, we also have $\varphi''(m) \geq c|m - m_0|^{p-2}$ for all $m \in [m_2, m_1]$, and therefore (\[p\_convexity\_coarse\]) holds. This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem\_convexification\].
An application to Kawasaki dynamics
===================================
There are many results on convergence to equilibrium in relative entropy for various dynamics in the literature. Theorem \[thm\_tal\] says that, when we have such a convergence and if the invariant measure is the canonical ensemble $\mu_{N,m}$, then we also have convergence in the Wasserstein distance $W_p$. An example of such a dynamic with conservation law is given by the Kawasaki dynamic on $R^N$ : $$dX_t = -A\nabla H(X_t)dt + \sqrt{2A}dB_t$$ where $B_t$ is a Brownian motion on $R^N$ and $A$ is the discrete Laplacian on $R^N$, that is $$A_{i,j} := 2\delta_{i,j} - \delta_{i,j+1} - \delta_{i,j-1}.$$ If we assume that the law of the initial value $X_0$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu = \exp(-H)dx$, then the law $f_t$ of $X_t$ satisfies (in a weak sense) the PDE $$\frac{\partial f_t}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot (A\nabla f_t \mu).$$ Since this dynamic conserves the average $\sum x_i$, we restrict it to the hyperplane $\left\{\sum x_i = Nm \right\}$. It is a consequence of the LSI proved in [@MO] that, when $H(x) = \sum \psi(x_i)$ with $\psi$ a bounded perturbation of a uniformly convex potential, the entropy satisfies the bound $$\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f_t) \leq \exp(-\rho t/N^2)\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f_0),$$ and the order of magnitude $t/N^2$ is optimal. The following result is then an immediate consequence of this bound and our results :
Assume that $f_t$ is the law of a solution of the Kawasaki dynamics with initial condition $f_0\mu$. Assume that the single-site potential satisfies (\[assumption\_potential\]). Then we have convergence to equilibrium for $W_p$, in the following sense : $$W_p^p(f_t\mu, \mu) \leq C\exp(-\rho t/N^2)\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f_0),$$ with constants $C$ and $\rho$ independent of the dimension $N$ and the mean spin $m$, and the $\ell^p$ distance.
[**Appendix**]{}
Standard criteria for modified LSI
==================================
In this section, we state some standard criteria for a measure to satisfy a modified LSI. These criteria are respectively the natural equivalents of the Bakry-Emery theorem, the tensorization principle and the Holley-Stroock lemma for classical the LSI.
\[be\] Let $V$ be a uniformly p-convex function with constant $\rho$ on $\mathbb{R}^N$, that is for any $x$, $y \in \mathbb{R}^N$ and $t \in [0,1]$, we have $$V(tx + (1-t)y) \leq tV(x) + (1-t)V(y) - \rho\frac{t(1-t)}{p}||x - y||_p^p.$$ Then the probability measure $\mu(dx) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp(-V(x))dx$ satisfies $p-LSI((\rho/q)^{q-1})$.
For a proof of this result, we refer to [@BL].
$\mu(dx) = \exp(-||x||_p^p)dx$ satisfies p-LSI(c) for some $c > 0$.
If $V : {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfies $V''(x) \geq c(p-1)|x|^{p-2}$, then $V$ is p-convex with constant $c$.
This is not a necessary condition. $x \rightarrow (x-1)^4$ is 4-convex with constant $4$, yet we do not have $12(x-1)^2 \geq 12x^2$.
\[tensor\] If $\mu$ (resp. $\nu$) is a probability measure on $X_1$ (resp. $X_2$) satisfying $p-LSI(\rho_1)$ (resp. $p-LSI(\rho_2)$), then $\mu \otimes \nu$ satisfies $p-LSI(\min(\rho_1, \rho_2))$.
It is proven in the same way as for the usual LSI, by using the inequality $$\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu \otimes \nu}(f^q) \leq \int_{X_2}{\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f(\cdot, x_2)^q)\nu(dx_2)} + \int_{X_1}{\operatorname{Ent}_{\nu}(f(x_1, \cdot)^q)\mu(dx_1)}$$ and applying the p-LSI for each measure. See for example [@L], Proposition 5.6 for a proof of this inequality.
\[hol\_str\] If $\mu$ satisfies $p-LSI(\rho)$ and $\psi$ is a bounded function, then the probability measure $\nu = \frac{1}{Z}\exp(\psi)d\mu$ satisfies $p-LSI(e^{2\operatorname{osc}(\psi)}\rho)$, where $\operatorname{osc}(\psi) = \sup \psi - \inf \psi$.
This is the analogue of the Holley-Stroock lemma for the usual LSI, and we can prove it in the same way. The identity (valid for any probability measure $\mu$) $$\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f) = \underset{t \geq 0}{\inf} \int_X{f \log f - t\log t + (t - f)(1 + \log t)d\mu}$$ implies that $$\operatorname{Ent}_{\nu}(f^q) \geq \exp(\operatorname{osc}(\psi))\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(f^q).$$ It is also easy to show that $$\int{||\nabla f||_q^qd\mu} \leq \exp(\operatorname{osc}(\psi))\int{||\nabla f||_q^qd\nu},$$ so that, if $\mu$ satisfies p-LSI($\rho$), then $\nu$ satisfies p-LSI($e^{2\operatorname{osc}(\psi)}\rho$).
\[laplace\] If a probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ (endowed with the $L^p$ norm) satisfies $p-$LSI($\rho$), then for any 1-Lipschitz function $f$ such that $\int{f d\mu} = 0$, we have $\int{e^{\lambda f}d\mu} \leq \exp\left(\frac{\lambda^q}{\rho(q-1)} \right)$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$.
Let $f$ be a smooth 1-Lipschitz function on $X$ for the $||\cdot||_p$ norm, with mean 0, and $$H(\lambda) := \int{\exp(\lambda f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)d\mu}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\lambda}H(\lambda) &= \int{(f - qc\lambda^{q-1}||f||_{lip}^q)\exp(\lambda f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)d\mu} \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{\lambda} \int{(\lambda f - cq\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)\exp(\lambda f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)d\mu} \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{\lambda} \int{(\lambda f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)\exp(\lambda f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)d\mu} + \frac{c(1-q)}{\lambda}\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q H(\lambda) \notag \\
&= \frac{1}{\lambda}\operatorname{Ent}_{\mu}(\exp(f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)) + \frac{c(1-q)}{\lambda}\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q H(\lambda) \notag \end{aligned}$$
We can use the assumption that $\mu$ satisfies the p-LSI with parameter $\rho$ under the form (\[mlsi2\]) to bound the entropy term, and we obtain $$\frac{d}{d\lambda}H(\lambda) \leq \frac{1}{\lambda \rho} \int{\lambda^q||\nabla f||_q^q\exp(f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)d\mu} + \frac{c(1-q)}{\lambda}\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q H(\lambda).$$
Since we assumed $f$ to be 1-Lipschitz for the $L^p$ norm, $||\nabla f||_q \leq ||f||_{lip}$ almost everywhere, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\lambda}H(\lambda) &\leq \frac{1}{\lambda \rho} \int{\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q\exp(\lambda f - c\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q)d\mu} + \frac{c(1-q)}{\lambda}\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q H(\lambda) \notag \\
&= \left( \frac{1}{\rho} + c(1-q) \right) \lambda^{q-1}||f||_{lip}^qH(\lambda). \notag\end{aligned}$$ Taking $c = 1/\rho(q-1)$, we get $\frac{d}{d\lambda}H(\lambda) \leq 0$, therefore $H(\lambda) \leq H(0) = 1$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$, so that $$\int{\exp(\lambda f)d\mu} \leq \exp\left(\frac{\lambda^q||f||_{lip}^q}{\rho(q-1)} \right)$$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$, which implies the desired result.
: I would like to thank Emmanuel Boissard, Nathael Gozlan, Georg Menz and Cédric Villani for discussions on this topic. I would also like to thank the (anonymous) referee for pointing out a mistake in a previous version of the proof of Lemma 2.3, and for his suggestions on improvements of the presentation.
[99]{}
Bobkov, S. G., Gentil, I. and Ledoux, L., Hypercontractivity of Hamilton-Jacobi equations *J. Math. Pures Appl*. **80**, 669-696 (2001).
Bobkov, S. G. and Ledoux, M., From Brunn-Minkowski to Brascamp-Lieb and to logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, *Geom. func. anal.* **10** (2000), 1028-1052.
Bobkov, S. G. and Zegarlinski, B., Entropy Bounds and Isoperimetry, Memoirs of the AMS (2005)
Fathi, M., A two-scale approach to the hydrodynamic limit, part II : local Gibbs behavior. *ALEA*, **80**, vol. 2, 625-651 (2013)
Gozlan, N., A Characterization of Dimension-Free Concentration in Terms of Transportation Inequalities *Ann. Probab.* **37**, Number 6 (2009), 2480-2498.
L. Gross, Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, *Amer. J. Math.* 97, 1061-1083 (1975).
Gozlan, N., Roberto, C. and Samson, P., Characterization of Talagrand’s transport-entropy inequality in metric spaces. *Annals of Probability*, **41** (2013), no. 5, 3112–3139.
Grunewald, N., Otto, F., Villani, C. and Westdickenberg, M. G., A two-scale approach to logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and the hydrodynamic limit. *Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist*. 45 (2009), 2, 302–351.
Ledoux, M., The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon, AMS, Math. Surveys and Monographs, **89**, Providence, Rhode Island, 2001.
Ledoux, M., Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for spin systems revisited, 1999, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.36.4917
Otto, F. and Menz, G., Uniform logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for conservative spin systems with super-quadratic single-site potential. *Ann. Probab.*, **41**, Number 3B (2013), 2182-2224.
Otto, F. and Villani, C., Generalization of an Inequality by Talagrand and Links with the Logarithmic Sobolev Inequality, *J. Funct. Analysis*, **243** (2007), pp. 121-157.
Villani C., Optimal Transport, Old and New. *Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften*, Vol. 338, Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[^1]: LPMA, University Paris 6, France, [email protected].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'On the square lattice raindrops fall on an edge with midpoint $x$ at rate $\|x\|_\infty^{-\alpha}$. The edge becomes open when the first drop falls on it. Let $\rho(x,t)$ be the probability that the edge with midpoint $x=(x_1,x_2)$ is open at time $t$ and let $n(p,t)$ be the distance at which edges are open with probability $p$ at time $t$. We show that with probability tending to 1 as $t \to \infty$: (i) the cluster containing the origin $\CC_0(t)$ is contained in the square of radius $n(p_c-\ep,t)$, and (ii) the cluster fills the square of radius $n(p_c+\ep,t)$ with the density of points near $x$ being close to $\theta(\rho(x,t))$ where $\theta(p)$ is the percolation probability when bonds are open with probability $p$ on $\ZZ^2$. Results of Nolin suggest that if $N=n(p_c,t)$ then the boundary fluctuations of $\CC_0(t)$ are of size $N^{4/7}$.'
author:
- 'Irina Cristali, Matthew Junge and Rick Durrett,'
title: Poisson percolation on the square lattice
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
We study the geometry of the open cluster containing the origin in a nonhomogeneous version of bond percolation on the two-dimensional square lattice that we call *Poisson percolation*. On the lattice an edge with midpoint $x$ is assigned an independent Poisson processes with rate $\|x\|^{-\alpha}$ where $\|x\| = \max\{|x_1|,|x_2|\}$ is the $L^\infty$ norm. The edge becomes open at the time of the first arrival. Our inspiration comes from the *rainstick process*. It was introduced by Pitman and Tang in [@PT17] with followup work by Pitman, Tang and Duchamps [@DPT]. In this discrete time process raindrops fall one after the other on the positive integers and sites become wet when landed on. The locations of raindrop landings are independent random variables with a geometric distribution: $P(X=k) = (1-p)^{k-1}p$ for $k \ge 1$. Let $T$ be the first time that the configuration is a single wet component containing 1, and let $K$ be its length. Pitman and Tang observed in [@PT17] that the value of $K$ describes the size of the first block in a family of *regenerative permutations*. Understanding block sizes has been useful for studying the structure of random Mallows permutations [@BB; @GP16].
In [@CRS] the asymptotic behavior of $T$ and $K$ as $p \to 0$ was studied. They proved that $T \approx \exp(e^{c/p})$ and $K \approx e^{c/p}$, where $c \approx 1.1524$ is a constant defined by an integral. This says that the first block is large, and takes a very large amount of time to form. It turns out that an exponentially decaying tail is needed for the rainstick process to terminate with probability one. Theorem 5 in [@CRS] shows that if raindrops land beyond site $k$ with probability $\exp(-k^\beta)$ for $\beta <1$ then $T$ is infinite with positive probability.
The Poisson percolation we study here is a higher dimensional version of the rainstick process. In both processes distant edges are less likely to become open (wet). However, we have a power-law tail rather than a geometric, so it is likely that there is no time at which there is a single component. So, we will instead study the size and density of the wet cluster containing the origin.
To state our results we introduce some notation. Here, we study Poisson percolation only on the two dimensional lattice $\ZZ^2$. An edge with midpoint $x$ will be open at time $t$ with probability $\rho(x,t) = 1 - \exp(-t\|x\|^{-\alpha})$. We define the cluster containing the origin at time $t$ to be the set of points $\CC_0(t)$ that can be reached from the origin by a path of open edges. Let c\_[p,]{} = (- (1-p))\^[-1/]{}. \[cpa\] A little algebra gives $n(p,t) = \max\{ \|x \|\colon \rho(x,t) \geq p \} = c_{p,\alpha} t^{1/\alpha}$.
Let $R(0,r) = \{ x \colon \| x \| \le r \}$ be the square with radius $r$ centered at 0. Recall that $p_c =1/2$ is the critical value for bond percolation on the two-dimensional lattice. For this and other facts we use about percolation, see Grimmett’s book [@Gri97]. Our first result gives an upper bound on $\CC_0(t)$.
\[thm:outside\] For any $\ep>0$ the probability $\CC_0(t) \subseteq R(0,n(p_c-\ep,t))$ tends to 1 as $n \to\infty$.
Having shown that $\CC_0(t)$ is with high probability contained within $R(0,n(p_c-\ep,t))$, we would like to describe what it looks like inside $R(0,n(p_c+\ep,t))$. To do this we relate it to standard bond percolation on $\ZZ^2$. Let $\mathcal C_0$ be the open cluster containing the origin in bond percolation where each edge is open with probability $p$, and set $\theta(p) = P_p( |{\cal C}_0| = \infty)$, where $P_p$ is the probability measure for bond percolation on $\ZZ^2$, when edges are open with probability $p$. Intuitively, near $x \in R(0,n(p_c+\ep,t))$ the density of points in $\CC_0(t)$ will be close to $\theta(\rho(x,t))$. To state this precisely, let $n = n(p_c+\epsilon,t)$. Fix $1/2 < a < 1$ and tile the plane with boxes of side length $n^{a}$: $$R_{i,j} = [in^a,(i+1)n^a] \times [jn^a,(j+1)n^a],$$ with center $x_{i,j}$. Let $D_{i,j} = |\CC_0(t) \cap R_{i,j}|/n^{2a}$ be the density of points in $R_{i,j}$ that belong to ${\CC}_0(t)$ and let $\Lambda(t,\ep) = \{ (i,j) \colon R_{i,j} \subset R(0,n(p_c+\ep,t)) \}$. We prove that, as $n\to\infty$, the density of $\CC_0(t)$ in each of these boxes converges to the density of the infinite component in bond percolation with probability $\rho(x_{i,j},t)$ of an edge being open.
\[thm:inside\] For any $\ep,\delta>0$, as $t\to\infty$, $$P\left( \sup_{(i,j) \in \Lambda(t,\ep)} |D_{i,j}(t) - \theta(\rho(x_{i,j},t))| > \delta \right) \to 0.$$
From this we get a result about the size of $\CC_0(t)$.
\[cor:inside\] $|\CC_0(t)|/t^{2/\alpha} \to \iint \theta( 1- \exp(-\|x\|^{-\alpha})) \, dx_2 \, dx_1$ as $t\to\infty$.
Our proof of Theorem \[thm:inside\] makes heavy use of the planar graph duality for two dimensional bond percolation. Consider bond percolation on the dual lattice ${\mathbb{L}}:= \ZZ^2+(1/2,1/2)$ with nearest neighbor edges. Every edge $e$ on $\ZZ^2$ is paired with an edge $e^*$ on $\LL$ that has the same midpoint. If $e$ is open (resp. closed), then $e^*$ is closed (resp. open). The pairing means that if the density on the original lattice is $p$, then the density on the dual lattice is $1-p$. We use $P^*_{1-p}$ to denote the percolation on the dual lattice. It is known that there is a top-to-bottom open crossing of $[a,b] \times [c,d]$ if an only if there is no left-to-right closed crossing of $[a-1/2,b+1/2] \times [c+1/2,d-1/2]$. Having mentioned the exact size of the rectangles once, we will ignore the 1/2’s in what follows.
Let $I_n = \left[-\lceil n/(C_1 \log n) \rceil -1, \lceil n/(C_1 \log n)\rceil\right]$ and for $j \in I_n$ let $$\begin{aligned}
R_j = [jC_1\log n, (j+1)C_1 \log n] \times [-n,n],\\
R^j = [-n,n] \times [jC_1\log n, (j+1)C_1 \log n].\end{aligned}$$ Note for the next step that the limits on $j$ are chosen so that the first and last strips in each direction lie outside of $R(0,n(p_c+\ep,t))$. Let $\rad({\cal C}_x)$ be the radius of the cluster that contains $x$. It is known that in homogeneous percolation P\^\*\_[p\_c-]{}( ([C]{}\_x) k ) Ce\^[-\_r k]{}, for some constants $C$ and $\gamma_r$ that depend on $p_c - \ep$. So, if $n = n(p_c+\ep,t)$ and we pick $C_1$ large enough then P\^\*\_[p\_c-]{}( ([C]{}\_x) C\_1n ) n\^[-3]{}, \[dualrad\] for all $x \in \LL$. It follows from that, with high probability, for all $j \in I_n$: (i) there is no left to right dual crossing of any $R_j$ and hence each $R_j$ has an open top to bottom crossing; and (ii) there is a left to right open crossing of all of the $R^j$.
![(i) and (ii) give us a net of interweaving crossings. []{data-label="fig:mesh2"}](mesh6){height="2.0in"}
Let $G(x,t)$ be the event that $\rad({\cal C}_x) > 2 C_1 \log n$. It is easy to see that if $\|x-y\| > 4C_1 \log n$ then $G(x,t)$ and $G(y,t)$ are independent. Bounding the second moment of $|\CC_0(t) \cap R_{i,j}|$ and using Chebyshev’s inequality in conjunction with a union bound over all of the boxes gives the desired result.
After the results mentioned above were proved, we learned about [*gradient percolation*]{}. In 1985 Sapoval, Rosso, and Gouyet [@SRG] considered a model in which a site $(x,y)$ is occupied with probability $$p(y) = 1 - \frac{2}{\pi^{1/2}} \int_0^{y/(2t^{1/2})} e^{-u^2} \, du.$$ This formula arose from a model in which particles do the simple exclusion process in the upper half-space and the $x$ axis is kept occupied by adding particles at empty sites. They looked at the geometry of the boundary of the connected component containing the $x$-axis, finding that the front was fractal with dimension $D_f = 1.76 \pm 0.002$. This paper has been cited 395 times according to Google Scholar. Proving rigorous result about the boundary was mentioned as an open problem in the survey Beffara and Sidorovicius [@BefSid] wrote for the Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, a five volume set first published in 2004 by Elsevier.
In 2008 Pierre Nolin [@Nolin] proved rigorous results for a related percolation model on the two dimensional honeycomb lattice. In the homogeneous version the plane is tiled with hexagons that are black with probability p and white with probability $1-p$. This is equivalent to site percolation on the triangular lattice. Since the pioneering work of Kesten [@K82] in the early 1980s, it has been known that the critical value for this model is 1/2. In 2001 Smirnov and Werner [@SmiWer] used conformal invariance and work of Kesten [@K87] on scaling relations to rigorously compute critical values for this model.
(330,160) (30,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (50,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (70,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (90,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (110,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (130,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (150,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (170,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (190,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (210,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (230,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (250,10)[(1,2)[60]{}]{} (50,10)[(-1,2)[10]{}]{} (70,10)[(-1,2)[20]{}]{} (90,10)[(-1,2)[30]{}]{} (110,10)[(-1,2)[40]{}]{} (130,10)[(-1,2)[50]{}]{} (150,10)[(-1,2)[60]{}]{} (170,10)[(-1,2)[60]{}]{} (190,10)[(-1,2)[60]{}]{} (210,10)[(-1,2)[60]{}]{} (230,10)[(-1,2)[60]{}]{} (250,10)[(-1,2)[60]{}]{} (210,130)[(1,-2)[50]{}]{} (230,130)[(1,-2)[40]{}]{} (250,130)[(1,-2)[30]{}]{} (270,130)[(1,-2)[20]{}]{} (290,130)[(1,-2)[10]{}]{} (30,10)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (40,30)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (50,50)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (60,70)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (70,90)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (80,110)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (90,130)[(1,0)[220]{}]{} (190,140)[$\ell_N$]{} (290,60)[$N$]{}
.
Nolin considered percolation in a parallelogram with height $N$, length $\ell_N$, and interior angles of 60 and 120 degrees, with sites black with probability $1-y/N$ when $0 \le y \le N$. As in our result, the boundary of the cluster of black sites containing the $x$-axis will be close to the line $y=N/2$. Writing $\approx N^a$ for a quantity that is bounded below by $N^{a-\delta}$ and above by $N^{a+\delta}$ for any $\delta>0$, Nolin proved the following result, predicted in [@SRG].
\[thm:nolin\] The boundary of the cluster containing the $x$-axis remains within $\approx N^{4/7}$ of the line $y = N/2$ and has length $\approx N^{3/7}\ell_N$.
To connect with the original work in [@SRG], Nolin says “one can expect to observe a nontrivial limit, of fractal dimension 7/4, with an appropriate scaling (in $N^{4/7}$) of the axes, but the critical exponents obtained do not correspond to a fractal dimension of the limiting object.”
Since it is expected, but not yet proved, that the critical exponents are the same for bond percolation on the square lattice, we cannot convert Nolin’s result into a theorem about our model. To make the connection between our result and his, let $$N = n(p_c,t) = c_{p_c,\alpha} t^{1/\alpha},$$ where $c_{p,\alpha}$ is defined in . Changing variables $$\rho((yN,0),t) = 1 - \exp(-t (c_{p_c,\alpha} yt^{1/\alpha})^{-\alpha}) = 1 - \exp( - y^{-\alpha} \log 2 ) \equiv f(y).$$ Near 1 we have $f(1+\delta) = 1/2 + f'(1)\delta + o(\delta)$. Theorem \[thm:outside\] and \[thm:inside\] imply that we can confine our attention this region. Only near the corners of the right-edge of $R(0,N)$ do we notice a difference between a model with probabilities that depend on $x$ and ours that depend on $\|x\|$, so it is reasonable to expect that the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:nolin\] will hold for our model. Note that the formula for $f(y)$ tells us that boundary fluctuations will not depend on $\alpha$ but the density profile of $\CC_0(t)$ will.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:outside\]
================================
Let $N = n(p_c-\ep,t)$. Using and the fact that $P$ and $P^*$ are the same (except for being defined on different lattices) P\_[p-]{}((C\_x) C\_1N ) N\^[-3]{}. \[out1\] Let $B_N$ be the event that there is an open path from $\partial R(0,N)$ to $\partial R(0, N + C_1\log N)$. To bound $P(B_N)$ note that if there is such an open path then there is one that stays entirely in the annulus $R(0,N+C_1\log N) - R(0,N)$ where all of the bonds are open with probability $p_c-\ep$. Using with a union bound gives $P(B_N) \le 8/N \to 0$. This implies $$P(\exists~x \in \CC_0(t): ||x|| \geq N + C_1\log N ) \to 0$$ which proves the desired result.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:inside\]
===============================
We fix a time $t$, let $n = n(p_c + \epsilon, t)$ and partition the box $R(0, n)$ into two sets of strips $R_j$ and $R^j$, as described in Section \[Intro\]. Define the following pair of events: $$\begin{aligned}
A_j & = \{\text{$\exists$ a top-to-bottom crossing in $R_j = [jC_1\log n, (j+1)C_1 \log n] \times [-n,n]$}\},\\
A^j &= \{\text{$\exists$ a left-to-right crossing in $R^j = [-n,n] \times [jC_1\log n, (j+1)C_1 \log n]$}\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[Ajbound\] For $j \in I_n$, (i) $P(A_j)$, $P(A^j)$ $\geq$ $1 - n^2$ and (ii) $P(\bigcap\limits_{j \in I_n} A_j \cap A^j) \geq 1- 2n^{-1}$.
By symmetry, it suffices to prove (i) for the events $A^j$. Denote the left and right edges of $R^j$ by $\partial^LR^j$ and by $\partial^RR^j$, respectively, and by using the dual lattice ${\mathbb{L}}= \ZZ^2 + (1/2, 1/2)$ defined in Section \[Intro\], the complement of $A^j$ $$A^{j,c} = \bigcup_{x \in \partial^LR^j}\text{\{$\exists$ an open path from $x$ to $\partial^RR^j$ in ${\mathbb{L}}$}\}.$$ Using with a union bound, we have $$P(A^{j,c}) \leq |\partial^LR^j|P(\rad(\mathcal{C}_{p_c-\epsilon}(x)) > C_1\log(n))
\leq n \cdot n^{-3} = n^{-2}.$$ proving our first claim.
To prove (ii), note that we have a total of $\le 2n$ horizontal and vertical strips and thus $$P\left(\bigcup_{j \in I_n} A_j^c \cup A^{j,c} \right) \leq 2n\cdot n^{-2}
= 1 - 2n^{-1}.$$
Lemma \[Ajbound\] guarantees that there exists a “net" with mesh-size $C_1\log n$ throughout $R(0,n)$. It is necessary to show that $\mathbb C_0$ is captured by this net.
\[caught\_in\_the\_net\] $P(\text{there exists a closed edge in $[-C_1 \log n, C_1 \log n]^2$}) \to 0$.
Let $R$ denote the square in the lemma statement. Since $t =c n^\alpha$ for some $c>0$, it follows that $ \max_{x \in R} (1- \rho(x,t)) \leq \exp( - c n^\alpha / C_1\log n).$ Using this estimate in a union bound over the $4C_1^2 \log^2 n$ edges in $R$ gives the claimed convergence.
We now consider a second partition of our original box $R(0, n)$, by tiling it with boxes $R_{i,j} = [in^a,(i+1)n^a] \times [jn^a,(j+1)n^a]$, centered at $x_{i, j}$, as described in Section \[Intro\]. We will argue that the density of open sites computed in each rectangle $R_{i, j}$, is, with high probability, close to the percolation probability when bonds are open with probability $\rho(x_{i,j},t)$.
For points $x$ inside an arbitrary box $R_{i, j}$, we examine the behavior of $\theta(\rho(x, t))$, which is the percolation probability probability measure for bond percolation with parameter $\rho(x, t)$. The following result shows that, as $t \to\infty$, $\theta(\rho(x, t))$ remains almost constant as $x$ varies within $R_{i, j}$.
\[dens\] Let $n = n(p_c,t)$ and $a<1$. As $n\to\infty$ $$\sup \{ |\theta(\rho(x, t)) - \theta(\rho(y, t))| : \|x-y\| \le 2n^a \} \to 0.$$
Since $p \to \theta(p)$ is uniformly continuous, and $\theta(p)=0$ for $p<p_c$, it suffices to show that $$\sup \{ |\rho(x, t) - \rho(y, t)| : \|x-y\| \le n^a, \|x\|, \|y\| \le n \} \to 0.$$ A little algebra gives $$\rho(x, t) - \rho(y, t) = e^{-t\|x\|^\alpha} ( 1- e^{-t[\|y\|^\alpha - \|x\|^{\alpha}]}).$$ Suppose first that $\|x\| \le n^b$ where $a < b < 1$. The second term is $\le 1$. Since $n= c(p_c)t^{1/\alpha}$ the first is $\le \exp( - c t^{1-b} )\to 0$.
If $\|x\| \ge n^b$ and $\|x-y\| \le n^a$ then for large $n$, $\|y\| \ge n^b/2$. Let $u$ be the point in $\{x,y\}$ with smaller norm and let $v$ be the one with larger norm. Notice that $$\|u\|^{-\alpha} - \|v\|^{-\alpha} \le \|u\|^{-\alpha} - (\|u\| + 2n^a )^{-\alpha}
= - \int_{\|u\|}^{\|u\|+2n^a} (-\alpha x^{-\alpha-1}) \, dx .$$ So, we have $\|u\|^{-\alpha} - \|v\|^{-\alpha} \le \alpha n^a (n^b/2)^{-(1+\alpha)} \to 0$ since $b>a$ and $\alpha>0$.
\[localdensity\] Let $\theta_{i, j} = \theta(\rho(x_{i, j}, t))$. For each $\delta > 0$, there is a constant $C_2$, independent of $i,j\in I_n$ and of $\delta$, so that $$P\left(| |\CC_0 \cap R_{i, j}| - \theta_{i,j}n^{2a}| > \delta n^{2a}\right)
\leq \frac{C_2\log n^2}{\delta^2n^{2a}}.$$
To argue this, we define the following random variable $$S_{i, j} = \sum_{y \in R_{i, j}} 1\{\rad(\mathcal{C}_y \geq 2C_1 \log n)\},$$ where $C_1\log n$ represents the lengths of the short sides of the rectangles $R_j$ and $R^j$. For all $y$ $\in$ $R_{i, j}$, let $A_y = \{\rad(\mathcal{C}_y \geq 2C_1 \log n)\}$. Recalling that this set of rectangles generates with high probability a net of open horizontal and vertical crossings, we note that $S_{i, j} = |\CC_0 \cap R_{i, j}|$. We now center the variable $S_{i, j}$ around its mean and define: $$\bar{S}_{i, j} = S_{i, j} - ES_{i, j} = \sum_{y \in R_{i, j}} \left( 1\{A_y\} - \theta_{y}\right),$$ where $\theta_{y} = P(A_y)$ for all $y$. Since $E(\bar{S_k}) = 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\var(\bar{S}_{i, j}) = E(\bar{S}_{i, j}^2) = E\left(\sum_{x, y \in R_{i, j}} \left(\mathds{1}\{A_y\}\mathds{1}\{A_x\} - \theta_{x}\theta_{y}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The random variables $\mathds{1}\{A_x\}$ and $\mathds{1}\{A_y\}$ are independent, if $|x-y| \geq 4C_1\log n$. Using this observation and the fact that $|E(\mathds{1}\{A_x\}\mathds{1}\{A_y\}) - \theta_{i, j}^2|$ $\leq$ 1, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E(\bar{S}_{i, j}^2) &= \sum_{|x-y| < 2C_1\log n} \left( E(\mathds{1}\{A_x\}\mathds{1}\{A_y\}) - \theta_{i, j}^2 \right) \\
&\leq | \{(x, y) \in R_{i, j}: \|x-y\| < 4C_1\log n \}| \le C_2 n^{2a}{\log^2 n}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Chebyshev’s inequality gives $$\begin{aligned}
P(|\bar{S}_{i, j}| > \delta n^{2a}) \leq \frac{C_2 n^{2a}\log^2 n}{\delta^2(n^{2a})^2} =\frac{C_2 \log^2 n}{\delta^2n^{2a}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since Lemma \[dens\] implies $$|R_{i,j}|^{-1} \sum_{y\in R_{ij}} \theta_y - \theta_{i,j} \to 0$$ this proves the lemma.
Given this series of results, we can now easily complete the
By Lemma \[caught\_in\_the\_net\] $\mathbb C_0$ connects to the “net" from Lemma \[Ajbound\]. Thus, it contains a crossing of every strip $R^j$ and $R_j$ for $j \in I_n$. Next, note that for each $\delta > 0$ $$P\left( \sup_{(i,j) \in \Lambda(t,\ep)} |D_{i,j}(t) - \theta(P(x_{i,j},t))| > \delta \right) \leq \sum_{(i,j) \in \Lambda(t,\ep)}P(|S_{i, j} - \theta_{i, j} n^{2a}| > \delta n^{2a}).$$ Using Lemma \[localdensity\] the above is $$\leq n^{2-2a}\frac{C_2\log^2 n}{\delta^2n^{2a}} \leq n^{2 -4a}\frac{C_2\log^2 n}{\delta^2} \to 0,$$ since $a > \frac{1}{2}$.
Observe that $|\CC_0(t)| = \sum_{i,j\in I_n} |\CC_0(t) \cap R_{i,j}|$. Theorem \[thm:inside\] implies $$\frac{1}{n^2} \left| \sum_{i,j\in I_n} |\CC_0(t) \cap R_{i,j}| - \sum_{i,j} \theta_{i,j} \right| \to 0.$$ Scaling space by $t^{1/\alpha} = O(n)$ and noting that the squares now have side length $O(n^{a-1})$, we have $$\frac{1}{t^{2/\alpha}} \sum_{i,j} \theta_{i,j} \to \iint (1 - \exp(-\|x\|^{-\alpha}) \, dx_2 \, dx_1,$$ which completes the proof.
[99]{}
Riddhipratim Basu and Nayantara Bhatnagar. (20160 Limit theorems for longest monotone subsequences in random Mallows permutations. arXiv:1601.02003
Vincent Beffara and Vladas Sidorovicius (2005) Percolation Theory arXiv:0507220
Irina Cristali, Vinit Ranjan, Jake Steinberg, Erin Beckman, Rick Durrett, Matthew Junge, and James Nolen (2017 Block sizes in two families of regenerative permutations. arXiv:1708.05626
J.-J. Duchamps, J. Pitman, and W. Tang (2017) Renewal sequences and record chains related to multiple zeta sums. arXiv:1707.07776
Michael T Gastner and Beáta Oorny (2012) The geometry of percolation fronts with spatially varying densities. [*New Journal of Physics.*]{} 14, paper 103019
Alexey Gladkich and Ron Peled. On the cycle structure of Mallows permutations. arXiv:1601.06991
Geoffrey R. Grimmett. [*Percolation.*]{} Second Edition, Springer, New York
Harry Kesten (1982) [*Percolation Theory for Mathematicians.*]{} Birkhauser, Bosten.
Harry Kesten (1987) Scaling relations for 2D perclation. [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} 109, 109–156
Pierre Nolin (2008) Critical exponents of planar gradient pecolation. [*Annals of Probability.*]{} 36, 1748–1776
Jim Pitman and Wenpin Tang (2017) Regenerative random permutations of integers. arXiv:1704.01166
Bernard Sapoval, Michel Rosso, Jean-Francois Gouyet (1985) The fractal nature of a diffusion front and the relation to percolation. [*Journal de Physique Letters.*]{} 46, 149–156
S. Smirnov and W. Werner. (2001) Critical exponents for two-dimensional percolation. [*Math. Res. Letters.*]{} 8, 729–744
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The recent discovery of super-Earths (masses $\leq$ 10 $M_{\oplus}$) has initiated a discussion about conditions for habitable worlds. Among these is the mode of convection, which influences a planet’s thermal evolution and surface conditions. On Earth, plate tectonics has been proposed as a necessary condition for life. Here we show, that super-Earths will also have plate tectonics. We demonstrate that as planetary mass increases, the shear stress available to overcome resistance to plate motion increases while the plate thickness decreases, thereby enhancing plate weakness. These effects contribute favorably to the subduction of the lithosphere, an essential component of plate tectonics. Moreover, uncertainties in achieving plate tectonics in the one earth-mass regime disappear as mass increases: super-Earths, even if dry, will exhibit plate tectonic behaviour.'
author:
- Diana Valencia
- 'Richard J. O’Connell'
- 'Dimitar D. Sasselov'
title: 'Inevitability of Plate Tectonics on Super-Earths'
---
Introduction
============
Until recently, Earth was the largest terrestrial object known to exist. However, five super-Earth planets (a class defined as having a mass between 1-10 $M_{\oplus}$- earth-masses) have been detected in the last few years [@Rivera_et_al:2005; @OGLE-5.5:2006; @Lovis_et_al:2006; @Udry_et_al:2007]. The five planets have masses in the 5-10 $M_{\oplus}$ range, but we do not have information on their sizes and cannot be sure if these are really rocky terrestrial planets. However, their discovery provides some evidence that super-Earths might be common and it is only a matter of chance that our Solar System has none. Some of these planets might be in the ’habitable zone’, where the radiation from the star allows for the presence of liquid water, but only their thermal and chemical evolution will determine if they are, in fact, habitable. In turn, their thermal evolution and surface conditions depend on and affect their tectonic regime. Currently, Earth is the only planet where plate tectonics is active. Furthermore, this mode of convection has dominated our planet’s geological history, is associated with geochemical cycles and thus, has been proposed as a required mechanism for life on Earth [@Walker_et_al:1981]. Here we address whether or not super-Earths are likely to have plate tectonics or be in a stagnant lid convection like Mercury and Mars.
Analysis
========
Plate tectonics is a complicated process that primarily requires lithospheric failure, deformation and subduction. For this, convective stresses of the system have to be large enough to overcome lithospheric resistance to deformation and the plate has to reach negative buoyancy to drive subduction. The convective stresses are a function of the underlying flow field and the viscosity of the fluid, whereas the plate’s strength depends on the elastic thickness and mechanical properties. Our contribution is based on identifying how the lithospheric or plate thickness ($\delta$) and convective stresses ($\tau$, $\sigma$) depend on planetary mass (M). We use detailed models of the internal structure of massive terrestrial planets [@Valencia_et_al:2006; @Valencia_ternary] and parameterized convection models to show that the condition for deformation and subsequent subduction is easily met by planets more massive than Earth. A second condition necessary for subduction is that the plate cools enough to develop negative buoyancy at subduction zones [@Sleep:1992; @Davies:1993]. It is unclear as to how important this requirement is with recent elaborated petrological models [@Hynes:2005; @Afonso_et_al:2007] suggesting that on Earth, the plate’s mean density is never larger than the underlying mantle’s. Nontheless, we discuss the conditions for the development of negative buoyancy on super-Earths.
Parametric Convection
---------------------
The thickness of the lithosphere or boundary layer ($\delta$) depends on the Rayleigh number $(Ra$) – a parameter governing convection. A variety of models of boundary layer convection [@O'Connell-Hager-1980; @Turcotte_Schubert:fluid_mechanics] lead to $\delta\sim D\left(Ra/Ra_{c}\right)^{s}$, with $s=-1/4$, and $Ra_{c}$ the critical Rayleigh number above which a fluid starts convecting. This results in $\delta$ being independent of the depth $D$ of the convecting layer.
The exponential relationship between $\delta$ and $Ra$ has been extensively addressed as different flow details, geometries, turbulence, and other complicating effects are taken into account. In particular, @Conrad_Hager:1999-GRL suggested that $s\sim0$ where viscous dissipation within the bending subducting slab is larger than the dissipation within the shearing mantle, which is the case for thick strong plates [@Conrad_Hager:1999-JGR]. However, since we show below that the plates for super-Earths are thin, the case where $s\sim0$ can be ruled out. Other values of $s$ will not change the qualitative results obtained here.
The deviatoric horizontal normal stress ($\sigma$) responsible for causing failure on the plate is (to first order) balanced by the shear stress ($\tau$) applied over the base of the plate. Thus, by a simple force balance $\sigma=\tau$ $L/ \delta $, where $L$ is the plate length, calculated from the time it takes for the plate to cool conductively and grow to a thickness $\delta$, $L\sim \delta^{2}$ $u / \kappa $, where $u$ is the convective velocity. The shear stress depends on the viscosity $\eta$ and the velocity field of the fluid. In the most simple case this dependence will be linear so that the stress under the plate is $\tau\sim\eta$ $u/D$. The faster the flow, the larger the stress. In general these are competing effects: viscosity decreases while velocities increase with higher temperatures (T). The relationship for velocity is $u\sim \kappa/D$ $Ra^{1/2}$ [@Turcotte_Schubert:fluid_mechanics]. A super-Earth can be expected to have larger velocities due to larger Rayleigh numbers. Thus, we need to investigate the extent to which the viscosity effect reduces the stress to predict whether or not plate failure will occur. We do so by considering two cases for viscosity: an isoviscous case ($\eta=\eta_{0}=10^{21}$Pa$\cdot$s – Earth’s nominal value), and a T dependent viscosity case ($\eta=\eta_{0}(T/T_{0})^{-30}$ – @Davies:1980).
Structure and Convection
------------------------
We calculate the internal structure of terrestrial planets with masses in the range of $1-10M_{\oplus}$ [@Valencia_et_al:2006] and determine the mantle thickness, density and gravity of each planet. We find that a power law relationship can adequately express the dependence of these parameters on M. For planetary mantles, the Rayleigh number depends on the mantle density $\left(\rho=\rho{}_{\oplus}(M/M_{\oplus})^{0.20}\right)$, gravity $\left(g=g_{\oplus}(M/M_{\oplus})^{1/2}\right)$, mantle thickness $\left(D=D{}_{\oplus}(M/M_{\oplus})^{0.28}\right)$ and heat flux ($q$), which all depend on the mass of the planet. $Ra$ also depends on material properties: thermal expansivity ($\alpha$), thermal diffusivity ($\kappa$), thermal conductivity ($k$) and viscosity ($\eta)$. The latter is a strong function of T. Therefore the Rayleigh number $Ra=\alpha\rho gD^{4}q / \kappa k\eta$, depends indirectly on M and T. It increases for super-Earths as the size of their mantle and interior heat increases. To account for the heat flux as a function of M we scale radioactive heat production and indirectly consider secular cooling. It is straightforward to scale the radioactive production with M for similar bulk compositions. Secular cooling, on the other hand, can only be completely assessed by considering the full thermal evolution. More massive planets would have larger initial gravitational energy budgets to dissipate over time; we assume for simplicity that the heat to be lost to secular cooling is proportional to M. Convective velocities also scale roughly with M ($u\sim M^{1.19}$– see Table 1), so that the proportional rate of cooling should be roughly independent of M. Even though the relative contributions of radioactive heating and secular cooling to the total heat flow will depend on the evolution of the planet, we will assume that heat flow scales proportionately with M, especially because we expect the radioactive production to be dominant. The internal structure model allows us to calculate Ra, $\delta$ and T beneath the plate for planets between 1-10 $M_{\oplus}$. Convergence of these parameters determines the structure and final radius of each super-Earth planet.
Results
=======
Figure 1 shows the dependence of plate thickness (blue) and horizontal normal stress (green) as a function of M for the T-dependent-viscosity case and Earth-like radioactive heat sources (solid). An additional case with reduced heat sources (dashed) is discussed below. The trends between these two scenarios and scaling exponents are similar, although their $1M_{\oplus}$ values are different. As expected, the plate thickness decreases as the M of the planet increases. This is because a more vigorous convective interior can transport heat more efficiently to the surface and sustain a higher surface heat flux. In addition, shear stress underneath the plate increases proportionately with M (Fig. 2), and thus, the deviatoric horizontal normal stress also increases. This means that the viscosity reduction effect on stress is very small compared to the velocity effect. This is the case because the drop in T within the plate and hence local viscosity are nearly independent of M as indicated by our calculations for the more realistic T-dependent-viscosity case (Fig. 2). For similar surface temperature, the increase in temperature at the base of the lithosphere between Earth and a super-Earth differs at most by only 5%. We think the reason for this surprising result is a very efficient negative feedback induced by viscosity. If T increases, the viscosity decreases and heat flux increases, cooling the planet and reducing T. We ignore pressure (P) effects on viscosity because we expect them to be small under thin plates and because we find that P at the base of the plate is roughly the same for all super-Earths.
Figure 2 shows the dependence of all the relevant convective parameters with planetary mass normalized to the Earth’s values for the T-dependent case. The results can be adequately fitted to a power law such as $\delta=\delta_{\oplus}(M/M_{\oplus})^{\beta}$ where the exponent $\beta$ shows the dependence on M. In a vigorously convective interior (high $Ra$) the velocities are expected to be large and this is evident in Fig. 2. The relative size of the convection cells measured as the length of the plate with respect to its radius ($L/R$) increases slightly, from a 0.29 for a $1M_{\oplus}$ planet to a 0.30 ratio for a $10M_{\oplus}$ planet. The maximum plate age, related to the convective overturn, in a super-Earth is much less (see Table 1 for $\beta=-0.91$).
Heat Flow
---------
In addition to a bulk silicate Earth composition for radiactive sources, we also consider planets with no $^{40}K$ content. As a result of potassium’s volatile nature, Earth is depleted in this element [@McDonough_Sun:1995]. It is therefore possible for other planets to also have non-chondritic K concentrations. U/O and Th/O ratios can be expected to be fairly constant for planets forming around stars with a relatively recent supernova event (within 10 Gy). K contributes less than 1/3 of total heat from radioactive sources at the present time on Earth. Within this context, we consider a pesimistic scenario for a super-Earth with only 1/3 of its chondritic heat flow ($Q$) and no secular cooling contribution.
This end-member case ($Q/3$) shows comparatively thicker plates (Fig. 1), with 88 km versus 43 km in thickness for a $1M_{\oplus}$ planet. Additionally, the driving force is in the order of 1-6 MPa which is lower than the Earth’s value of $\sim$10 MPa. This is an extreme case where subduction would be difficult but still possible for the most massive super-Earths if other factors, such as the presence of hydrated minerals is invoked to reduce the strength of the plate. For each planetary mass, there is a threshold in heat flow below which the convective driving force would not be sufficient to maintain subduction and plate tectonics would cease. Nontheless, most of the super-Earths that will be detected in the next few years will likely fall in a regime above the $Q/3$ scenario.
Lithospheric Buoyancy
---------------------
On Earth, the oceanic lithosphere is comprised of 7 km of basaltic crust (chemically buoyant), overlaying lithospheric mantle. We perform a simple buoyancy calculation at subduction ages by considering the thermal contraction from the ridge. We determine maximum crustal thicknesses that still allow the lithospheric mean density to be larger than the underlying mantle’s. We find this value to be 13% the plate thickness at subduction zones (twice the average thickness - $\delta$). The crustal thickness depends on the extent of melting under ridges which depends on the P and T conditions. As shown above, T at ridges and under plates varies little with M, so that with larger gravity values, melting occurs at shallower depths in super-Earths. A simple calculation shows that the crust thins with increasing planetary M, and while it becomes a larger component of the also thinning boundary layers, its thickness stays below the threshold allowing negative buoyancy. This effect stands in contrast to the young Earth that had a higher potential T but same P profile [@Nisbet_Fowler:1983; @Davies:1993]. To precisely assess the density of the plate detailed petrological models like those of @Hynes:2005 and @Afonso_et_al:2007 are needed. It is important to point out that their models do not predict negative buoyancy on Earth when the plate’s density is compared to sublithospheric density, arguing that perhaps this condition is not critical for the initiation of subduction. In addition, @Becker_et_al:1999 showed that in compressive regions, the cold plate can thicken to a point that negative buoyancy is inevitable and subduction follows. If negative buoyancy is indeed a necessary condition, our simple calculations show that super-Earths can satisfy it.
Summary and Implications
========================
In summary, convection is more vigourous in massive terrestrial planets, making their lithospheres thinner and therefore reducing lithospheric strength. Furthermore, they achieve larger stresses owing primarily to larger velocities and therefore can more easily overcome the lithospheric resistance to deformation. Plates may reach negative buoyancy on super-Earths despite their relative younger ages. This scenario is suitable for the failure of the plate and subsequent subduction, which is a necessary step for plate tectonics. Given that Earth’s convective state leads to plate tectonics, the more favorable conditions experienced by super-Earths will inevitably lead to plate tectonics. Furthermore, planets of similar mass should have the same potential to exhibit plate tectonics. Conversely, this physics can help explain why small planets like Mars, Mercury and the Moon do not exhibit plate tectonics.
Role of Water
-------------
Venus is only slightly smaller than Earth and does not exhibit plate tectonics, although some authors [@Turcotte:1993; @Jellenik_water:2005J] have suggested it may have in the past. This observation indicates that the $\sim$1 earth-mass case falls within a zone of transition between ‘hard’ stagnant lid and mobile plate regimes. In this case, characteristics other than M may be important to the dynamics of the lithosphere. For example, the high surface temperature of Venus might lead to a weak, highly deformable boundary layer that would not support the coherent plate-like behaviour that characterizes oceanic plates on Earth. Moreover, plate strength is relatively large compared to the mantle driving force in the one earth-mass case; yield stresses are on the order of 1-5 GPa for olivine (the representative upper mantle mineral) [@Chen_et_al:1998], whereas our calculations, in agreement with more detailed models [@Becker_Oconnell:2001], suggest an underlying driving force of only 10 MPa. Since slip can occur on pre-existing faults at stress values of a few MPa, the existence of plate tectonics in the one earth-mass regime may thus depend crucially on the conditions required to initiate subduction. The presence of water is one possible mechanism to reduce the yield strength of a plate and friction on faults. Experiments show that water reduces the yield strength of olivine by 62% when raising the temperature from 25 to 400$^{\circ}$C at 10 GPa, compared to a drop of 39% in dry olivine [@Chen_et_al:1998]. Hence, the hydration level of Venus’ mantle, which is 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than on Earth [@Zolotov_et_al:1997], may make it very difficult for convective forces within this planet to overcome plate resistance.
For larger planets, super-Earths, these issues become less relevant. A wet super-Earth will clearly have enough driving force to sustain subduction. But, more importantly, the consequences for initiating subduction associated with the hydration of a one earth-mass planet (i.e., a reduction of the yield strength by half) would be similar to a doubling of the mass of the planet (Fig. 2). That is to say, both scenarios would be as likely to initiate and maintain subduction.
Atmospheric Observables
-----------------------
The difference between a Super-Earth with active plate tectonics and one with stagnant lid is in the access of upper mantle material and gasses to the atmosphere. The first case allows several global geochemical cycles to operate, like the CO$_2$ and SO$_2$ ones. For example, cases in our Solar System comprise: Earth with a CO$_2$ cycle and possibly early Mars with a SO$_2$ cycle [@Halevy_et_al:2007]. Earth has had stable modest levels of atmospheric CO$_2$ (between 160-7000 ppm – @Royer_et_al:2001) in the last 0.5 Gy whereas Venus’ levels stand today at 96%. A planet with plate tectonism and a carbonate rock reservoir has an efficient built-in cycle that stabilizes climate at temperatures within the liquid water regime [@Kasting:1996]. A super-Earth that has plate tectonics and weathering capabilities can be expected to have CO$_2$ atmospheric concentrations that would yield temperatures around liquid water. Therefore, evidence against the presence of plate tectonics on an exoplanet would be the detection of high values of CO$_2$ for the age of the star, type of star and orbital distance. An SO$_2$ based atmosphere is also possible and the same reasoning would apply, since the sulfur cycle operates analogously to the carbon cycle. But obviously, more theoretical research is necessary to model the details and predict the right observable signatures.
In conclusion, we show here that as mass increases, the process of subduction, and hence plate tectonics, becomes easier. Therefore, massive super-Earths will very likely exhibit plate tectonics. In the future with TPF by NASA and Darwin by ESA it might be possible to use spectroscopy to identify atmospheric signatures suggesting plate tectonism on these objects. This class of planets offers the possibility of finding Earth analogs and, in particular, make attractive targets in the search for habitable planets.
Acknowledgements
================
DV acknowledges support from the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. This work was in part funded by NSF grant EAR=0440017.
\[h\] [**Fig. 1**]{}
[**Fig. 2**]{}
Afonso, J. C., Ranalli, G., & Fernandez, M. 2007, JRL, 34, L10302 Beaulieu, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 437 Becker, T. W., Faccena, C., O’Connell, R. J., & Giardini, D. 1999, JGR, 104, 15207 Becker, T. W., & O’Connell, R. J. 2001, G3, 2(12) Chen, J., Inoue, T., Wiedner, D. J., Wu, Y., & Vaughan, M. T. 1998, GRL, 25, 575 Conrad, C. P., & Hager, B. H. 1999a, JGR, 104, 17551 Conrad, C. P. & Hager, B. H. 1999b, GRL, 26, 3041 Davies, G. F. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research, 85, 2517 Davies, G. F. 1993, Lithos, 30, 281 Halevy, I., Zuber, M. T., & Schrag, D. P. 2007, in Lunar and Planetary Inst. Technical Report, Vol. 38, Lunar and Planetary Institute Conference Abstracts, 1173 Hynes, A. 2005, Inter. Geology. Rev., 47, 938 Ida, S., & Lin, D. 2004, ApJ, 604, 388 Jellinek, M., O’Neill, C., & Lenardic, A. 2005, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, A230+ Kasting, J. F. 1996, Astrophys Space Sci, 241, 3 Lovis, C., M.Mayor, Pepe, F., Alibert, Y., Benz, W., Bouchy, F., Correia, A. C. M., Laskar, J., Mordasini, C., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Udry, S., Bertaux, J., & Sivan, J. 2006, Nature, 441, 305 McDonough, W., & Sun, S.-s. 1995, Chem. Geol., 120, 223 Nimmo, F., & McKenzie, D. 1998, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 26, 23 Nisbet, E. G., & Fowler, C. M. R. 1983, Geology, 11, 376 O’Connell, R. J., & Hager, B. 1980, in Physics of the Earth’s Interior, ed. A. M. Dziewonski & E. Boschi (North Holland), 270–317 Richardson, L. J., Deming, D., Horning, K., Seager, S., & Harrington, J. 2007, Nature, 445, 892 Rivera, E. J., Lissauer, J. J., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G., Vogt, S. S., Fischer, D. A., Brown, T. M., Laughlin, G., & Henry, G. W. 2005, ApJ, 634, 625 Royer, D. L., Berner, R. A., & Beerling, D. J. 2001, Earth Science Reviews, 54, 349 Sleep, N. H. 1992, Can. J. Earth Sci, 29, 2066 Turcotte, D., & Schubert, G. 2002, Geodynamics (Cambridge University Press), 226–291 Turcotte, D. L. 1993, JGR, 98, 17061 Udry, S., Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., & Bertaux, J.-L. 2007, A&A Valencia, D., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. D. 2006, Icarus, 181, 545 Valencia, D., Sasselov, D. D., & O’Connell, R. J. 2007, ApJ, in press Walker, J. C., Hayes, P. B., & Kasting, J. F. 1981, JGR, 86, 9776 Zolotov, M. Y., Fegley, B., & Lodders, K. 1997, Icarus, 130, 475 Zuber, M. T., et al. 2000, Science, 287, 1788
[cccc]{}
plate thickness $(\delta)$& 43 km & -0.45& -0.29\
drop in temperature $(\Delta T)$& 1277 $^{\circ}$C& 0.02& 0.18\
plate’s velocity $(u)$& 3 cm/y & 1.19 & 0.87\
shear stress $(\tau)$& 0.3 MPa & 0.27 & 0.58\
normal stress $(\sigma)$& 10 MPa& 1.00 & 1.16\
plate length $(L)$& 1800 km& 0.28& 0.29\
convective time $(t)$& 70 myr& -0.91 & -0.58\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A simple model of Bose-Einstein condensation of interacting particles is proposed. It is shown that in the condensate state the dependence of thermodynamic quantities on the interaction constant does not allow an expansion in powers of the coupling constant. Therefore it is impossible to pass to the Einstein model of condensation in an ideal Bose gas by means of a limiting passage, setting the interaction constant to zero. The account for the interaction between particles eliminates difficulties in the description of condensation available in the model of an ideal gas, which are connected with fulfilment of thermodynamic relations and an infinite value of the particle number fluctuation in the condensate phase. [**Key words**]{}: Bose-Einstein condensation, heat capacity, interaction, particle number fluctuation'
author:
- 'Yu.M.Poluektov'
title: |
A SIMPLE MODEL OF BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION\
OF INTERACTING PARTICLES
---
Introduction
============
Generalizing Bose’s work [@Bose], devoted to the statistics of photons, to the case of particles with a finite mass, Einstein [@Einstein] introduced a concept about condensation of particles of an ideal gas in the momentum space. This effect, called Bose-Einstein condensation, was subsequently used by F.London [@London] and Tisza [@Tisza] to explain the phenomenon of superfluidity of liquid helium discovered by Kapitsa [@Kapitsa] and Allen [@Allen]. A new splash of interest to the phenomenon of superfluidity was connected with the discovery about twenty years ago of superfluidity in atomic gases of alkali metals confined in magnetic [@PS; @PS2] and laser traps [@Pit1].
Although the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation has been studied for a long time both theoretically and experimentally, it cannot be considered entirely clear at present. Two main aspects can be highlighted in this phenomenon. First, the condensation is accompanied by the accumulation of a macroscopic number of particles in the ground state. Second, as it has become clear later, the phase transition to the condensate state is accompanied by the breaking of the phase symmetry manifesting itself in the appearance of the complex field, that in fact is the cause of the phenomenon of superfluidity. The effect of the accumulation of a macroscopic number of particles in the state with the lowest energy is described already within the scope of the Bose-Einstein model of an ideal gas [@Einstein]. But, concerning the breaking of the phase symmetry, the theory of an ideal Bose gas with the condensate does not provide its description, because for that it is necessary to account for the interaction between particles, which for the first time was done in the model of a weakly nonideal Bose gas by Bogolyubov [@Bogolyubov]. In the Bogolyubov approach the replacement of the operators of creation and annihilation by a number $a_0^+\rightarrow \sqrt{N_0}$, $a_0\rightarrow \sqrt{N_0}$ leads to the breaking of the phase symmetry of Hamiltonian [@Bogolyubov]. Spatially inhomogeneous states of the Bose systems with broken phase symmetry are well described by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the complex function [@Gross; @Pit2].
Phase transitions in many-particle systems are a collective effect and conditioned by the interaction between particles, therefore phase transitions are absent in the model of an ideal gas. The only exception, as it would seem, is Bose-Einstein condensation which can be described by the model not accounting for the interparticle interaction. But the neglect of the interaction leads to quite a number of considerable difficulties. Besides the fact that the model of Bose-Einstein condensation of an ideal gas does not account for the breaking of the phase symmetry, the model itself has a number of weak points. Thus, according to general principles of statistical physics, the macroscopic properties of an arbitrary physical system can be described with the help of one of the thermodynamic potentials. It turns out often that the most convenient is the use of the grand thermodynamic potential, whose natural variables are the temperature and chemical potential. For the condensate phase in the Einstein model we are forced to postulate that the chemical potential equals zero, so that it ceases to be an independent variable. Thus, a situation arises in which the same system is described differently in different regions of the phase diagram, with the help of different independent variables. This seems unnatural and does not follow directly from the postulates of thermodynamics, which is true regardless of the microscopic nature of a considered system. Besides that, below the condensation temperature the pressure proves to be a function of only temperature and does not depend on the density. As a consequence of this, the isobaric heat capacity [@P1] and the isothermal compressibility become infinite [@LL]. A direct indication of the limitation of the model of Bose-Einstein condensation in an ideal gas is that the particle number fluctuation in the condensate phase becomes infinite [@LL].
In this paper, a model of Bose-Einstein condensation is proposed in which the interaction between particles is taken into account. This model, similarly to the Einstein model, describes only the effect of the accumulation of particles in the ground state, but it does not describe the phenomenon of the breaking of the phase symmetry, because accounting for the breaking of the phase symmetry leads to a considerable complication of the model [@P2; @P3]. But even in the proposed relatively simple model of condensation the account for the interaction enables to eliminate the weaknesses of the model of condensation in an ideal gas, which are indicated above.
In the proposed model the interparticle interaction is accounted for in the self-consistent field approximation, and the phase transition is described in a similar way as in the Einstein model. When accounting for the interaction, both above and below the condensation temperature, the system is characterized by the grand thermodynamic potential for which the chemical potential is an independent thermodynamic variable. The model does not have difficulties connected with fulfilment of thermodynamic relations, which are present in the model of an ideal Bose gas, and the particle number fluctuation proves to be finite.
Before proceeding to the formulation of the model, we note that all the thermodynamic characteristics of a Bose gas can be expressed in terms of the special functions $$\label{01}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{%
\Phi_s(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{\!\infty} \frac{z^{s-1}\,dz}{e^{z-t}-1}, %
}%
\end{array}$$ where $\Gamma(s)$ is the gamma function. The functions (\[01\]) are defined for $t\leq 0$ and can be presented in the form of the series $\Phi_s(t)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{nt}/n^s$. For $t>0$, the integral in (\[01\]) diverges. For description of thermodynamic properties of a Bose gas, the functions $\Phi_s(t)$ at $s=1/2,\,3/2,\,5/2$ are generally sufficient. Note that at $s>1$, a useful relation $\Phi_s'(t)=\Phi_{s-1}(t)$ is fulfilled. Besides, $\Phi_{3/2}(0)=\zeta(3/2)=2.612$, $\Phi_{5/2}(0)=\zeta(5/2)=1.341$, and for $t\rightarrow -0\,$ $\Phi_{1/2}(t)\approx\sqrt{-\pi/t}$, where $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann zeta function. The functions $\Phi_s(t)$ steadily increase with increasing $t$, and for $t\rightarrow -\infty$ the asymptotic $\Phi_s(t)\approx e^t$ holds for them. The form of some of the functions (\[01\]) is shown in Fig.1.
System of interacting Bose particles without the condensate
===========================================================
In the self-consistent field model in the absence of the condensate the many-particle system of bosons of mass $m$ is described by the equation for the quasiparticle wave functions [@P2; @P3] $$\label{02}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{%
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta\phi_j({\bf r})+ \int\! d{\bf r}' W({\bf r},{\bf r}')\phi_j({\bf r}')=\varepsilon_j \phi_j({\bf r}), %
}%
\end{array}$$ where the self-consistent field acting on a single particle is determined by the expression $$\label{03}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
W\!({\bf r},{\bf r}')=\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')\int\!\! d{\bf r}''U({\bf r}-{\bf r}'')\rho({\bf r}'',{\bf r}'')\,+ %
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{%
\hspace{14mm}
+\,U({\bf r}-{\bf r}')\rho({\bf r},{\bf r}'), %
} %
\end{array}$$ where $\rho({\bf r},{\bf r}')=\sum_j \phi_j({\bf r})\phi_j^*({\bf r}')f_j$ is the one-particle density matrix, and $f_j=\big[\!\exp(\beta\varepsilon_j) - 1\big]^{-1}$ is the distribution function. The first term in (\[03\]) describes the direct interaction and the second one describes the exchange interaction conditioned by the symmetry of the many-particle wave function. In the spatially uniform case, which will be considered, the equation (\[02\]) is satisfied by solutions in the form of plane waves: $\phi_j({\bf r})\equiv\phi_{{\bf k}}({\bf r})=V^{-1/2}e^{i{\bf k}{\bf r}}$, $V$ is the system’s volume, ${\bf k}$ is the wave vector, so that $j\equiv\{{\bf k}\}$. In case that particles interact through the delta-like potential $U({\bf r}-{\bf r}')=g\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')$, the equation (\[02\]) leads to the following dispersion law of quasiparticles $$\label{04}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\varepsilon_k = \frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}-\mu_*, %
}
\end{array}$$ where, instead of the chemical potential $\mu$, the effective dependent on the density chemical potential is present $$\label{05}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\mu_* = \mu - 2\,g\,n, %
}
\end{array}$$ where $n=N/V$ is the total particle number density. The condition $t<0$ is equivalent to the condition for the chemical potential $\mu < 2\,g\,n$. As mentioned, the functions (\[01\]) are defined for $t\leq 0$. The cases $t<0$ and $t=0$ should be considered separately. Formally, this is connected with the fact that the function $\Phi_{1/2}(t)$ tends to infinity for $t\rightarrow -0$ (Fig.1). In this section the first possibility $t<0$ is considered, when the grand thermodynamic potential as a function of the chemical potential and temperature has the form $$\label{06}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\Omega\equiv\Omega(\mu,T) = -V\!\left[ gn^2 + \frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\Phi_{5/2}(t) \right], %
}
\end{array}$$ where $t\equiv\beta\mu_*=\beta(\mu-2gn)$, and the particle number density $$\label{07}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
n=\frac{1}{V}\sum_k f_k = \frac{1}{\Lambda^3}\Phi_{3/2}(t). %
}
\end{array}$$ Here $\Lambda\equiv\Lambda(T)\equiv\big(2\pi\hbar^2/mT\big)^{1/2}$ is the de Broglie thermal wavelength. The formula (\[07\]) defines the particle number density as a function of the chemical potential and temperature. It is easy to verify that the formula for the particle number density (\[07\]) follows from the thermodynamic relation $N=-\big(\partial\Omega/\partial\mu\big)_T$. The entropy also can be found both from the thermodynamic relation $S=-\big(\partial\Omega/\partial T\big)_\mu$ and from the combinatoric formula through the distribution function [@LL]: $$\label{08}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
S=\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\!\left[ \frac{5}{2}\,\Phi_{5/2}(t) - t\,\Phi_{3/2}(t) \right]. %
}
\end{array}$$
The formula for the pressure follows from (\[06\]), taking into account that $p=-\Omega/V$: $$\label{09}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
p=gn^2 + \frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\,\Phi_{5/2}(t). %
}
\end{array}$$ The formula for the energy can be obtained from the thermodynamic relation $E=\Omega+TS+\mu N$: $$\label{10}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
E = V\!\left[ gn^2 + \frac{3}{2}\frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\Phi_{5/2}(t) \right]. %
}
\end{array}$$ If we could, with the help of the formula (\[07\]), exclude the parameter $t$ from the formulas (\[08\]) and (\[09\]), we would obtain the expressions for the entropy as a function of the volume, the particle number and temperature and for the pressure as a function of the density and temperature. But this is possible only at high temperatures. In the general case the formulas (\[08\]) and (\[09\]), with account of (\[07\]), define the entropy and the pressure parametrically as functions of thermodynamic variables, where the parameter $t$ varies in the range $-\infty<t<0$. The formula for the entropy coincides with the expression for the case of an ideal gas, and in the formula for the pressure a term with the interaction constant appears. We note once more that the interaction constant and the density enter into the definition of the parameter $t=\beta(\mu-2gn)$.
Important directly measurable quantities are the heat capacities. For their calculation in the general form it is convenient to use the expressions for the total differentials of the entropy, the particle number and the pressure: $$\label{11}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
dS=S\frac{dV}{V}+\frac{3}{2}S\frac{dT}{T}+\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\!\left( \frac{3}{2}\,\Phi_{3/2} - t\,\Phi_{1/2} \right)\!dt, %
}
\end{array}$$ $$\label{12}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
dN=N\frac{dV}{V}+\frac{3}{2}N\frac{dT}{T}+\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\Phi_{1/2}\,dt, %
}
\end{array}$$ $$\label{13}
\begin{array}{ll}
\hspace{-0mm}
\displaystyle{%
dp=\!\frac{5}{2}\frac{\Phi_{5/2}}{\Lambda^3}dT\!+\!\frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\Phi_{3/2}dt+\!2gn^2\frac{dN}{N}\!-\!2gn^2\frac{dV}{V}. %
}
\end{array}$$ Note that $d\Lambda/\Lambda=-dT/2T$. When calculating the heat capacities, it should be kept in mind that the system with a fixed number of particles is considered, so that $dN=0$. We should also consider that $dV=0$ for the heat capacity at a constant volume $C_V$, and $dp=0$ for the heat capacity at a constant pressure $C_p$. As a result we find the heat capacity at a constant volume: $$\label{14}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_V=\frac{15}{4}\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\!\left[ \Phi_{5/2}(t) - \frac{3}{5}\frac{\Phi_{3/2}^2(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)} \right]. %
}
\end{array}$$ The heat capacity at a constant pressure is determined by the formula: $$\label{15}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_p=\frac{25}{4}\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\frac{\Phi_{5/2}(t)\Phi_{1/2}(t)}{\Phi_{3/2}^2(t)}\times
}\vspace{1mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{08mm} %
\times\!\left[ \Phi_{5/2}(t) - \frac{3}{5}\frac{\Phi_{3/2}^2(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)} \right]\! %
\frac{\left(\displaystyle{1+\frac{6}{5}\,\xi\frac{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}{\Phi_{5/2}(t)}}\right)}{\left(\displaystyle{1+2\,\xi\frac{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}}\right)}. %
} %
\end{array}$$ The interaction constant enters into the formula (\[15\]) through the parameter $$\label{16}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\xi\equiv\xi(T,n)=\frac{g\,n}{T}. %
}
\end{array}$$ The formula for the heat capacity $C_V$ (\[14\]) coincides with the respective formula for an ideal gas, and the expression for $C_p$ contains explicitly the interaction constant, so that (\[15\]) turns into the formula for an ideal gas only for $g=0$. In the limit of strong interaction $\xi\rightarrow\infty$ the heat capacities coincide: $C_p\rightarrow C_V$. The difference of the heat capacities is given by the formula: $$\label{17}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-0mm}%
C_p-C_V=\frac{25}{4}\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\frac{\Phi_{3/2}^2(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}\!
\frac{\left[\displaystyle{\frac{\Phi_{5/2}(t)\Phi_{1/2}(t)}{\Phi_{3/2}^2(t)}-\frac{3}{5}}\right]^{\!2}}{\left(\displaystyle{1+2\,\xi\frac{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}}\right)}. %
}
\end{array}$$ It is easy to verify directly that the known thermodynamic identity is satisfied: $$\label{18}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-1mm}%
C_p-C_V= -T\frac{\big(\partial p/\partial T\big)_V^2}{\big(\partial p/\partial V\big)_T}. %
}
\end{array}$$
The calculation of the isothermal $\gamma_T$ and the adiabatic $\gamma_\sigma$ compressibilities gives: $$\label{19}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-1mm}%
\gamma_T\equiv\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{\partial n}{\partial p}\right)_T= %
\frac{1}{nT}\left(\frac{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}+2\,\xi\right)^{\!-1}, %
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{-1mm}%
\gamma_\sigma\equiv\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{\partial n}{\partial p}\right)_\sigma= %
\frac{3}{5nT}\left(\frac{\Phi_{5/2}(t)}{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}+\frac{6}{5}\,\xi\right)^{\!-1}. %
}
\end{array}$$ Note that the entropy per one particle $\sigma=S/N$ depends only on the parameter $t$, so that for the adiabatic processes $\sigma =
\textrm{const}$ also $t = \textrm{const}$. The square of speed of sound is associated with the adiabatic compressibility by the relation $u_\sigma^2=1/mn\gamma_\sigma$. The ratio of the compressibilities (\[19\]) coincides with the ratio of the heat capacities: $$\label{20}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-0mm}%
\frac{\gamma_T}{\gamma_\sigma}=\frac{C_p}{C_V}=\frac{5}{3}
\frac{\displaystyle{\left(\frac{\Phi_{5/2}(t)}{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}+\frac{6}{5}\,\xi\right)}}{\displaystyle{\left(\frac{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}+2\,\xi\right)}}. %
}
\end{array}$$
The derived formulas are simplified considerably at high temperatures, for which $n\Lambda^3\ll 1$. Since in this limit $\Phi_s(t)\approx e^t$, we have: $$\label{21}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
n=\frac{e^t}{\Lambda^3},\qquad p=nT+gn^2, %
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
E=N\bigg(gn+\frac{3}{2}NT\bigg),\qquad S=N\ln\frac{e^{5/2}}{n\Lambda^3}, %
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
C_V=\frac{3}{2}N, \qquad C_p=\frac{5}{2}N\frac{\displaystyle{\left(1+\frac{6}{5}\,\xi\right)}}{\displaystyle{\left(1+2\,\xi\right)}}, %
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
\gamma_T=\frac{1}{nT}\left(1+2\,\xi\right)^{-1},
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
\gamma_\sigma=\frac{1}{mnu_\sigma^2}=\frac{3}{5nT}\!\left(1+\frac{6}{5}\,\xi\right)^{\!-1}. %
}
\end{array}$$ With neglect of the interaction these relations, naturally, turn into the formulas for a classical ideal monoatomic gas.
System of interacting Bose particles with the condensate
========================================================
Here we consider the case $t=0$ separately. In this case, according to (\[05\]), the chemical potential and the total particle number density are connected by the relation $$\label{22}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\mu = 2\,g\,n. %
}
\end{array}$$ Note that this formula differs by a factor of 2 from the respective formulas in the Gross-Pitaevskii theory [@Gross; @Pit2] or in the approaches based on the replacement of the operators of creation and annihilation of particles in the condensate by a $c$-number [@Beliaev; @HP]. This is connected with the fact that, as seen from the relation (\[03\]), both the direct and exchange interactions are accounted for here giving the same contribution for the point interaction, whereas the exchange interaction is not accounted for in the mentioned approaches [@Gross; @Pit2; @Beliaev; @HP]. In contrast to the case of an ideal Bose gas where it is assumed that $\mu=0$ in the condensate state, in this case the effective chemical potential (\[05\]) becomes zero and the real chemical potential remains to be a correct independent variable. Therefore the system, the same as in the absence of the condensate, can be characterized by the grand thermodynamic potential expressed in the variables of the chemical potential $\mu$ and temperature $T$: $$\label{23}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\Omega\equiv\Omega(\mu,T) = -V\!\left[ \frac{\mu^2}{4g} + \frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\zeta(5/2)\right]. %
}
\end{array}$$ Naturally, in this case as well the total particle number and the entropy are determined by the usual thermodynamic formulas $N=-\big(\partial\Omega/\partial\mu\big)_T$ and $S=-\big(\partial\Omega/\partial T\big)_\mu$. The energy of the condensate phase is given by the formula: $$\label{24}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
E = V\!\left[ gn^2 + \frac{3}{2}\frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\zeta(5/2) \right]. %
}
\end{array}$$ Pay attention that the interaction constant enters into the denominator of the thermodynamic potential (\[23\]), which is, as will be discussed below, a very essential fact. And the particle number density, calculated with the help of the distribution function by the formula $$\label{25}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
n' = \frac{1}{\Lambda^3}\zeta(3/2), %
}
\end{array}$$ depends on temperature and decreases with decreasing temperature. In the case of a system with a fixed density, following Einstein’s idea [@Einstein], we have to assume that the total density is a sum of the overcondensate particle number density (\[25\]) and the density of particles in the state with the lowest energy $n_0$, so that $n=n'+n_0$. Temperature $T_B$, at which the particle number density determined by the formula (\[25\]) coincides with the total density, is the critical temperature of Bose-Einstein condensation: $$\label{26}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
T_B=\frac{2\pi\hbar^2}{m}\!\left[ \frac{n}{\zeta(3/2)} \right]^{\!2/3}. %
}
\end{array}$$ At this temperature the density and the de Broglie wavelength are connected by the relation $n\Lambda_B^3=\zeta(3/2)$. In the case of the point interaction the critical temperature (\[26\]) coincides with the condensation temperature in an ideal gas. For the nonlocal interparticle interaction potential the formula (\[26\]) will contain the effective mass, but in this paper we confine ourselves to consideration of the point interaction. Thus, the particle number density in the condensate as a function of temperature is determined by the same formula as in an ideal gas: $$\label{27}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
n_0(T)=n\!\left[ 1- \left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!3/2} \right]. %
}
\end{array}$$
The entropy and the pressure below the transition temperature are determined by the formulas: $$\label{28}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
S = \frac{5}{2}\frac{V}{\Lambda^3}\zeta(5/2), %
}
\end{array}$$ $$\label{29}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
p = gn^2 + \frac{T}{\Lambda^3}\zeta(5/2). %
}
\end{array}$$ Here the formula for the entropy coincides with the case of an ideal gas, but the pressure depends not only on temperature as in an ideal gas but on the density as well. The contribution in the pressure from the density proves to be twice larger than that in the Gross-Pitaevskii theory, which is conditioned as remarked above by accounting for the exchange interaction in the self-consistent field (\[03\]). The entropy per one overcondensate particle below the transition temperature ($N'=(V/\Lambda^3)\zeta(3/2)$) does not depend on the thermodynamic variables and the mass of particles, being a universal constant (in Boltzmann’s constant units) for which we introduce a special designation: $$\label{30}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\sigma_0=\frac{S}{N'}= \frac{5}{2}\frac{\zeta(5/2)}{\zeta(3/2)}\approx 1.283. %
}
\end{array}$$
The heat capacity at a constant volume is the same as in the case of an ideal gas $$\label{31}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_V= \frac{3}{2}N\sigma_0\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!3/2}, %
}
\end{array}$$ and the isobaric heat capacity has the form $$\label{32}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_p= \frac{3}{2}N\sigma_0\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!3/2}\!\left[ 1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!5/2} \right], %
}
\end{array}$$ where $\xi_B\equiv\xi(T_B,n)=gn/T_B$ is the parameter (\[16\]) at the condensation temperature. The difference of the heat capacities is given by the formula $$\label{33}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_p-C_V = \frac{N\sigma_0^2}{2\xi_B}\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!4}. %
}
\end{array}$$ These temperature dependencies are in accordance with the thermodynamic requirements for the behavior of heat capacities at $T\rightarrow 0$, namely for $S\sim T^n$ it should be $C_p-C_V \sim T^{2n+1}$ and $(C_p-C_V)/C_p \sim T^{n+1}$ [@LL]. In the present case $n=3/2$.
It is easy to make sure that the thermodynamic identity (\[18\]) is satisfied in the condensate phase as well. In an ideal Bose gas at $T<T_B$ the pressure does not depend on the volume, so that the denominator of the right part of this formula becomes zero. Since for $g\rightarrow 0$ the isobaric heat capacity $C_p$ becomes infinite [@P1], then both the left and right parts of the identity (\[18\]) become infinite for an ideal gas. The condition of thermodynamic stability requires that the difference of the heat capacities (\[33\]) be positive, so that the performed consideration is valid only for the case $g>0$, that is when the interparticle interaction is primarily of a repulsive character. Note that the fulfilment of this condition is required both in the Bogolyubov theory of a weakly nonideal Bose gas [@Bogolyubov] and in the Gross-Pitaevskii theory [@Gross; @Pit2].
The isothermal and adiabatic compessibilities at $T<T_B$ are determined by the formulas: $$\label{34}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
\gamma_T=\frac{1}{2gn^2},\quad
\gamma_\sigma=\frac{1}{2gn^2}\!\left[ 1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!5/2} \right]^{\!-1}. %
}
\end{array}$$ In the condensate phase the ratio of the compressibilities also coincides with the ratio of the heat capacities: $$\label{35}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-0mm}%
\frac{\gamma_T}{\gamma_\sigma}=\frac{C_p}{C_V}= 1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!5/2}. %
}
\end{array}$$ The speed of sound $u_\sigma$ in the condensate phase has the form $$\label{36}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
u_\sigma^2 =\frac{2gn}{m}\!\left[ 1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}\!\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\!5/2} \right]. %
}
\end{array}$$ The temperature-dependent contribution in the speed of sound is determined by the overcondensate particles. With neglect of the interparticle interaction, the speed of sound tends to zero as $T\rightarrow 0$. The speed of sound due to the interaction, to within a factor of 2 that appears as mentioned due to accounting for the exchange interaction, coincides with the expression derived by Bogolyubov [@Bogolyubov].
It is convenient to express the interaction constant $g$ in terms of a directly observable quantity – the scattering length $a$: $$\label{37}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
g =\frac{4\pi\hbar^2a}{m}. %
}
\end{array}$$ Thus, three characteristic lengths can be distinguished in the gas of interacting particles: the temperature-dependent de Broglie thermal wavelength $\Lambda$, the average distance between particles $l=n^{-1\!/3}$ and the scattering length $a$. The ratio $q\equiv\Lambda/l$ characterizes the role of quantum effects, that is determines the degree of “quantumness” of the system. The larger this ratio, the more considerable is the role of quantum effects. At the transition temperature this ratio equals $q_B\equiv\Lambda(T_B)/l=[\zeta(3/2)]^{1\!/3}\approx 1.38$, that is the de Broglie wavelength somewhat exceeds the average distance between particles. The parameter (\[16\]) can be written in the form $\xi=\xi_B(T_B/T)$, where the dimensionless quantity determining the role of the interparticle interaction at the temperature of transition into the condensate state: $$\label{38}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
\xi_B\equiv 2\frac{\Lambda_B^2a}{l^3}. %
}
\end{array}$$
As follows from the formulas (\[32\]) and (\[34\]), the isobaric heat capacity and the isothermal compressibility prove to be finite only when the interaction between particles is taken into account. In the model of an ideal gas both of these quantities become infinite [@P1]. This is a trivial consequence of the fact that in an ideal gas with the condensate the pressure depends only on temperature but not on the density. Therefore, the adding of heat to an ideal gas with the condensate at a constant pressure causes not the increase of temperature but the “evaporation” of the condensate [@P1]. The account for the interaction between particles leads to finite values of the isobaric heat capacity and the isothermal compressibility and to fulfilment of all the thermodynamic relations in the phase with Bose-Einstein condensate.
Bose system near the transition temperature
===========================================
The most interesting is naturally the behavior of thermodynamic quantities near the temperature of transition into the condensate state. Here in calculations one should make use of the expansions $$\label{39}
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
\Phi_{1/2}(t)\approx\!\sqrt{-\frac{\pi}{t}}+\zeta(1/2),\,\,\, \Phi_{3/2}(t)\approx\zeta(3/2)-2\sqrt{-\pi t},%
}\vspace{2mm}\\ %
\displaystyle{\hspace{0mm}%
\Phi_{5/2}(t)\approx\zeta(5/2)+\zeta(1/2)\,t,%
}
\end{array}$$ being valid for $|t|\ll 1$. At $T\geq T_B$ the expansions in the parameter $\tau=(T-T_B)/T_B$ of the entropy and the pressure at a fixed number of particles and their density $n=N/V$ have the form $$\label{40}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
S = N\sigma_0\!\left[1+\frac{3}{2}\,\tau+\frac{3}{8}\!\left(1-\frac{9}{10}\,\alpha\right)\!\tau^2\right], %
}
\end{array}$$ $$\label{41}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
p = gn^2 + p_0\!\left[1+\frac{5}{2}\,\tau+\frac{15}{8}\!\left(1-\frac{3}{10}\,\alpha\right)\!\tau^2\right], %
}
\end{array}$$ where $p_0\equiv(2/5)\,\sigma_0nT_B$ is the pressure at the transition temperature in an ideal Bose gas, $\alpha\equiv[\zeta(3/2)]^3\big/\pi\zeta(5/2)\approx 4.230$. The behavior of the heat capacity at a constant volume is the same as in the case of an ideal gas: $$\label{42}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_V= \frac{3}{2}N\sigma_0\!\!\left[1+\frac{3}{2}\!\left(1-\frac{3}{10}\,\alpha\right)\!\tau\right], %
}
\end{array}$$ and the heat capacity at a constant pressure has the form $$\label{43}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_p= C_{pB}\!\big[1+B\tau\big], %
}
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{44}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_{pB}= \frac{3}{2}\,N\sigma_0\!\left[1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}\right] %
}
\end{array}$$ is the isobaric heat capacity at the transition temperature. The coefficient in (\[43\]) has the form $$\label{45}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-0mm}%
B= \frac{\displaystyle{\frac{3}{2}\!\left(1-\frac{3}{10}\,\alpha\right)\!+\!\frac{4}{3\xi_B}\!\left(1-\frac{9}{80}\,\alpha\right)}}{\displaystyle{1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}}} %
-\frac{3\zeta^2(3/2)}{8\pi\xi_B}.
}
\end{array}$$
In an ideal gas, with approaching to the condensation temperature from the side of higher temperatures, the isobaric heat capacity tends to infinity [@P1]: $$\label{46}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
C_p\approx\frac{10}{3}\frac{N\sigma_0}{\alpha\tau}. %
}
\end{array}$$ The both heat capacities are continuous at the transition temperature, but their derivatives at the transition from the high-temperature to the low-temperature phase $\Delta\big(\partial C/\partial T\big)\equiv\big(\partial C/\partial T\big)_{T_B+0}-\big(\partial C/\partial T\big)_{T_B-0}$ undergo jumps: $$\label{47}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\Delta\!\left(\frac{\partial C_V}{\partial T}\right)= -\frac{27}{16\pi}\zeta^2(3/2)\frac{N}{T_B}, %
}
\end{array}$$ $$\label{48}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\Delta\!\left(\frac{\partial C_p}{\partial T}\right)= -\frac{27}{16\pi}\zeta^2(3/2)\frac{N}{T_B}\!\left[1+\frac{\sigma_0}{3\xi_B}\right]^{\!2}. %
}
\end{array}$$ The jump of the derivative of the isobaric heat capacity increases with decreasing the interaction strength, and in the limit of the strong interaction $\xi_B\gg 1$ the jumps of the derivatives for the both heat capacities (\[47\]) and (\[48\]) coincide. Some dependencies of the heat capacities on temperature are presented in Fig.2. Attention should be paid that for a rather large value of the interaction the dependence $C_p(T)$ at $T>T_B$ has a minimum (curve 2, Fig.2), which corresponds qualitatively to the observable analogous dependence in the liquid helium [@BF]. The isothermal compressibility is continuous at the condensation temperature, and its derivative with respect to temperature undergoes a jump: $$\label{49}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\Delta\!\left(\frac{\partial \gamma_T}{\partial T}\right)= -\frac{3\zeta^2(3/2)}{16\pi g^2n^3}. %
}
\end{array}$$ The temperature dependencies of the isothermal compressibility and the square of speed of sound are shown in Fig.3.
Thus, in this model the transition into the condensate state, the same as in the case of an ideal gas, is the phase transition of the third kind. A somewhat different, more questionable as it seems to us, interpretation of this transition as the phase transition of the first kind is given in the book [@Huang].
The particle number fluctuation
===============================
As known [@LL], below the temperature of Bose-Einstein condensation the particle number fluctuation in an ideal Bose gas becomes infinite, which directly indicates the necessity of accounting for the interparticle interaction for a correct description of the condensate state. The particle number fluctuation can be calculated by the known formula [@LL]: $$\label{50}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\big\langle(\Delta N)^2\big\rangle = T\!\left(\frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu}\right)_{\!T,V}. %
}
\end{array}$$
Calculation above and below the transition temperature gives: $$\label{EQ51}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\left(\frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu}\right)_{\!T,V}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\displaystyle{N}}{\displaystyle{ T\frac{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}+2gn } }, \quad T>T_B, \vspace{1mm} \\ %
\hspace{10mm}
\frac{\displaystyle{N}}{\displaystyle{2gn}}, \hspace{12mm} T<T_B.
\end{array}
\right.
}%
\end{array}$$ As seen, at the condensation temperature these formulas coincide, so that the particle number fluctuation changes continuously at the transition into the condensate state. The relative particle number fluctuations $\delta_N\equiv\sqrt{\big\langle(\Delta N)^2\big\rangle}\Big/N$ above and below the transition temperature are determined by the formulas: $$\label{EQ52}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\delta_N=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\displaystyle{1}}{\displaystyle{\sqrt{N}}}\frac{\displaystyle{1}}{\displaystyle{\sqrt{2\xi+\frac{\Phi_{3/2}(t)}{\Phi_{1/2}(t)}} } }, \quad T>T_B, \vspace{1.5mm} \\ %
\hspace{0mm}
\frac{\displaystyle{1}}{\displaystyle{\sqrt{N}}}\frac{\displaystyle{1}}{\displaystyle{\sqrt{2\xi_B}}}\left(\frac{\displaystyle{T}}{\displaystyle{T_B}}\right)^{\!1/2}, \hspace{3.0mm} T<T_B.
\end{array}
\right.
}%
\end{array}$$ Dependencies of the relative particle number fluctuation on temperature for the cases of strong and weak interaction are shown in Fig.4. In the limit of high temperatures, such that $T\gg 2gn$ and $n\Lambda^3\ll\zeta(3/2)$, the relative fluctuation is the same as in an ideal gas $\delta_N=1\big/\sqrt{N}$. Near the transition temperature and in the condensate phase the relative fluctuation is substantially determined by the value of interaction: the weaker the interaction, the larger is the fluctuation near the transition temperature. The derivative of the relative fluctuation on temperature undergoes a jump at $T_B$: $$\label{53}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{%
\Delta\!\left(\frac{\partial \delta_N}{\partial T}\right)= -\frac{3\zeta^2(3/2)}{16\pi\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\xi_B^{3\!/2}\sqrt{N}}. %
}
\end{array}$$ Thus, as it should be expected, the account for the interparticle interaction eliminates a serious drawback in the model of condensation in an ideal Bose gas consisting in an infinite value of the fluctuation of the number of particles in the condensate phase.
Conclusion
==========
The model of Bose-Einstein condensation of interacting particles, formulated in this paper, allows to make some conclusions about the reason of actual nonapplicability of the model of an ideal gas for the Bose systems at low temperatures. A system of a large number of particles, interacting via the pair potential $U({\bf r}-{\bf r}')=g\,u({\bf r}-{\bf r}')$, can be described with the help of the grand thermodynamic potential $\Omega=\Omega(T,\mu;g)$ which is a function of the independent thermodynamic variables $T,\mu$ and the interaction constant $g$. The total number of particles in the system $N=-\big(\partial\Omega/\partial\mu\big)_{V,T}=N(T,\mu;g)$ is also a function of these quantities. In order for the transition to be possible to the model of an ideal gas in some range of values of the variables $T,\mu$ in the system with a constant volume and a fixed number of particles $N_0$, the finite limits must exist $$\label{54}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\hspace{-2mm}%
\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}\Omega(T,\mu;g)=\Omega_0(T,\mu),\quad \lim_{g\rightarrow 0}N(T,\mu;g)=N_0. %
}
\end{array}$$
A many-particle system of interacting particles can be in different phase states for many of which the limiting passages (\[54\]) can either not exist. Thus, for example, in the case of a normal Fermi liquid such limiting passages are possible. At that the limit $g\rightarrow 0$ means “switching off” the interaction and the transition from a Fermi liquid to a Fermi gas. But if a Fermi system is in the superfluid or the superconducting state, then transitions from these states into the state of noninteracting particles are impossible. This is conditioned by that here the dependence of the binding energy on the interaction constant is such that it cannot be expanded in powers of $g$. In its time this algebraic difficulty was a considerable obstacle for development of the superconductivity theory [@Gennes]. As seen from the expression for the thermodynamic potential (\[23\]), completely the same situation takes place in the case of the system of Bose particles in the presence of the condensate. A feature of the Bose systems is that for them there do not exist phases at low temperatures, from which the transition to the noninteracting system could be possible by means of the limiting passages (\[54\]). Indeed, the interaction constant in the thermodynamic potential (\[23\]) is in the denominator, so that for $g\rightarrow 0$ the potential becomes infinite. Formally this difficulty can be bypassed, that Einstein has done [@Einstein], by fixing the chemical potential, setting it zero and thus passing to consideration of the system with a variable number of particles. Then the term which is singular in the interaction constant drops out from the thermodynamic potential (\[23\]). However, as discussed in this paper, this leads to difficulties connected with the consistency of thermodynamic description and the fulfilment of some thermodynamic relations, as well as to an infinite value of the fluctuation of the number of particles. One more peculiarity of the Bose systems consists in that the transition temperature into the condensate state (\[26\]), in contrast to the superfluid Fermi systems, does not contain the interaction constant. This somewhat conceals a fundamental importance of accounting for the interaction between particles at the transition into the condensate phase.
In this paper it is shown on the example of a simple model how the account for the interaction between particles enables to eliminate the difficulties of the model of an ideal Bose gas. Although the presence of the singularity in the interaction constant in the thermodynamic potential (\[23\]) is demonstrated in a simplified model, this is in fact true in more realistic models. Notice also that the performed consideration indicates that the perturbation theory for the Bose systems with the condensate, which is based on the choice of the model of an ideal gas as the main approximation, cannot be consistent [@Beliaev; @HP]. In constructing the perturbation theory the effects of the interaction between particles should be approximately taken into account already in the main approximation, as it can be done, for example, in the self-consistent field model [@P3].
[99]{} S.N.Bose, Plancks gesetz und lichtquanten hypothese, Z. Phys. **26**(1), 178–181 (1924). A.Einstein, Quantum theory of the monatomic ideal gas, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 261–267, 1924; 3–14, 1925. In a book: A.Einstein, A collection of scientific works, Vol.3, Nauka, Moscow, 481–511 (1966). F.London, The $\lambda$-phenomenon of liquid helium and the Bose-Einstein degeneracy, Nature **141**, 643 (1938). L.Tisza, Transport phenomena in helium II, Nature **141**, 913 (1938). P.L.Kapitsa, Viscosity of liquid helium below the $\lambda$-point, Nature **141**, 74 (1938). J.F.Allen, H.Jones, New phenomena connected with heat flow in helium II, Nature **141**, 234 (1938). L.Pitaevskii, S.Stringari, Bose-Einstein condensation, Oxford University Press, USA, 492 p. (2003). C.H.Pethick, H.Smith, Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases, Cambridge University Press, 402 p. (2002). L.P.Pitaevskii, Bose-Einstein condensates in a laser radiation field, Phys. Usp. **49**, 333–351 (2006). N.N.Bogolyubov, On the theory of superfluidity, J. Phys. USSR **11**, 23–32 (1947); Izv.AN SSSR, Ser. Fiz. **11**, 77–90 (1947). E.P.Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems, Il Nuovo Cimento **20**, 454–477 (1961). L.P.Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas, Sov. Phys. JETP **13**, 451–454 (1961). Yu.M.Poluektov, Isobaric heat capacity of an ideal Bose gas, Russ. Phys. J. **44**(6), 627–630 (2001). L.D.Landau, E.M.Lifshitz, Statistical physics, Vol. 5 (Part 1), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 544 p. (1980). Yu.M.Poluektov, Self-consistent field model for spatially inhomogeneous Bose systems, Low Temp. Phys. **28**, 429–441 (2002). Yu.M.Poluektov, On the quantum-field description of many-particle Bose systems with spontaneously broken symmetry, Ukr. J. Phys. **52**(6), 579–595 (2007); arXiv:1306.2103\[cond-mat.stat-mech\]. S.T.Beliaev, Application of the methods of quantum field theory to a system of bosons, Sov. Phys. JETP **7**, 289–299 (1958). N.M.Hugenholtz, D.Pines, Ground-state energy and excitation spectrum of a system of interacting bosons, Phys. Rev. **116**, 489–506 (1959). M.Buckingham, W.Fairbank, The nature of lambda-transition in liquid helium, Prog. in Low Temp. Phys. **3**, 80–112 (1961). K.Huang, Statisticalmechanics, Wiley, 493p. (1987). P.G.deGennes, Superconductivity of metals and alloys, Benjamin, New York, 274 p. (1966).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Cardiovascular diseases are among the leading causes of death globally. Cardiac left ventricle (LV) quantification is known to be one of the most important tasks for the identification and diagnosis of such pathologies. In this paper, we propose a deep learning method that incorporates 3D spatio-temporal convolutions to perform direct left ventricle quantification from cardiac MR sequences. Instead of analysing slices independently, we process stacks of temporally adjacent slices by means of 3D convolutional kernels which fuse the spatio-temporal information, incorporating the temporal dynamics of the heart to the learned model. We show that incorporating such information by means of spatio-temporal convolutions into standard LV quantification architectures improves the accuracy of the predictions when compared with single-slice models, achieving competitive results for all cardiac indices and significantly breaking the state of the art [@xue2018full] for cardiac phase estimation.'
author:
- 'Alejandro Debus, Enzo Ferrante'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Left ventricle quantification through spatio-temporal CNNs'
---
Introduction
============
In 2015, around 17.7 million people died worldwide due to heart diseases. Left ventricle (LV) quantification is a key factor for the identification and diagnosis of such pathologies [@karamitsos2009role]. However, the estimation of cardiac indices remains a very complex task due to its intricated temporal dynamics and the inter-subject variability of the cardiac structures. Indices such as cavity and myocardium area, regional wall thickness, cavity dimensions, among others, provide useful information to diagnose various types of cardiac pathologies. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is one of the preferred modalities for LV related studies since it is non invasive, presents high spatio-temporal resolution, has a good signal-to-noise ratio and allows to clearly identify the tissues and muscles of interest [@suinesiaputra2015quantification].
![\[fig1\]Illustration of indices of the left cardiac ventricle (based on Fig. 1 from [@xue2018full]). (a) Cavity area (brown) and myocardial area (orange). (b) Directional dimensions of cavity (white arrows). (c) Regional wall thicknesses. A: anterior; AS: anterospetal; IS: inferoseptal; I: inferior; IL: inferolateral; AL: anterolateral. (d) Cardiac phase (systole or diastole)](indices.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The classical approach to LV quantification consists in estimating such indices by means of automatic segmentation [@peng2016review; @petitjean2011review; @poudel2016recurrent; @suinesiaputra2015quantification; @tan2017convolutional; @tran2016fully]. Segmentation is usually performed following supervised learning approaches, which require expert manual annotations contouring the edges of the myocardium for training. Once the segmentation is performed, the indices are computed from the resulting mask. Therefore, the accuracy of the predicted indices is conditioned on the quality of the segmentation. In this work, we follow an alternative strategy that directly estimates the indices of interest from the input image sequence. Inspired by the work of [@xue2017full; @xue2018full; @xue2017direct2], our model is based on a convolutional neural network directly operating on images and regressing the target indices. Different from previous approaches like [@xue2018full] where the temporal dynamics of cardiac sequences is incorporated using recurrent neural networks (RNNs), we propose a simple but effective strategy based on the use of spatio-temporal convolutions [@tran2015learning]. In the context of video analysis, spatio-temporal convolutions are standard 3D convolutions that operate on spatio-temporal video volumes [@tan2017convolutional]. Here we employ them to process subsets of temporally contiguous CMR slices, leveraging temporal information towards improving prediction accuracy.
We investigate the use of spatio-temporal convolutions for estimating cardiac phase, directional dimensions of the cavity, regional wall thicknesses and area of cavity and myocardium under the hypothesis that such indices may be better explained when taking into account the temporal dynamics of the heart. We benchmark the proposed architecture using the LVQuan Challenge 2018[^1] dataset, which provides CMR sequences with annotations for the aforementioned indices, and provide empirical evidence that incorporating the temporal dynamics of the heart through 3D spatio-temporal convolutions improves prediction accuracy when compared with single-slice models.
Materials and methods
=====================
Architecture
------------
![\[fig2\]Overview of proposed architecture.](arquitectura_general.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
An overview of the proposed CNN architecture is presented in Figure \[fig2\]. The network takes sequences of $\kappa$ slices and outputs the corresponding indices $only$ for the central slice. In such way, we incorporate information from the surrounding slices, easing the prediction task. In what follows, we describe in detail the main components of the proposed architecture.\
**Encoder-CNN.** We use a first CNN (referred as encoder-CNN in Figures \[fig2\] and \[fig3\]) to extract informative features from individual slices. Inspired by [@xue2017full], we designed the per-slice encoding phase using a two-layers CNN where the convolutional and pooling kernels are of size 5x5, instead of the frequently used 3x3, to introduce more shift invariance (see Figure \[fig3\] for more details). We use ReLU activation function and batch normalization to alleviate the training process.\
**Spatio-Temporal CNN.** After the encoding phase, the 40 filters generated for every individual encoder-CNN are used to construct a spatio-temporal volume with 40 channels per temporal slice. This volume is then processed using 3D convolutions that operate on the temporal and spatial dimensions (see Figure \[fig4\]), producing compound feature maps that incorporate information from both of them. This module is composed of two 3D convolutional layers with kernels of size 3x5x5 and 2x5x5 when considering $\kappa=5$ slices. When considering $\kappa=1,3,7$ slices, the proposed architecture is modified by using padding in the temporal dimension ($\kappa=1,3$) and adding an extra convolution ($\kappa=7$) so that the shape of the output tensor matches 1x6x6, the size required by the CNN Regression and Fully Connected modules. ReLU activations and batch normalization are also used in this module.\
**Final parallel branches.** After fusing the spatio-temporal features, two parallel branches are derived: (i) the first branch corresponds to a shallow CNN coupled after the spatio-temporal module, acting as a regressor of the directional dimensions, wall thickness and areas; (ii) in the second branch, a third convolutional layer is coupled to the spatio-temporal module, followed by a fully connected multi layer perceptron (MLP) with 640 neurons in the hidden layer and 2 output neurons encoding the probability for the cardiac phase (systole or diastole).\
\
[1]{}
![(a) \[fig4\]Deatiled overview of the spatio-temporal CNN based on 3D convolutions. (b) \[fig3\] Zoomed version of the individual encoder-CNNs: for a single input slice of size 80x80 it outputs 40 filters of size 16x16 which are then fed to the spatio-temporal CNN.](3D_net.png){width="1\linewidth"}
[1]{}
![(a) \[fig4\]Deatiled overview of the spatio-temporal CNN based on 3D convolutions. (b) \[fig3\] Zoomed version of the individual encoder-CNNs: for a single input slice of size 80x80 it outputs 40 filters of size 16x16 which are then fed to the spatio-temporal CNN.](encoder_cnn.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
{width="1\linewidth"}
**Training procedure and loss function.** We train the proposed network by minimizing a loss function over sets of $\kappa$ slices where annotations are provided only for the central slice. Given a set of $\kappa$ slices $\boldsymbol{x^i} =\{x_0, ... ,x_\kappa-1\}$, ground-truth annotations for the central slice $\boldsymbol{y^i}=\{ y_{dim}, y_{areas}, y_{rwt}, y_{phase} \}$ and corresponding predictions from the proposed neural network $\phi_{phase}$ and $\phi_{dim}, \phi_{areas}, \phi_{rwt}$ the loss function is defined as:
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{x^i}, \boldsymbol{y^i}) = \mathcal{L}_{mse}(\phi_{areas}, y_{areas}) + \mathcal{L}_{mse}(\phi_{dim}, y_{dim}) + \\ \mathcal{L}_{mse}(\phi_{rwt}, y_{rwt}) + \mathcal{L}_{ce}(\phi_{phase}, y_{phase}) + \lambda \mathcal{L}_{reg},
\end{split}$$
where $\mathcal{L}_{mse}$ is the mean squared error between predictions and ground truth, $\mathcal{L}_{ce}$ is the cross-entropy loss, $\mathcal{L}_{reg}$ is the regularizer (L2 norm of the network weights) and $\lambda$ is a weighting factor. We minimize this loss using stochastic gradient descent with momentum, with mini-batches of size $s=20$.\
**Circular hypothesis.** Since we require sets of temporally contiguous slices as input for our spatio-temporal architecture, given a sequence of $N$ slices, we adopt a circular hypothesis meaning that slice number $N-1$ is temporally followed by slice 0. This hypothesis was corroborated by visual inspection of the training dataset. Following this strategy, we generate sets of $\kappa$ slices for every sequence and use them as independent data samples. At prediction time, we employ the same hypothesis to generate the sets of test slices.
Dataset and experimental setting
--------------------------------
Our method is experimentally validated using the training data provided by the LVQuan challenge 2018, composed of short axis cardiac MR images of 145 subjects. For each subject, it contains 20 frames corresponding to a complete cardiac cycle (giving a total of 2900 images in the dataset with pixel spacing ranging from 0.6836 mm/pixel to 2.0833 mm/pixel, with a mean of 1.5625 mm/pixel). The images have been collected from 3 different hospitals and subjects are between 16 and 97 years of age, with an average of 58.9 years. All cardiac images undergo several preprocessing steps (including historical tagging, rotation, ROI clipping, and resizing). The resulting images are roughly aligned with a dimension of 80x80. Epicardium and endocardium borders were manually annotated by radiologists, and used to extract the ground truth LV indices and cardiac phase. The values of regional wall thickness and the dimensions of the cavity are normalized by the dimension of the image, while the areas are normalized by the pixel number (6400).
In our experiments, we used cross validation with 3, 5 and 7 folds as suggested by the LVQuan organizers, resulting in partitions of size (49, 48, 48), (29, 29, 29, 29, 29) and (21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 20, 20) respectively. We used learning rate = 1e-4, momentum = 0.5 and $\lambda=0.005$ (these parameters were obtained by grid-search).
The model was implemented in Python[^2], using PyTorch and trained in GPU.\
**Evaluation criteria.** Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) were used to assess the performance of the algorithms for estimation of areas, dimensions and regional wall thicknesses. Error Rate (ER) was used to assess the performance for cardiac phase classification.
$$PCC_{ind} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N} (\phi_{ind}^{(i)}-\bar{\phi}_{ind})(y_{ind}^{(i)}-\bar{y}_{ind})}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\phi_{ind}^{(i)}-\bar{\phi}_{ind})^2\sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_{ind}^{(i)}-\bar{y}_{ind})^2}},$$
$$MAE_{ind} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}|\phi_{ind}^{(i)} - y_{ind}^{(i)}|,$$
where $ind \in (A_1, A_2, D_1...D_3, RWT_1...RWT_6)$ , $y_{ind}$ is the ground-truth value and $\phi_{ind}$ is the estimated value.$\bar{y}_{ind}$ and $\bar{\phi}_{ind}$ are their mean values, respectively.
$$ER_{phase} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \textbf{1}( \phi_{phase}^{(i)} \not = y_{phase}^{(i)})}{N} 100\%$$
where $\textbf{1}()$ is the indication function, $\phi_{phase}$ and $y_{phase}$ are the estimated and ground truth value of the cardiac phase, respectively.
Results and discussion
======================
The effectiveness of the proposed method was validated under the experimental setting discussed in Section 2.2. We measured the influence of the parameter $\kappa$ (number of contiguous slices fed to the network) for $\kappa = $ 1 (single slice), 3, 5 and 7 for the proposed spatio-temporal model based on 3D convolutions, and compare with the state of the art method recently proposed in [@xue2018full]. Results are presented in Table \[tab1\] for a 5-fold cross validation setting (the same experimental setting and dataset was used in [@xue2018full]). Note that using sets of $\kappa=5$ slices significantly outperforms the configurations $\kappa=1,3$ for all the indices, highlighting the importance of the temporal dynamics. However, considering $\kappa=5$ and $\kappa=7$ slices achieves a similar performance. Therefore, we consider $\kappa=5$ as enough temporal context for the remaining experiments.
In quantitative terms, we reduce the error rate from 28.45.06% to 3.85% for cardiac phase estimation and the MAE from 270 to 190$mm^2$, 3.18 to 2.29$mm$ and 2.62 to 1.42$mm$ in average for the areas, directional dimensions of the cavity and regional wall thickness when comparing the performance for $\kappa=1$ and $\kappa=5$ slices respectively. Moreover, considering the baseline [@xue2018full] we observe similar results for most indices, except for the phase, where our model improves over the state of the art by a significant margin (reducing the error rate from 8.2% to 3.2%)
Finally, table \[tab2\] presents these results for 3 different cross-validation configurations (3, 5 and 7 folds) as required by the LVQuan challenge organizers, together with the results for phase, directional dimensions, regional wall thicknesses and area of cavity and myocardium obtained with the best performing spatio-temporal model ($\kappa=5$). Note that performance is consistent across folds.
[lcccccc]{} &\
& &\
& N=3 & N=5 & N=7 & N=3 & N=5 & N=7\
&\
a-cav & $203\pm134$ & $196\pm141$ & $194\pm129$ & 0.902 & 0.928 & 0.931\
a-myo & $218\pm159$ & $211\pm154$ & $208\pm148$ & 0.891 & 0.911 & 0.903\
average & $210\pm145$ & $203\pm139$ & $201\pm157$ & 0.897 & 0.920 & 0.917\
&\
dim1 & $2.63\pm2.94$ & $2.32\pm1.87$ & $2.27\pm2.56$ & 0.924 & 0.945 & 0.932\
dim2 & $2.78\pm2.21$ & $2.42\pm1.94$ & $2.35\pm1.98$ & 0.918 & 0.942 & 0.936\
dim3 & $2.54\pm1.97$ & $2.26\pm1.81$ & $2.28\pm2.05$ & 0.922 & 0.955 & 0.942\
average & $2.65\pm1.98$ & $2.33\pm1.63$ & $2.30\pm1.84$ & 0.921 & 0.947 & 0.937\
&\
wt1 (IS) & $1.61\pm1.15$ & $1.52\pm1.09$ & $1.51\pm1.03$ & 0.731 & 0.786 & 0.789\
wt2 (I) & $1.62\pm1.21$ & $1.60\pm1.17$ & $1.60\pm1.12$ & 0.713 & 0.735 & 0.740\
wt3 (IL) & $1.71\pm1.32$ & $1.68\pm1.25$ & $1.69\pm1.15$ & 0.696 & 0.701 & 0.718\
wt4 (AL) & $1.63\pm1.19$ & $1.52\pm1.22$ & $1.50\pm1.01$ & 0.714 & 0.735 & 0.730\
wt5 (A) & $1.50\pm1.40$ & $1.44\pm1.31$ & $1.43\pm1.14$ & 0.738 & 0.749 & 0.752\
wt6 (AS) & $1.37\pm1.07$ & $1.29\pm1.13$ & $1.27\pm1.00$ & 0.732 & 0.745 & 0.763\
average & $1.57\pm1.15$ & $1.51\pm1.08$ & $1.50\pm1.19$ & 0.721 & 0.742 & 0.749\
&\
& & &\
phase & & &\
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we proposed a new CNN architecture for LV quantification that incorporates the dynamics of the heart by means of spatio-temporal convolutions. Differently from other methods that rely on more complex mechanisms (like recurrent neural networks [@xue2018full]) we employ simple 3D convolutions to fuse information coming from temporally contiguous CMR slices. We generated training samples following a circular hypothesis, meaning that first and last slices of the sequences are considered as temporally contiguous. Validation was performed using CRM sequences provided by the LVQuan challenge organizers. Results show that incorporating temporal information through spatio-temporal convolutions significantly boosts prediction performance for all the indices. Moreover, when compared with the RNN based model presented in [@xue2018full], we observe a significant reduction in error rate for phase estimation (from 8.2% to 3.85%) while keeping equivalent results for the other indices. More importantly, our method achieves state of the art results employing simple 3D convolutions instead of the more complex parallel RNN and Bayesian based multitask relationship learning module proposed in [@xue2018full].
In this work we incorporated the spatio-temporal dynamics by means of 3D convolutions. However, if we consider the slices as multiple channels of a standard 2D architecture, conventional 2D convolutions could also be used, reducing the complexity of the model. Moreover, temporal information encoded by inter-slice deformation fields (obtained trough deep learning based image registration methods [@Ferrante2018]) could also be considered to improve model performance. In the future, we plan to explore the performance of these models when compared with the proposed architecture.
[lcccccc]{}\
& &\
& N=3 & N=5 & N=7 & N=3 & N=5 & N=7\
&\
a-cav & $185\pm125$ & $181\pm130$ & $183\pm115$ & 0.932 & 0.940 & 0.939\
a-myo & $204\pm143$ & $199\pm138$ & $198\pm145$ & 0.915 & 0.923 & 0.930\
average & $194\pm131$ & $190\pm122$ & $190\pm110$ & 0.924 & 0.932 & 0.935\
&\
dim1 & $2.71\pm2.11$ & $2.27\pm1.79$ & $2.26\pm1.82$ & 0.938 & 0.961 & 0.959\
dim2 & $2.65\pm2.09$ & $2.38\pm1.90$ & $2.32\pm2.01$ & 0.926 & 0.957 & 0.954\
dim3 & $2.51\pm2.20$ & $2.22\pm1.78$ & $2.24\pm1.91$ & 0.933 & 0.963 & 0.958\
average & $2.62\pm1.87$ & $2.29\pm1.59$ & $2.27\pm1.52$ & 0.932 & 0.960 & 0.957\
&\
wt1 (IS) & $1.31\pm1.16$ & $1.23\pm1.14$ & $1.25\pm1.15$ & 0.831 & 0.854 & 0.857\
wt2 (I) & $1.58\pm1.10$ & $1.44\pm1.22$ & $1.43\pm1.41$ & 0.768 & 0.797 & 0.802\
wt3 (IL) & $1.62\pm1.22$ & $1.57\pm1.41$ & $1.56\pm1.56$ & 0.743 & 0.765 & 0.755\
wt4 (AL) & $1.60\pm1.08$ & $1.48\pm1.13$ & $1.50\pm1.11$ & 0.776 & 0.785 & 0.797\
wt5 (A) & $1.43\pm1.12$ & $1.35\pm1.19$ & $1.33\pm1.24$ & 0.829 & 0.842 & 0.861\
wt6 (AS) & $1.52\pm1.29$ & $1.46\pm1.32$ & $1.46\pm1.09$ & 0.857 & 0.870 & 0.873\
average & $1.51\pm0.98$ & $1.42\pm0.65$ & $1.42\pm0.61$ & 0.801 & 0.819 & 0.824\
&\
& & &\
phase & & &\
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The present work used computational resources of the Pirayu Cluster, acquired with funds from the Santa Fe Science, Technology and Innovation Agency (ASACTEI), Government of the Province of Santa Fe, through Project AC-00010-18, Resolution Nº 117/14. This equipment is part of the National System of High Performance Computing of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation of the Republic of Argentina. We also thank NVidia for the donation of a GPU used for this project. Enzo Ferrante is a beneficiary of an AXA Research Fund grant.
[^1]: LVQuan Challenge website: https://lvquan18.github.io/
[^2]: The source code for the proposed architecture is publicly available at <https://github.com/alejandrodebus/SpatioTemporalCNN_lvquan>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Wenxuan Wang, Yanwei Fu, Qiang Sun, Tao Chen, Chenjie Cao, Ziqi Zheng, Guoqiang Xu, Han Qiu, Yu-Gang Jiang, Xiangyang Xue [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Learning to Augment Expressions for Few-shot Fine-grained Facial Expression Recognition'
---
Introduction\[sec:introduction\]
================================
Affective Computing is one important research topic for human-computer interaction [@rouast2019deep]. With the development of deep models deployed on mobile devices, affective computing enables various applications in psychology, medicine, security and education [@calvo2015oxford; @gordon2016affective]. In general, human eyes can easily recognize the facial expression; but it is still a challenge for artificial intelligence algorithms to effectively recognize the versatile facial emotional expressions.
![\[fig:expressions\] $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED has 54 different facial expression categories, which are organized into four large classes.](expressions)
[Dataset]{} [\#expression]{} [\#subject]{} [\#pose]{} [\#image]{} [\#sequence]{} [Resolution]{} [Pose list]{} [Condition]{}
--------------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------------- ------------------- -----------------
[CK+ [@kanade2000comprehensive]]{} [8]{} [123]{} [1]{} [327]{} [593]{} [$490\times640$]{} [F]{} [Controlled]{}
[JAFFE [@lyons1998coding]]{} [7]{} [10]{} [1]{} [213]{} [-]{} [$256\times256$]{} [F]{} [Controlled]{}
[KDEF [@lundqvist1998karolinska]]{} [7]{} [140]{} [5]{} [4,900]{} [-]{} [$562\times762$]{} [FL,HL,F,FR,HR]{} [Controlled]{}
[FER2013 [@fer2013]]{} [7]{} [-]{} [-]{} [35,887]{} [-]{} [$48\times48$]{} [-]{} [In-the-wild]{}
[FER-Wild [@mollahosseini2016facial]]{} [7]{} [-]{} [-]{} [24,000]{} [-]{} [-]{} [-]{} [In-the-wild]{}
[EmotionNet [@fabian2016emotionet]]{} [23]{} [-]{} [-]{} [100,000]{} [-]{} [-]{} [-]{} [In-the-wild]{}
[AffectNet [@mollahosseini2017affectnet]]{} [8]{} [-]{} [-]{} [450,000]{} [-]{} [-]{} [-]{} [In-the-wild]{}
[$\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED]{} [54]{} [119]{} [4]{} [219,719]{} [5418]{} [$256\times256$]{} [HL,F,HR,BV]{} [Controlled]{}
It is well known that facial expression is the best visual representation of a person’s emotional status. According to [@ekman1994strong], it is found that in years of observation and research the facial expression of emotion is a common characteristic of human beings and contains meaningful information in communication. Humans can always reliably generate, understand and recognize facial emotional expressions. Indeed, human emotional expressions are designed to deliver useful and reliable information between different persons, so that people can decode each other’s psychological states from these designed emotion expressions. Facial expression recognition is widely used in multiple applications such as psychology, medicine, security, and education [@corneanu2016survey]. In psychology, it can be used for depression recognition for analyzing psychological distress. On the other hand, detecting the concentration or frustration of students is also helpful in improving the educational approach.
Due to the above reasons, facial expression recognition has become the recent frontier in affective computing and computer vision. Although facial expression plays an important role in affective computing, there is no uniform facial expression labeling system due to its subjective nature. According to Ekman’s theory [@ekman1999basic], which is the most widely used labeling system in FER, the emotion set is composed of six basic emotion types: anger, disgust, fear, happy, sad and surprise. Plutchik’s wheel [@plutchik1980emotion] expands the emotion set to contain more diverse and *subtle/fine-grained expressions*, which are very valuable to real-world applications. For example, fatigue expression is important to monitor the status of drivers, which is critical for traffic safety. Due to the simplicity of Ekman’s theory, most academic datasets only contain six basic emotions with an additional neutral emotion, such as CK+ [@kanade2000comprehensive], JAFFE [@lyons1998coding], FER2013 [@fer2013] and FER-Wild [@mollahosseini2016facial], as shown in Tab. \[tab:Comparison-with-existing\]. Thus it is necessary to create a dataset of more fine-grained emotions to fill the gap between academic research and industrial applications.
Fine-grained Expression Dataset
-------------------------------
Although, it is urgent to introduce fine-grained facial expressions into the study, contributing such a large scale facial expression dataset is non-trivial. Typically, the collection procedure should be carefully designed to ensure that humans correctly convey the desired facial expressions. Significant effort and contributions from both psychologists and subjects have been made in our expression collection, including explanations of emotion, scripts for emotion induction, communication with psychologists, *etc*. Furthermore, a careful review mechanism [@kittur2008crowdsourcing] from the expert-level judgments of psychologists is also designed to guarantee the quality of collected facial expressions.
In this work, we contribute the first large fine-grained facial expression dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED (Fine-grained Facial Expression Database) with 54 expression emotions, such as calm, embarrassed, pride, tension and so on, which includes abundant emotions with subtle changes, as shown in Fig. \[fig:expressions\]. These 54 expressions are classified by referring to the recent psychological work [@Lee2017Reading] with discernibility and rationality. Three psychologists and several doctoral students participate in the whole collection and annotation process. Further, we also consider the influence of facial pose changes on the expression recognition, and introduce the pose as another attribute for each expression. Four orientations (postures) including front, half left, half right and bird view are labeled, and each has a balanced number of examples to avoid distribution bias.
![The proposed several few-shot facial expression recognition learning tasks. \[fig:setting\]](setting){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Few-shot Fine-grained Expression Recognition
--------------------------------------------
In the field of vision-based human-computer interaction, facial expression recognition (FER) is always a hot research topic. Recently, the renaissance of deep neural networks has significantly improved the performance of FER tasks. The results on those well-known public facial recognition datasets show that the deep neural networks based FER methods which can learn both the low-level and high-level features from facial images [@khorrami2015deep; @mollahosseini2016going; @minaee2019deep] have outperformed the traditional methods based on hand-crafted features [@kumar2009attribute; @lowe2004distinctive; @ojala2000gray; @zhang2018joint].
Despite the encouraging advancements in these FER works, several key challenges still remain in extending FER system to real-world applications: (1) lack of sufficient and diverse high-quality training data. (2) vulnerable to the variations of facial posture and person identity.
Lacking sufficient data is a severe problem for FER, since deep neural network needs a large scale labeled dataset to prevent the over-fitting problem. Most research works frame the FER task as a typical supervised learning problem, and assume there are plenty of training data for each emotion. However, the annotation task for facial expression generally requires devoted contributions from the experts, and the labeling procedure is much more difficult and time-consuming than labeling image class [@deng2009imagenet]. It is thus a severe problem in training deep FER models. To bypass the mentioned problem, it is vital to get proper feature representations for classification under the limited number of training samples. Typically, new expressions with only few training examples may be encountered in the real world. Such few-shot expression learning aims to mimic human performance in understanding facial expressions from few training instances. For the first time, this work extends the few-shot object classification to few-shot expression learning, following the typical few-shot learning setting [@lampert2014attribute]. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:setting\], we propose several novel learning tasks, and they are expression recognition as follows,
(T1) Expression Recognition – Standard Setting (ER-SS): it is the standard supervised expression classification task, which has relatively balanced training data for each identity with various poses and corresponding expressions.
(T2) Expression Recognition – Few-shot IDentity setting (ER-FID): classifying expressions on the faces whose identity has only few training examples.
(T3) Expression Recognition – Zero-shot IDentity setting (ER-ZID): identifying the expressions from the faces whose identity is not in the training set.
(T4) Expression Recognition – Few-shot Posture setting (ER-FP): recognizing expressions by learning features from images of some specific poses which have been appeared only several times in the training data.
(T5) Expression Recognition – Zero-shot Posture setting (ER-ZP): identifying expressions by utilizing the features of faces that have specific poses not appeared in the training set.
(T6) Expression Recognition – Few-shot Expression (ER-FE): recognizing expressions by extracting discriminative features from few training data for novel expressions.
Learning to Augment Faces
-------------------------
The problem of few-shot learning is common in practical applications, and the lack of training data can lead to a significant decrease in FER accuracy. To alleviate the impediment of the expression-unrelated variations such as poses, illuminations and identities, one approach is to use various normalization mechanisms such as illumination normalization, pose normalization [@qian2018pose; @zhang2018joint]. However, it is too cumbersome to develop different normalization mechanisms for each expression-unrelated variation, and the mutual effects of those normalization mechanisms may weaken the ability of deep FER models. The data augmentation technique may mitigate this problem in a more simple and smooth way. It can synthesize more diverse training data to make the learned model more robust to the unrelated noise. Several GAN-based methods are applied in synthesizing faces with different expressions [@yang2018identity], poses [@lai2018emotion] and identities [@chen2018vgan], respectively. However, they do not properly preserve the identity or expression information in generating the target images, and the generated images are distorted.
In this work, we propose a novel unified Compositional Generative Adversarial Network (Comp-GAN) to synthesize realistic facial images with arbitrary poses and expressions while keeping the identity information. Our Comp-GAN model consists of two generators: one for generating images of desired expressions, and the other for editing the poses of faces. The two generators have different focuses and are complementary to each other. The structure of our Comp-GAN is composed of two branches, which have the same ultimate generating goal, thus forming a closed-loop to the network structure. Each branch has four generating steps, changing one attribute of the face at each step, and the goal of editing facial expression and posture is achieved through the successive multi-step generating process. The difference between the two branches mainly lies in the different orders of generating attributes, *e.g.*, one branch changes the posture first, while the other branch edits the expression first. The two branches constrain each other and improve the quality of the synthesized images. We also apply a reconstruction learning process to re-generate the input image and encourage the generators for preserving the key information such as facial identity. Aiming at enforcing the generative models to learn expression-excluding details, we employ several task-driven loss functions to synthesize more realistic and natural images, which can effectively solve the problem of insufficient training data. With more diverse training images, the FER model is more robust to various expression-unrelated changes.
**Contribution.** The contributions are as follows, (1) For the first time, we introduce a new fine-grained facial expression dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED with three attributes (face identity, pose, and expression) containing 54 different emotion types and more than 200k examples. The 54 expressions have greatly enriched the emotion categories, and provide more practical application scenarios. (2) Considering the lack of diverse and sufficient training data in the real-word scenarios, we design several few-shot expression learning tasks for FER to further investigate how the poses, expressions, and subject identities affect the FER model performance. (3) We propose a novel end-to-end Compositional Generative Adversarial Network (Comp-GAN) to synthesize natural and realistic images to improve the FER performance under the few-shot setting. We also introduce a closed-loop learning process and several task-driven loss functions in Comp-GAN, which can encourage the model to generate images with the desired expressions, specified poses and meanwhile keep the expression-excluding details, such as identity information. (4) We conduct extensive experiments on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED, as well as JAFFE [@lyons1998coding] and FER2013 [@fer2013] to evaluate our new dataset and framework. The experimental results show that our dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED is large enough to be used for pre-training a deep network to improve the recognition accuracy, and the images generated by Comp-GAN can be used to alleviate the problem of insufficient training data in few-shot expression setting, resulting in a more powerful model.
Related Work
============
Affective Computing and Cognitive Theory
----------------------------------------
Affective computing and cognitive theory are the intersection of psychology, physiology, cognition, and computer technology [@calvo2015oxford]. They can be widely applied to driver pressure or fatigue monitoring, emotion robot [@nagama2018iot], human-computer interaction (HCI) [@rouast2019deep] and special medical service.
At present, extensive researches have been conducted on achieving affective understanding and cognition between persons and computers [@picard2000affective]. As the base signal of affective computing and cognitive theory, facial expressions are the easiest visual features to be observed and detected. Especially, the research of expression recognition is important for the research of HCI and emotional robot [@zhiliang2006artificial]. Our work is primarily based on the analysis and understanding of facial expressions to help affective understanding and cognition.
Evolutionary Psychology in Emotional Expression
-----------------------------------------------
Ekman *et al.* find [@ekman1994strong] that the expression of emotion is common to human beings in years of observation and research. No matter where it is tested, humans can always reliably generate, understand and recognize related emotional expressions. Indeed, human emotional expressions are designed to provide information, and they need to be delivered reliably, so that humans have coevolved automatic facial expressions that decode these public expressions into insights of other people’s psychological states. Even though, people sometimes lie, but inferences about emotional states from facial expressions don’t evolve unless they create a stronger advantage for the inferrer, suggesting that these inferences are often valid and credible.
In recent years, psychologists and computational science specialists have proposed expression recognition models based on cognition, probability and deep learning network [@ortony1990cognitive; @kshirsagar2002multilayer; @khorrami2015deep]. Most of these works are based on Ekman’s six basic pan-cultural emotions [@ekman1999basic], however, human emotional world is rich and colorful, with facial muscles and nerves well developed, so more and more works begin to broaden the emotion and expression categories that can be recognized [@lindquist2013hundred; @xu2016heterogeneous]. To further study the complex and subtle expressions of humans, inspired by [@Lee2017Reading] which expands the emotion set, we collect a new dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED with 54 subtle emotional expressions, thus to a great extent to provide accurate and rich psychological and visual intersection of expression information.
Facial Expression Recognition in Computer Vision
------------------------------------------------
Original affective computing mainly focused on facial expression recognition (FER), which has gained great progress in recent years. Facial expressions can be recognized by two measurements: message and sign judgment [@martinez2017automatic]. In message judgment, facial expressions are categorized by the emotion conveyed by the face such as angry, fear and happy. In signal judgment, facial expressions are studied by physical signals such as raised brows or depressed lips. There are mainly two kinds of FER methods according to the input type: static image FER and dynamic sequence FER [@li2018deep]. The static image FER only uses the visual information in a single image to predict the facial expression, whereas the dynamic sequence FER also leverages the temporal information between the frames in videos to predict the facial expression [@li2018deep]. In this paper, we focus on how to use a static image to predict the emotion type such as happy and sad.
The most common static image-based FER method is composed of three main steps: pre-processing, feature extraction and facial expression classification. In the first step, there are two subtasks: face detection and face alignment. For face detection, the faces are detected from the image and labeled with bounding boxes. For face alignment, crucial landmarks are used to align the face by warping affine method. In the second step, feature extraction converts the image from pixel-level information to high-level representation, such as appearance features (e.g. Garbor wavelet [@bartlett2005recognizing] LBP [@shan2009facial], HOG [@dalal2005histograms] and SIFT [@berretti20113d]), geometric features and deep learning features. In the third step, an additional classifier can be adopted in the facial expression classification, such as MLP, SVM, and KNN.
Inspired by the success of deep neural networks on the vision tasks such as image classification and object detection, extensive efforts[@khorrami2015deep; @wang2017multi; @zhang2016joint; @mollahosseini2016going; @minaee2019deep] have been made to employ the deep neural networks in the FER tasks. To name some promising works, Khorrami *et al.* [@khorrami2015deep] develop a zero-bias CNN for FER task, and find that those maximally activated neurons in convolutional layers strongly correspond to the Facial Action Units (FAUs)[@ekman1997face] by visualization. In [@mollahosseini2016going] a deep neural network with the inception layer is proposed, and results show that the performance have achieved or outperformed the state-of-the-art on MultiPIE, CK+, FER2013, and other common datasets. Attentional CNN [@minaee2019deep] combines a spatial transformer with CNN to focus on the most salient regions of faces in FER.
GAN-based Recognition Approach
------------------------------
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [@goodfellow2014generative] based models have also been utilized in the FER task. Particularly, GAN is a minimax game between a generator and a discriminator. Conditional Generative Adversarial Nets (cGAN)[@mirza2014conditional] is proposed to generate the images conditioned on the class label. Isola *et al*. [@isola2017image] introduce a Pix2Pix model that combines cGAN with U-Net to generate a new image conditioned on the input image, low-level information is shared between input and output through U-Net. Zhu *et al*. [@zhu2017unpaired] propose a CycleGAN model that employs a pair of GANs between two image domains to form a cycle, cycle consistent loss is computed in both the forward cycle and backward cycle. Qian *et al.* [@qian2018pose] propose a generative adversarial network (GAN) designed specifically for pose normalization in re-id. Larsen *et al*. advocate a VAE/GAN [@larsen2015autoencoding] that combines GAN with auto-encoder, and high-level features can be learned and used for editing in the latent space of auto-encoder.
In order to weaken the impedance of expression-unrelated factors, various GAN based FER methods are proposed. Yan *et al.* [@yang2018facial] propose a de-expression model to generate neutral expression images from source images by cGAN[@mirza2014conditional], then the residual information in intermediate layers is used for facial expression. Lai *et al*. in [@lai2018emotion] propose a GAN to generate a frontal face from a non-frontal face while preserving the emotion. Yang *et al*. [@yang2018identity] utilize a cGAN to produce six prototypic expression images for any source image, and the expression of the source image is recognized by the minimum distance between the source image and the generated six images in a subspace. Chen *et al*. [@chen2018vgan] leverage a variational generative adversarial network (VGAN) to encode the source image into an identity-invariant latent space, and generate a new image with desired identity code while keeping the expression unchanged. However, these GAN based methods can only synthesize new images with one attribute different.
Several existing works [@zhang2018joint; @he2019attgan] attempt to edit the multiple facial attributes in a unified model. He *et al*. [@he2019attgan] propose an Attribute GAN(AttGAN) model which can edit any attribute among a collection of attributes for face images by employing adversarial loss, reconstruction loss and attribute classification constraints. Zhang *et al*. [@zhang2018joint] propose a joint pose and expression GAN to generate new face images with different expressions under arbitrary poses. However, these methods only employ a content similarity loss on the cycle branch where the output shares the same attributes (*e.g.,* expression, pose) as the source image. Such design may be partially due to the lack of target ground truth images in the training set. Thus, the target branch that generates face images with different attributes is not constrained by the content similarity loss, which may weaken the ability to preserve the other facial information from the source image.
Few-shot Learning
------------------
Few-shot learning [@fei2006one] aims to learn a new concept from a limited number of labeled training data. There are three methods commonly used in few-shot learning: meta-learning based methods[@finn2017model; @ravi2016optimization], metric-based methods [@snell2017prototypical] and augment-based methods[@zhang2018joint]. Meta-learning [@finn2017model] can transfer the knowledge from previous different domains to boost the performance on the new task. The pre-defined component in the training procedure can be taken as prior knowledge, and trained by the meta-learner. For example, the initial model parameters are taken as prior knowledge in MAML[@finn2017model], and the parameter updating rules are taken as prior knowledge in Ravi’s work [@ravi2016optimization]. Inspired by FER tasks [@zhang2018joint], our approach uses GAN to synthesize more training data rather than linear transformation of pairwise images.
![\[fig:t-sne\] Visualization of 6 semantically indistinguishable expressions of the same person using t-SNE.](Same_people_diff_exp)
Fine-Grained Facial Expression Database
=======================================
How to Differentiate Fine-grained Expressions?
----------------------------------------------
To further investigate the subtle expressions of the human faces, we can classify expressions based on facial features (rather than conceptual psychological states). We use this concept to construct our dataset for two reasons.
First, the basis of expression in sensory functions means that certain types of expressions are not arbitrary or random, and some expressions look that way because they have interfaces that match their environment [@darwin1998expression]. Thus, some indistinguishable mental states [@susskind2008expressing] that are conceptually similar (*e.g*., fear is similar to disgust), present subtle expression differences (*e.g*., fear is opposite to disgust).
Second, we are studying subtle variations in facial expressions, which have a wide range of real-world applications, physical attributes (rather than conceptual attributes) are crucial because they constitute essential signals to be sent to the recipient for understanding.
In this work, we expand the expression set to 54 types of expressions. Particularly, in term of the theory of Lee [@Lee2017Reading], which demonstrates the eye region can reliably convey diagnostic information about discrete emotion states, *e.g.*, the eye features associated with happiness are consistent with a group of positive and stable mental states, while the eye features associated with sadness align with a cluster of negative and steady emotion states. To this end, we can easily differentiate the expression set of 54 types of expressions, which include more complex mental states based on seven eye features, *i.e.*, temporal wrinkles, wrinkles below eyes, nasal wrinkles, brow slope, brow curve, brow distance, and eye apertures.
The 54 emotions can be clustered into 4 groups by the k-means clustering algorithm as shown in Fig. \[fig:expressions\], and the similar mental-state map in [@Lee2017Reading] shows that the eye-narrowing features of disgust are consistent with a range of mental states that express social discrimination, such as hate, suspicion, aggression, and contempt, which further prove the distinguishable nature of the 54 expressions.
We also visualize the feature distributions of data using randomly sampled 6 kinds of indistinguishable mental expressions (*i.e.,* desire, joy, love, admiration, anticipation, and optimism) from the same person via t-SNE in Fig. \[fig:t-sne\], which demonstrates that our expressions are totally distinguishable. For the same person with the same pose, the images with different expressions have higher similarity, as the bottom two faces circled by orange and yellow dash lines separately in Fig. \[fig:t-sne\], which also reflects the difficulty of our dataset and the fine-grained expression recognition task, and this is the main reason why we invite professional psychologists to participate in the labeling work.
Data Collection and Processing
-------------------------------
**Data Collection.** To make our dataset more practical, we invite three psychologists and several doctoral students to conduct relevant research, determine the categories of facial expressions, improve the process of guiding participants and confirm the labeling methods. The whole video data collection takes six months. Totally, we aim at capturing 54 different types of expressions [@Lee2017Reading], *e.g.*, acceptance, angry, bravery, calm, disgust, envy, fear, neutral and so on. We invite more than 200 different candidates who are unfamiliar with our research topics. Each candidate is captured by four cameras placed at four different orientations to collect videos every moment. The four orientations are front, half left, half right and bird view. The half left and half right cameras have a horizontal angle of 45 degrees with the front of the person, respectively. The bird view camera has a vertical angle of 30 degrees with the front of the person. Each camera takes 25 frames per second.
The whole video capturing process is designed as a normal conversation between the candidate and at least two psychological experts. The conversation will follow a script which is calibrated by psychologists, starting with the explanation of a particular expression definition by psychologists, followed by a description of the relevant scene including emotion, and finally letting the participants state similar personal experiences to induce/motivate them to successfully express the particular type of expression. For each candidate, we only select 5 seconds’ video segment for each type of emotion, as noted and confirmed by psychologists. To reduce the subjective interference of participants, every subject has to cool down before a new emotion recording during the data collection.
**Data Processing.** With gathered expression videos, we further generate the final image dataset by human review, key image generation, and face alignment. Specifically, the human review step is very important to guarantee the general quality of recorded expressions. Three psychologists and five doctoral students are invited to help us review the captured emotion videos. Particularly, each captured video is given a score of 1-3 by these experts based on the video quality. We only select the videos that have an average score of beyond 1.5. Thus totally about 119 identities’ videos are kept finally. Then key frames are extracted from each video. Face detection and alignment are conducted by the toolboxes of Dlib and MTCNN [@zhang2016joint] over each frame. Critically, the face bounding boxes are cropped from the original images and resized to a resolution of $256\times256$ pixels. Finally, we get the dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED of totally $219,719$ images with 119 identities, 4 different views and 54 kinds of fine-grained facial expressions.
![\[fig:dataset\_samples\] There are some facial examples of $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED with different poses and expressions.](dataset_samples)
Statistics of $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED
---------------------------------
Our dataset is labeled with identity, pose, and expression.
**Identity.** The 119 persons are mainly university students including 37 male and 82 female aging from 18 to 24. Each person expresses emotions under the guidance and supervision of psychologists, and the video is taken when the emotion is observed and confirmed by experts.
![\[fig:dist\_pose\] Data distribution on attribute of posture in $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED.](dist_pose)
**Pose.** As an important type of meta-information, poses often cause facial appearance changes. In real-world applications, facial pose variations are mainly introduced by the relative position and orientation changes of the cameras to persons. Fig. \[fig:dataset\_samples\] gives some examples of different poses. We collect videos from 4 orientations: half left, front, half right and bird view, and we keep 47,053 half left, 49,152 half right, 74,985 front, and 48,529 bird view images in the $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED, as shown in Fig. \[fig:dist\_pose\].
**Expression.** $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED contains 54 fine-grained facial expressions, which is helpful to understand the human emotion status for affective computing and cognitive theory. The number of images over each expression is shown in Fig. \[fig:dist\_expression\], which indicates that $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED has a relatively balanced distribution across various expressions.
**Comparison with Previous Datasets.** Table. \[tab:Comparison-with-existing\] shows the comparison between our $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED with existing facial expression database. As shown in the table, our dataset contains 54 fine-grained expression types, while other datasets only contain 7 or 8 expression types in the controlled environment, 23 in the wild. For the person number, CK+ [@kanade2000comprehensive], KDEF [@lundqvist1998karolinska] and $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED are nearly the same. The current public facial expression datasets are usually collected in two ways: in the wild or in the controlled environment. The FER2013 [@fer2013], FER-Wild [@mollahosseini2016facial], EmotionNet [@fabian2016emotionet], AffectNet [@mollahosseini2017affectnet] are collected in the wild, so the number of poses and subjects can not be determined. The rest datasets are collected in a controlled environment, where the number of poses for CK+ and JAFFE [@lyons1998coding] is 1, KDEF is 5 and $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED is 4. Our $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED is the only one that contains the bird view pose images which are very useful in real-world applications. For image number, $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED contains 219,719 images, which is 44 times larger than the second-largest dataset in the controlled environment. We show that our $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED is orders of magnitude larger than these existing datasets in terms of expression class numbers, the number of total images and the diversity of data.
METHODOLOGY\[sec:METHODOLOGY\]
==============================
**Problem Definition.** Typically, facial expression recognition task (FER) aims to learn a classifier that can predict the existence of expression to input images. Assume we have a training dataset $\mathcal{D}_{s}=\left\{ \mathbf{\mathit{I}}_{j,(i,p,e)}\right\} _{j=1}^{N}$, where $j$ means the $j$th image, $i$ is the identity label, $p$ indicates the posture label, and $e$ represents the expression label. We use $\mathit{\mathbf{\mathit{I}}}_{(i,p,e)}$ to denote the face image of the person $i$ with posture $p$ and expression $e$. Given an unseen test face image $\mathbf{\mathit{I}^{\star}}_{(i,p,e)}$, our goal is to learn a robust mapping function $\mathbf{\mathit{e}}^{\star}=\Psi\left(\mathbf{\mathit{I}^{\star}}_{(i,p,e)}\right)$ using all available training information to predict the expression category $\mathbf{\mathit{e}}^{\star}$. To be noticed, each image is only labeled with one expression type.
Few-shot Fine-grained Facial Expression Learning \[subsec:Problem-Task\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally due to the lack of sufficient and diverse facial expression training data with dramatically changed posture, learning a robust facial expression recognition model can be very challenging. With regard to this problem, we introduce the more practical few-shot learning case specializing to recognize the samples appearing only a few or unseen during the training stage, by learning the generalized features from a limited number of labeled data.
Following the recent works [@vinyals2016matching; @Sachin2017; @finn2017model; @wang2018low], we establish a group of few/zero-shot settings in FER task as in Fig. \[fig:setting\]: we firstly define a base category set $C_{base}$ and a novel category set $C_{novel}$, in which $C_{base}\cap C_{novel}=\phi$. Correspondingly, we have a base dataset $D_{base}=\{(\mathbf{\mathit{I}}_{(i,p,e)}),(i,p,e)\subset C_{base}\}$, and a novel dataset $D_{novel}=\left\{ (\mathbf{\mathit{I}}_{(i,p,e)}),(i,p,e)\subset C_{novel}\right\} $. Our goal is to learn a generalized classification model that is able to infer the novel class data trained on the $D_{base}$ and $D_{novel}$ with few or no samples per $C_{novel}$. Particularly, we propose the following tasks in the context of various standard problems,
(T1) *ER-SS* (FER under the Standard Setting): according to the general recognition task, the supervised setting is introduced into our work. We set $C_{novel}=\phi$ and $D_{novel}=\phi$, and directly learn the supervised classifier on the randomly sampled 80% of all images, and test on the rest images. During the random sampling process, we ensure the expression, identity, and pose with a balanced distribution.
(T2) *ER-FID* (FER under the Few-shot IDentity setting): In the real-world applications, it is impossible to have training data with various expressions and postures from everyone. So studying few-shot fine-grained expression recognition learning in terms of training identity is important to the real-world applications. We randomly choose 20% identities as $C_{novel}$ and the rest as $C_{base}$, and randomly sample 1, 3 and 5 images per identity of $C_{novel}$ into $D_{novel}$ respectively; 80% of total number of images of $C_{base}$ as $D_{base}$. We stochastically choose 20% of all images of each identity from the rest images as the test data. In the above random sampling process, the balance of expression and posture distribution should be ensured simultaneously.
(T3) *ER-ZID* (FER under the Zero-shot IDentity setting): We randomly choose 20% identities as $C_{novel}$ and the rest as $C_{base}$, and sample no images per identity of $C_{novel}$ *i.e.*, $D_{novel}=\phi$, 80% of all images of $C_{base}$ as $D_{base}$. We randomly select 20% images of each identity from the remaining data as the test samples. During the above random splitting way, we also ensure the balance of expression and pose distribution.
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
(T4) *ER-FP* (FER under the Few-shot Posture setting): We choose left pose as $C_{novel}$ and the rest three poses as $C_{base}$, *i.e.*, right, front and bird-view, and randomly sample 1, 3, or 5 images with left pose into $D_{novel}$ individually; 80% of all images of $C_{base}$ as $D_{base}$. We stochastically choose 20% images of each facial pose category from the rest images as the test data. In the above random sampling process, the balance of expression and identity distribution should be ensured simultaneously. Posture change has a significant impact on facial features, which greatly reduces the accuracy of expression recognition. Meanwhile, it is difficult to collect large training data with rich expressions and multiple poses. To overcome the lacking training samples in terms of poses, extract pose-invariant features is the key to solve the few-shot posture learning task.
(T5) *ER-ZP* (FER under the Zero-shot Posture setting): We choose left pose as $C_{novel}$ and the rest three poses as $C_{base}$, and sample no images with left posture as $D_{novel}$, *i.e.*, $D_{novel}=\phi$, 80% of all images of $C_{base}$ as $D_{base}$. We randomly select 20% images of each facial pose category from the remaining data as the test samples. During the above random splitting way, we also ensure the expression and identity into the balanced distribution.
(T6) *ER-FE* (FER under the Few-shot Expression setting): We randomly select 20% expressions as $C_{novel}$ and the rest expressions as $C_{base}$, and randomly sample 1, 3, or 5 images per expression of $C_{novel}$ into $D_{novel}$; 80% of all images of $C_{base}$ as $D_{base}$. We stochastically choose 20% images of each facial pose category from the remaining data as the test samples. During the above random splitting way, we simultaneously ensure the expression and identity balanced distribution. Facial expressions vary a lot, so it is hard to collect a dataset with even distribution of expressions, which puts forward higher requirements for the application of expression recognition in practice. Therefore, it is inevitable to study the fine-grained expression recognition task with uneven expression distribution.
**Overview.** To tackle the challenges introduced in Sec. \[sec:introduction\], we propose the Compositional Generative Adversarial Network (Comp-GAN) to generate desired expression and specified pose images according to the input references while keeping the expression-excluding details such as face identity. The generated images can be adopted to train a robust expression recognition model. The unified facial expression recognition architecture has two components: Comp-GAN as in Fig. \[fig:framework\], and expression classifier network Comp-GAN-Cls based on LightCNN-29v2 [@Xiang2015A].
Structures of Comp-GAN\[subsec:Comp-GAN framework\]
---------------------------------------------------
To solve the problem of changing postures and complex expressions in the facial expression recognition task, we propose a Compositional Generative Adversarial Network (Comp-GAN) to generate new realistic face images, which dynamically edits the facial expression and pose according to the reference image, while keeping the identity information. As shown in Fig. \[fig:framework\], a stacked GAN with supervision information is presented to guide the generative learning process. The generator in Comp-GAN is stacked by expression and pose components, *i.e.*, G (Exp) and G (Pose). The former one serves as the editor of desired expressions, while the latter one can synthesize faces by varying the facial posture.
Formally, we denote $i_{t}$, $i_{r}$, $p_{s}$, $p_{t}$, $e_{s}$ and $e_{t}$ as the target identity, reference identity, source posture, target pose, source expression, and target expression, respectively. The generator G (Pose) aims at transferring the source face posture $p_{s}$ to the target pose $p_{t}$, and generator G (Exp) tries to change the source facial expression $e_{s}$ to the target expression $e_{t}$, while keeping their identity information $i_{t}$. Thus our Comp-GAN can generate the target face $\mathbf{\mathit{I}}_{(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})}$, and an approximation to reconstruct the image $\mathbf{\mathit{I}}_{(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})}$ to remain the pose-invariant and expression-invariant information. Specifically, the whole model has two branches and four steps, and the workflow of our Comp-GAN is illustrated in Alg. \[alg:Algorithm\]. Note that, we utilize the subindex $k\in\{a,b\}$ to indicate the intermediate results produced by the $k$-th branch of Comp-GAN, and to better understand, we simplify the $I_{(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})}$ as $(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})$ to represent the face with target identity, target pose and source expression.
**Input:** $(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})$ indicates the image with target identity, $((i_{r},p_{t},e_{s}),(i_{r},p_{s},e_{t}),(i_{r},p_{t},e_{t}),(i_{r},p_{s},e_{s}))$ are the reference images with target posture or expression information.
**Output:** $((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a},(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b},(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a},(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b})$ are the generated images with edited posture by G (Pose); $((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b},(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a},(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b},(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a})$ mean the synthesized images with changed expression by G (Exp).
[1.]{} $$\begin{aligned}
F_{P}:((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s}),(i_{r},p_{t},e_{s}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a})\text{,}\\
F_{E}:((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s}),(i_{r},p_{s},e_{t}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b})\end{aligned}$$
[2.]{} $$\begin{aligned}
F_{E}:((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a},(i_{r},p_{t},e_{t}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a}),\\
F_{P}:((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b},(i_{r},p_{t},e_{t}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b})\end{aligned}$$
[3.]{} $$\begin{aligned}
F_{P}:((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a},(i_{r},p_{s},e_{t}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a}),\\
F_{E}:((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b},(i_{r},p_{t},e_{s}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b})\end{aligned}$$
[4.]{} $$\begin{aligned}
F_{E}:((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a},(i_{r},p_{s},e_{s}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a}),\\
F_{P}:((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b},(i_{r},p_{s},e_{s}))\rightarrow((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b})\end{aligned}$$
In particular, $F_{P}$, *i.e.*, G (Pose), learns to change the pose while keeping the expression and identity information as the reference data, and $F_{E}$, *i.e.*, G (Exp), learns to generate desired expression image while maintaining the expression-excluding information. After the first two steps, we get the specified pose data $(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a}$ and desired expression image $(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b}$, as well as the $(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a}$ and $(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b}$ whose posture and expression are changed simultaneously. We further utilize a reconstruction constraint to re-generate the original faces using the same G (Pose) and G (Exp) generators in the next two steps. It is worth noting that although our generation model has four stages, it is only repeatedly built with two generators.
Loss Function in Comp-GAN \[subsec:Comp-GAN loss\]
--------------------------------------------------
To synthesize realistic facial images, Comp-GAN consists of the following losses: expression-prediction loss, ID-preserving loss, posture-prediction loss, construction loss, reconstruction loss, closed-loop loss, and adversarial loss. On $D_{base}$, we train a classifier $F_{cls}$ based on LightCNN-29v2 [@Xiang2015A], which can predict the expression, pose and identity label simultaneously, to constrain the generative process. The classifier is further fine-tuned on the training instances of the novel category set $C_{novel}$ for different few-shot learning tasks (T1) – (T6).
**Expression-prediction Loss.** We apply the classifier to ensure the generated images with target expression, and employ the cross-entropy loss $\mathit{\Phi}$ for model training to make the learned features discriminative,
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{exp} & =\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a}),e_{s})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a}),e_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a}),e_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a}),e_{s})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b}),e_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b}),e_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b}),e_{s})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b}),e_{s})\label{eq: exp_loss}\end{aligned}$$
**Posture-prediction Loss.** The classifier is utilized to constrain that the synthesized images have correct poses, with cross-entropy loss $\mathit{\Phi}$ to train. The posture-prediction loss is defined as,
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{pose} & =\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a}),p_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a}),p_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a}),p_{s})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a}),p_{s})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b}),p_{s})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b}),p_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b}),p_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b}),p_{s})\label{eq: pose_loss}\end{aligned}$$
**ID-preserving loss.** The cross-entropy loss $\mathit{\Phi}$ also is employed for identification to ensure the generated image keeping the target identity information:
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{id} & =\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a}),i_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a}),i_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a}),i_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a}),i_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b}),i_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b}),i_{t})\nonumber \\
+ & \mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b}),i_{t})+\mathit{\Phi}(F_{cls}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b}),i_{t})\label{eq: id_loss}\end{aligned}$$
**Construction loss.** To generate realistic images, we adopt the widely used strategy in generation task that using a combination of $L1$ loss and perceptual loss [@johnson2016perceptual] on the pre-trained classifier $F_{cls}$, which restricts the quality of produced image textures.
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{recon}^{1} & =\mid\mid(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a}-(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a}-(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b}-(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b}-(i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})\mid\mid_{1}\label{eq: con_loss_1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{con}^{2} & =\sum_{i=1}^{4}(\mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s}))\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{a})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s}))\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t}))\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t})^{b})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{t}))\mid\mid_{1})\label{eq: con_loss_2}\end{aligned}$$
where $F_{cls}^{i}(I)$ indicates the feature map of image $I$ of the $i$-th layer in $F_{cls}$. Finally, we define the reconstruction loss, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{con}=\gamma_{1}L_{con}^{1}+\gamma_{2}L_{con}^{2}\label{eq:con_loss}\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma_{1}$and $\gamma_{2}$ are the trade-off parameters for the $L1$ and the perceptual loss, respectively.
**Reconstruction loss.** To capture more pose-invariant and expression-invariant features for generating more natural images, we introduce a reconstruction learning process to re-generate original faces under the last two steps in Alg. \[alg:Algorithm\]. We add reconstruction loss as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{recon}=\gamma_{1}L_{recon}^{1}+\gamma_{2}L_{recon}^{2}\label{eq:con_loss-1}\end{aligned}$$
where $L_{recon}$ also contains $L1$ loss and perceptual loss as:
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{recon}^{1} & =\mid\mid(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a}-(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a}-(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b}-(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b}-(i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})\mid\mid_{1}\label{eq: recon_loss_1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{recon}^{2} & =\sum_{i=1}^{4}(\mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{t}))\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{a})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s}))\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{t},e_{s}))\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s})^{b})-F_{cls}^{i}((i_{t},p_{s},e_{s}))\mid\mid_{1})\label{eq: recon_loss_2}\end{aligned}$$
**Closed-Loop loss.** The two branches in Comp-GAN are formed as a closed-loop, to balance the learning process and constrain the generation between the branches. The closed-loop loss is proposed to ensure the properties of faces with the same identity, pose and expression between the two branches as similar as possible, and improve the ability of the model to find potential identical features. So we define the closed-loop loss as,
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{loop} & =\mid\mid(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{a}-(i_{t},p_{t},e_{s})^{b}\mid\mid_{1}\nonumber \\
+ & \mid\mid(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{a}-(i_{t},p_{s},e_{t})^{b}\mid\mid_{1}\label{eq: loop_loss}\end{aligned}$$
**Comp-GAN loss.** Our two generators – G (Pose) and G (Exp) are followed by a discriminator $D$ that tries to detect the synthesized faces to help improve the quality of the generated image. The adversarial learning between the generator and discriminator is introduced to make the generated images visually realistic. So we define the adversarial loss $L_{adv}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{G}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{D}{\mathrm{max}}\,\mathcal{L}_{GAN} & =\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\mathit{I}_{\mathit{input}}}\sim p_{d}\left(\mathbf{\mathit{I}}_{input}\right)}\left[\mathrm{log}\,D\left(\mathbf{\mathit{I}_{\mathit{input}}}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
+ & \left[\mathrm{log}\,\left(1-D\left(G_{Comp-GAN}\left(\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathit{I}_{\mathit{input}}},\mathbf{\mathit{I}_{\mathit{target}}}}\right)\right)\right)\right]\label{eq: adv_loss}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathit{I}_{\mathit{input}}}}$ means the input image, and $\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathit{I}_{\mathit{target}}}}$ is the corresponding ground-truth image.
Generator G (Pose) targets at changing the facial posture and keeps the expression and identity information, and Generator G (Exp) is aiming to edit the expression of faces while maintaining the pose and identity details, so the G (Pose) loss function and the G (Exp) loss function are defined as:
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{G(Pose)} & =\lambda_{exp}L_{exp}+\lambda_{pose}L_{pose}+\lambda_{id}L_{id}+\lambda_{con}L_{con}\nonumber \\
& +\lambda_{recon}L_{recon}+\lambda_{adv}L_{adv}+\lambda_{loop}L_{loop}\label{eq:Comp-GAN_Pose}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{G(Exp)} & =\mu_{exp}L_{exp}+\mu_{pose}L_{pose}+\mu_{id}L_{id}+\mu_{con}L_{con}\nonumber \\
& +\mu_{recon}L_{recon}+\mu_{adv}L_{adv}+\mu_{loop}L_{loop}\label{eq:Comp-GAN_Exp}\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda_{exp}$, $\lambda_{pose}$, $\lambda_{id}$, $\lambda_{con}$, $\lambda_{recon}$, $\lambda_{adv}$, and $\lambda_{loop}$ are the weights for the corresponding terms of $L_{G(Pose)}$, respectively; and $\mu_{exp}$, $\mu_{pose}$, $\mu_{id}$, $\mu_{con}$, $\mu_{recon}$, $\mu_{adv}$ and $\mu_{loop}$ are the weights for the corresponding terms of $L_{G(Exp)}$, individually.
The loss functions we proposed above are critical to our generation model. The expression-prediction loss, ID-preserving loss, and posture-prediction loss are intuitive, which are used to constrain the correct attribute labels of the synthesized faces and motivate the generation process to accurately edit the pose and expression while maintaining its identity information. The proposed construction loss and reconstruction loss both consist of $L1$ loss and perceptual loss to constrain the generated images to be as similar to the ground-truth. The special closed-loop loss is based on our special network structure, which has two branched and there are intersections among the generation aims, to encourage the generative model to capture more potential identical features. The last adversarial loss is a commonly used method in adversarial generative networks to play the minimax game.
Experiments
===========
Results of Supervised Expression Recognition
--------------------------------------------
### Dataset and Setting
Extensive experiments are conducted on JAFFE [@lyons1998coding] and FER2013 [@fer2013] to evaluate our proposed dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED under the supervised expression learning task.
**Dataset**. **** *(1) JAFFE.* The Japanese Female Facial Expression (JAFFE) database [@lyons1998coding] contains 213 images of 256$\times$256 pixels resolution. The images are taken from 10 Japanese female models in a controlled environment. Each image is rated by 60 Japanese subjects with one of the following seven emotion adjectives: natural, angry, disgust, fear, happy, sad and surprise. *(2) FER2013*. The Facial Expression Recognition 2013 database [@fer2013] contains 35,887 gray-scale images of 48$\times$48 resolution. Most images are taken in the wild setting which means more challenging conditions such as occlusion and pose variations are included. They are labeled as one of the seven emotions as described above. The dataset is split into 28,709 training images, 3,589 validation images and 3,589 test images.
**Settings**. Following the setting of [@minaee2019deep], we conduct the experiments on FER2013 by using the entire 28,709 training images and 3,589 validation images to train and validate our model, which is further tested on the rest 3,589 test images. As for JAFFE, we follow the split setting of the deep-emotion paper [@minaee2019deep] to use 120 images for training, 23 images for validation, and keep 70 images for the test (7 emotions per face ID). In our $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED, we randomly choose 175,000 and 44,719 images for train and test, respectively. The FER classification accuracy is reported as the evaluation metric to compare different competitors. The results are averaged and reported over multiple rounds.
**Competitors**. On FER2013, we compare against several competitors, including Bag of Words [@ionescu2013local], VGG+SVM [@georgescu2018local], Go-Deep* *[@mollahosseini2016going], DNNRL [@guo2016deep], Attention CNN [@minaee2019deep], and BOVW + local SVM [@georgescu2019local]. These investigated classifiers are based on hand-crafted features, or specially designed for FER. As for JAFFE, we compare with several methods that are tailored for the tasks of FER, including Fisherface [@abidin2012neural], Salient Facial Patch [@happy2015automatic], CNN+SVM [@shima2018image] and Attention CNN [@minaee2019deep].
**Implementation Details.** We train the baseline classification network Comp-GAN-Cls based on LightCNN-29v2 [@Xiang2015A] using the SGD optimizer with a momentum of 0.9 and decreasing the learning rate by 0.457 after every 10 steps. The maximum epoch number is set to 50. The learning rate and batch size vary depending on the dataset size, so we set the learning rate/batch size as 0.01/128, 2$e-3$/64 and $5e-4$/32, on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED, FER2013, and JAFFE, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:fer2013\_sl\_cm\]The left image shows the confusion matrix generated by Comp-GAN-Cls on FER 2013 without pre-training, and the right one is the Comp-GAN-Cls pre-trained on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED. Comp-GAN-Cls refers to the classification backbone of our Comp-GAN.](fer2013_sl_nopre_confusionmatrix_large "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![\[fig:fer2013\_sl\_cm\]The left image shows the confusion matrix generated by Comp-GAN-Cls on FER 2013 without pre-training, and the right one is the Comp-GAN-Cls pre-trained on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED. Comp-GAN-Cls refers to the classification backbone of our Comp-GAN.](fer2013_sl_confusionmatrix_large "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:jaffe\_sl\_cm\]The left image shows the confusion matrix on FER 2013 for Comp-GAN-Cls without pre-training, and the right one is the Comp-GAN-Cls pre-trained on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED. Comp-GAN-Cls refers to the classification backbone of our Comp-GAN.](jaffe_sl_nopre_confusionmatrix_large "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![\[fig:jaffe\_sl\_cm\]The left image shows the confusion matrix on FER 2013 for Comp-GAN-Cls without pre-training, and the right one is the Comp-GAN-Cls pre-trained on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED. Comp-GAN-Cls refers to the classification backbone of our Comp-GAN.](jaffe_sl_confusionmatrix_large "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Results on supervised learning
**Our dataset $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED can boost facial expression recognition accuracy when it is used to pre-train the network for better initialization.** To show the efficacy of $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED, the classification backbone of Comp-GAN named as Comp-GAN-Cls based on LightCNN-29v2 [@Xiang2015A] is pre-trained on our dataset which achieves 69.13% mean accuracy under the supervised setting, and then fine-tuned on the training set of FER2013 and JAFFE. Tab. \[tab:Acc\_FER2013\_SL\] and Tab. \[tab:Acc\_JAFFE\_SL\] show that the Comp-GAN-Cls pre-trained on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED can improve the expression recognition performance by 14.5% and 13.3% on FER2013 and JAFFE, respectively, compared to the one without pre-training. The confusion matrix in Fig. \[fig:fer2013\_sl\_cm\] shows that pre-training increases the scores on all expression types of FER2013, and the confusion matrix in Fig. \[fig:jaffe\_sl\_cm\] shows that the pre-trained Comp-GAN-Cls only makes 3 wrong predictions and surpasses the one without pre-training on all expression types of JAFFE. These demonstrate that the $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED dataset with large expression and posture variations can pre-train a deep network with good initialization parameters. Note that our classification network is not specially designed for FER task, since it is built upon the LightCNN, one typical face recognition architecture.
**Our model can achieve the best performance among competitors.** Compared to the previous methods, the results show that our model can achieve the accuracy of 76.8%, which is superior to the others on FER2013, as compared in Tab. \[tab:Acc\_FER2013\_SL\]. As listed in Tab. \[tab:Acc\_JAFFE\_SL\], our model also achieves the accuracy of 96.2%, outperforming all the other competitors. Remarkably, our model surpasses the Attention CNN by 3.4% in the same data split setting. The accuracy of CNN+SVM is slightly lower than our model by 0.9%, even though their model is trained and tested on the entire dataset. This shows the efficacy of our dataset in pre-training the facial expression network.
Model Acc.
---------------------------------------- -----------
Bag of Words [@ionescu2013local] 67.4%
VGG+SVM [@georgescu2018local] 66.3%
Go-Deep* * [@mollahosseini2016going] 66.4%
DNNRL [@guo2016deep] 70.6%
Attention CNN [@minaee2019deep] 70.0%
BOVW + local SVM [@georgescu2019local] 74.9%
Comp-GAN-Cls w.o Pre-trained 62.3%
**Comp-GAN-Cls** **76.8%**
: \[tab:Acc\_FER2013\_SL\]Accuracy on FER2013 test set in supervised setting. Comp-GAN-Cls refers to the classification backbone of our Comp-GAN.
Model Acc.
-------------------------------------------- -----------
Fisherface [@abidin2012neural] 89.2%
Salient Facial Patch [@happy2015automatic] 92.6%
CNN+SVM [@shima2018image] 95.3%
Attention CNN [@minaee2019deep] 92.8%
Comp-GAN-Cls w.o Pre-trained 82.9%
**Comp-GAN-Cls** **96.2%**
: \[tab:Acc\_JAFFE\_SL\]Accuracy on JAFFE test set in supervised setting. Comp-GAN-Cls refers to the classification backbone of our Comp-GAN.
Results of Few-shot Expression Recognition
------------------------------------------
### Dataset and Setting\[subsec:Dataset-and-Setting\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Faces of different poses/expressions in $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED.\[fig:dataset\]](dataset "fig:"){width="1.05\linewidth"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Fine-Grained Facial Expression Database ($\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED).** We evaluate our Comp-GAN on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED as shown in Fig. \[fig:dataset\], which has 219,719 images with 119 identities and 54 kinds of fine-grained facial emotions, *e.g.*, acceptance, angry, bravery, calm, disgust, envy, fear, neutral and so on. Each person is captured by four different views of cameras, *e.g.*, half left, front, half right, and bird-view. Each participant expresses his/her emotions under the guidance of a psychologist, and the images are taken when the expression is observed. As shown in Fig. \[fig:dist\_pose\] and Fig. \[fig:dist\_expression\], $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED has a relatively balanced distribution across various expressions as well as postures, which is beneficial for us to train a generative model that can change subtle facial expressions and postures synchronously. To ensure the proportional distribution balance of the test data, we only take 20% images from each category into the testing stage on the few-shot setting, and randomly select 1, 3, or 5 images of $C_{novel}$ and the rest data of $C_{base}$ images as the training data. For example, in ER-FID setting, we randomly select 21 identities with 1, 3, or 5 images per person in $D_{novel}$ and 151,189 images of $C_{base}$ in $D_{base}$ for training, and 6,941 images from the 21 identities $C_{novel}$ and 37,467 images of the remaining persons from $C_{base}$ into the test set. In ER-ZID setting, we randomly choose 20% of the images from 21 persons in $C_{novel}$ , *e.g.*, 6,900 images and the remaining 98 identities $C_{base}$ of 37,861 images into test set, and 151,444 images of the 98 persons in $D_{base}$ for training.
**Implementation details.** We use Pytorch for implementation. A reasonable architecture for our generators G (Pose) and G (Exp) is a classic encoder-decoder network [@ronneberger2015u], which progressively down-samples the input image into compact hidden space and then progressively up-samples the hidden information to reconstruct the image of the same resolution as inputs. Our discriminator follows the design in AttGAN [@he2019attgan]. Furthermore, our basic classifier is based on LightCNN-29v2 [@Xiang2015A]. For all the experiments, we use the stochastic gradient descent algorithm to train and dropout is used for fully connected layers with the ratio 0.5. The input images are resized to 144x144 firstly, and then randomly cropped to 128x128. We pre-train our backbone LightCNN-29v2 on CelebA dataset [@liu2015deep], set the initial learning rate of 0.01 and train for 30 epochs. We train the Comp-GAN combined with LightCNN-29v2 as an end-to-end framework, and set the initial learning rate as 0.01 in LightCNN-29v2 and 0.0002 for the Comp-GAN. The learning rate is gradually decreased to zero from the 30th epoch, and stopped after the 50th epoch. We set the mini-batch size as 64, $\gamma_{1}=1$, $\gamma_{2}=0.1$, $\lambda_{exp}=20$, $\lambda_{pose}=20$, $\lambda_{id}=10$, $\lambda_{con}=30$, $\lambda_{recon}=15$, $\lambda_{loop}=10$, $\lambda_{adv}=1$ and $\mu_{exp}=30$, $\mu_{pose}=10$, $\mu_{id}=15$, $\mu_{con}=40$, $\mu_{recon}=15$, $\mu_{loop}=10,$$\mu_{adv}=1$. Our model is trained by one NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPU and takes about 11 GB GPU memory.
**Evaluation metrics.** The face expression recognition task can be taken as the problem of classification tasks. To evaluate the performance, we select five evaluation metrics.
\(1) As used by [@pan2010survey; @lin2019improving], the standard recognition accuracy of each attribute as well as the label-based metric mean accuracy that overall attributes are computed to evaluate our model performance, short in *mA.* and *acc.* respectively.
\(2) Instance-based evaluation can capture better consistency of prediction on a given image [@zhang2014review], to appropriately evaluate the quality of different methods, following the evaluation metrics used in pedestrian attribute recognition problem [@li2016richly], we add three more evaluation metrics, *i.e*. precision (*prec*.), recall (*rec*.) and F1-score (*F1*.).
\(3) Formally, the *acc*., *mA*., *prec*., *rec.* and *F1.* can be defined as,
$$mA=\frac{1}{2M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}(TP_{i}/P_{i}+TN_{i}/N_{i})$$
$$acc=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}(\mid Y_{i}\cap f(x_{i})\mid/\mid Y_{i}\cup f(x_{i})\mid)$$
$$prec=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}(\mid Y_{i}\cap f(x_{i})\mid/\mid f(x_{i})\mid)$$
$$rec=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}(\mid Y_{i}\cap f(x_{i})\mid/\mid Y_{i}\mid)$$
$$F1=(2\times prec\times rec)/(prec+rec)$$
where $M$ is the total number of attributes; $P_{i}$ and $TP_{i}$ are the numbers of positive examples and correctly predicted positive examples; $N_{i}$ and $TN_{i}$ are the numbers of negative examples and correctly predicted negative examples. $Y_{i}$ is the ground truth positive labels of the $i-th$ example, $f(x_{i})$ returns the predicted positive labels for $i-th$ example, and $\mid\cdot\mid$ means the set cardinality.
### Results of Comp-GAN Vs. Competitors\[subsec:Ablation-Study\]
We compare our model against the existing generative model, such as Cycle-GAN [@zhu2017unpaired], Pix2Pix [@isola2017image], VAE/GAN[@larsen2015autoencoding] and AttGAN [@he2019attgan]. In particular, we highlight the following observations,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Generated samples from our Comp-GAN. The images with red borders represent the input references, and the images with green borders are the synthesized faces. (a) shows the images generated by generator G (Exp) which changes the expression while keeping the pose and identity information; images in (b) are generated from generator G (Pose) to edit posture; (c) illustrates the images with desired expression and specified pose through our Comp-GAN model. The images belong to the same identity circled by the blue dash line. \[fig:generated\_images\]](Generated_images "fig:"){width="1.05\linewidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Quality Comparison.**
***(1) Comp-GAN can well edit the facial images.*** As in Fig. \[fig:generated\_images\], we show several realistic images with the specified pose, desired expression generated by Comp-GAN on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED. We notice that the images have dramatically changed postures and expressions, and they can still maintain the expression and identity while changing the posture, and vice versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparison results with other generative methods. The input reference image is at the upper left corner. The first line shows the generated images from generator G (Pose), the second line generated by generator G (Exp), and the last line illustrates the images with desired expression and specific pose. \[fig:GAN\_Comparsion\]](GAN_Comparsion "fig:"){width="0.95\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***(2) Comp-GAN can generate more realistic faces compared to other methods.*** As shown in Fig. \[fig:GAN\_Comparsion\], our Comp-GAN model can preserve better face identity. In contrast, the generated images from Cycle-GAN, Pix2Pix, and VAE/GAN do not well edit facial expression and retain the original identity. Their methods also lose some other facial attributes, such as the hairstyle and glasses, and the quality of produced images are worse. As we can see, both Comp-GAN and AttGAN accurately generate the desired expression while keeping the expression-excluding information, but the AttGAN results contain some artifacts and are much blurrier than ours, while the images from Comp-GAN seem more natural and realistic.
[c]{}
Method ER-SS ER-FID ER-ZID ER-FP EP-ZP ER-FE
---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
L. 70.63 33.29 10.44 49.32 42.17 38.94
L. + Cycle-GAN 65.38 29.34 4.02 50.19 42.29 30.68
L. + Pix2Pix 71.31 31.68 7.93 43.12 34.75 37.25
L. + VAE/GAN 70.88 25.10 5.17 37.34 30.89 33.96
L. + AttGAN 71.92 34.64 10.98 50.14 44.81 40.14
**Comp-GAN** **74.92** **36.92** **14.25** **56.43** **51.29** **44.19**
: Comparison results with other generative frameworks on F$^{2}$ED. L.: indicates the facial expression recognition backbone LightCNN. Only 1 training image of each class in $C_{novel}$ under ER-FID, ER-FP, and ER-FE settings. \[tab:other\_GAN\_accuracy\]
[\
]{}
Method ER-SS ER-FID ER-ZID ER-FP EP-ZP ER-FE
------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
L. 70.63 33.29 10.44 49.32 42.17 38.94
L.+ G (Pose) 73.11 35.56 12.31 54.49 47.92 40.93
L.+ G (Pose) + Front 73.49 35.89 13.04 54.92 48.87 41.76
L.+ G (Pose) + Combine 73.84 35.92 13.48 55.43 49.02 41.91
L.+ G (Exp) 72.36 34.95 12.87 53.21 43.98 42.97
L.+ G (Pose)+ G (Exp) 74.03 36.78 13.98 56.04 50.57 43.84
**Comp-GAN** **74.92** **36.92** **14.25** **56.43** **51.29** **44.19**
**Quantity Comparison.**
***(1) Comp-GAN achieves the best performance among the competitors.*** We use the same number of generated images from AttGAN, Cycle-GAN, Pix2Pix, VAE / GAN, and AttGAN to fine-tune the same feature extractor respectively. As in Tab. \[tab:other\_GAN\_accuracy\] our model gains the highest accuracy under all proposed settings on F$^{2}$ED, and some generated images of other models even damage the recognition accuracy, such as Cycle-GAN and VAE/GAN under the few-shot setting. This well proves that Comp-GAN generated images can solve the problem of the lack of data, limitation in diversity and huge changes of posture for the facial expression recognition task.
***(2) The generated faces from Comp-GAN preserve the most accurate original image information.*** To further demonstrate the accuracy of our generated images in expression, posture, and identity, we employ a trained classifier of expression, pose and identity as the measurement tool. The classifier is learned on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED training set, and it can thus achieve 85.32% accuracy per attribute, 97.69% per pose and 98.63% per identity on the training images of $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED. If the category of a generated image is predicted the same as the desired one by the classifier, it should be considered as the correct generation on this dataset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparisons among other generative models and Comp-GAN in terms of facial expression preserving accuracy. (the higher, the better).\[fig:expression\_editing\_accuracy\]](expression_editing_accuracy "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in Fig. \[fig:expression\_editing\_accuracy\], we show the expression editing accuracy of the randomly selected 15 kinds of desired expression generated images, and compare them with other generative results. We can notice that Comp-GAN and AttGAN achieve much better accuracies than Cycle-GAN, Pix2Pix and VAE/GAN among all the expressions. As for the comparisons between the Comp-GAN and AttGAN, AttGAN can achieve better performance with a slight margin on ‘Joy’ expression, however, our model can get superior accuracy on the rest 14 expressions, and the generated images of Comp-GAN are much more natural and realistic as shown in Fig. \[fig:GAN\_Comparsion\].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparisons among other generative models and Comp-GAN in terms of pose preserving accuracy. (the higher, the better).\[fig:pose\_editing\_accuracy\]](pose_editing_accuracy "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we also compare with other generative results and show the pose accuracy using 4 kinds of specified pose generated images in Fig. \[fig:pose\_editing\_accuracy\]. In contrast to the complex and varied expression modifications, the generated images from all methods are more accurate in poses, and Comp-GAN achieves the best performance on the posture accuracy. We can still see that our method can more realistically retain the original identity and expression information in the case of posture change from Fig. \[fig:GAN\_Comparsion\].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparisons among other generative models and Comp-GAN in terms of identity preserving accuracy. (the higher, the better).\[fig:identity\_editing\_accuracy\]](identity_editing_accuracy "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we analyze the identity preserving accuracy of all generated images shown in Fig. \[fig:identity\_editing\_accuracy\]. We can find that, in comparison, AttGAN and Comp-GAN are more accurate in the preservation of identity information, and our method gets higher accuracy for most attributes, which can be attributed to the well-designed generation network with reconstruction structure and loss function.
Evaluating Each Component of Comp-GAN
-------------------------------------
We conduct extensive qualitative and quantitative experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of each component in Comp-GAN.
**Quantity results.** To make quantitative self-evaluations, we conduct extensive experiments on several variants: (1) LightCNN: we use the $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED training data to fine-tune the LightCNN-29v2 model which is pre-trained on CelebA. (2) LightCNN + G (Pose): we add the pose changed images synthesized from generator G (Pose) to $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED training set and fine-tune the LightCNN-29v2 model. (3) LightCNN + G (Pose) + Front: we not only use the specified-pose generated images, but also transfer all the training and testing data by generator G (Pose) into the front pose to extract features. (4) LightCNN + G (Pose) + Combine: we classify all the training and testing data into four poses, *e.g.*, front, left, right and bird-view, and we concatenate the features extracted from those four kinds of generated images with the input one extracted by LightCNN-29v2 as the final feature. (5) LightCNN + G (Exp): we add the desired expression synthesized images from generator G (Exp) to $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED training set and fine-tune the LightCNN-29v2 model. (6) LightCNN + G (pose) + G (Exp): we add the specified pose synthesized images and the desired expression generated images to $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED training set and fine-tune the LightCNN-29v2 model. (7) Ours (LightCNN + Comp-GAN): we add the specified pose and desired expression generated images into the training set, transfer all the training and testing data into four poses, and concatenate the five features as the final output.
As in Tab. \[tab:self-evaluation\], we compare the recognition accuracy of the variants of our model under six settings, as follows,
***(1) The efficacy of our generators.*** Our ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ and ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ greatly outperforms ‘LightCNN’ in Tab. \[tab:self-evaluation\] under all six settings. Especially in ER-FP and EP-ZP setting, ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ can achieve 5.17% and 5.75% improvement respectively; in ER-FE setting, ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ shows 4.03% improvement; as for ER-FID and ER-ZID setting, our ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ and ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ can boost the recognition accuracy by 2% on average. Our generative method achieves superior performance, meaning that our generated faces can increase data diversity and preserve useful information.
***(2) The complementary property of features between our generators .*** To be noticed, ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ can obtain better performance on posture-limited data than ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’, and ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ has superior accuracy over ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ in the expression-limited setting, which indicates that these two generators have different emphasis on the expression recognition task. As can be seen, ‘LightCNN + G (Pose) + G (Exp)’ model can beat ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ and ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ with the visible margin under all six settings, and this strongly proves the complementarity features between our specified-pose and desired-expression generated data can help the network learn better facial expression representation.
***(3) The importance of facial pose normalization.*** Furthermore, our ‘LightCNN + G (Pose) + Front’ and ‘LightCNN + G (Pose) + Combine’ variants achieve better performance than ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’, so such multiple poses normalization method is an effective way to deal with the large pose variation problem in facial expression recognition task.
![Ablation study of loss functions in Comp-GAN. The input reference image is at the upper left corner. The first row shows generated images from generator G (Pose); the second row generated form generator G (Exp); and the last line illustrates the images with both expressions and poses changed. w.o.: indicates that we remove this loss function during the training.\[fig:GAN\_Loss\]](GAN_Loss){width="1\linewidth"}
Method
------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
1 Shot 3 Shot 5 Shot 1 Shot 3 Shot 5 Shot 1 Shot 3 Shot 5 Shot
L. 33.29 33.45 34.36 49.32 49.41 50.21 38.94 39.02 39.87
L. + G (Pose) 35.56 35.74 36.27 54.49 54.44 55.72 40.93 40.04 41.26
L. + G (Exp) 34.95 35.81 37.01 52.21 52.89 53.24 42.97 41.86 42.50
L. + G (Pose) + G(Exp) 36.78 36.88 37.43 56.04 56.56 57.36 43.84 43.90 44.98
**Comp-GAN** **36.92** **36.98** **37.69** **56.43** **56.58** **57.59** **44.19** **44.22** **45.67**
****Effectiveness of loss function in Comp-GAN.**** To generate realistic and information-keeping images, we apply six loss functions in Comp-GAN: (a) expression-prediction loss (exp\_loss), (b) posture-prediction loss (pose\_loss), (c) ID-preserving loss (id\_loss), (d) construction loss (con\_loss), (e) reconstruction loss (recon\_loss), (f) closed-loop loss (loop\_loss), (g) adversarial loss (adv\_loss). To verify the effectiveness of these losses, we conduct experiments by removing each of them respectively during the training and present the generated results in Fig. \[fig:GAN\_Loss\]. As can be seen, without the loss (a), the expression information is severely lost, and the model tends to generate natural facial expression; without (b) or (c), the quality of the generated images is degraded and the faces become blurred. Without loss (d) or (e), the generated image quality becomes poor and lacks vital identity information, showing that the two loss functions are essential for our Comp-GAN. By adding the loss (f), Comp-GAN can greatly improve the quality of the generated images. Removing the loss function (g), the quality of synthetic faces all degrades to different extent. We also try to add the pose information as a part of expression, and train only one generator (Generator P&A) to edit posture and expression simultaneously, as shown in Fig. \[fig:GAN\_Loss\], the generator is not conducted at all. This is the underlying reason we designed the two generators that edit pose and expression separately.
Ablation Study
---------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:few-shot generation\]Generated images with different $k$ training examples for each $C_{novel}$ under few-shot setting on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED.](few-shot-generation "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Quality of synthesized images in terms of the amount of training data under the few-shot setting.** As shown in Fig. \[fig:few-shot generation\], we show the synthesized images by our Comp-GAN when the number of training images $k$ per $C_{novel}$ expression category varies on F$^{2}$ED. We can notice that the quality of the generated images is gradually improved as $k$ increases. When the training number $k$ is 1, the generated faces are closer to natural expression, this indicates that due to the lack of training data, the generator do not learn the relevant feature of specific facial expressions well. However, when the training number $k$ is more than 5, our Comp-GAN can extract specific expression representation and generate more realistic faces, which maintain the same identity and expression information as the input while change the pose.
**Our model can solve the problem of insufficient training data such as few-shot learning setting.** We show the accuracy results of the few-shot setting on F$^{2}$ED in Tab. \[tab:one-shot setting\], and Comp-GAN can significantly improve the expression recognition accuracy compared to the baseline ‘LightCNN’. It is obvious that, with the number of training images $k$ per $C_{novel}$ category increasing, the recognition accuracy also gradually improved. Compared with ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ and ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’, the ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ is more effective for the lack of expression data, and ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ can greatly improve the recognition accuracy for the data with fewer postures changed, and ‘LightCNN + G (Pose) + G (Exp)’ achieves better performance than ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ or ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ model. This further demonstrates the different focuses and complementary properties of the two kinds of generated data. The promising results show the strong generalization capability of our method and efficacy in real applications.
[c]{}
Method Acc. mA. Pre. Rec. F1.
---------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
L. 38.94 36.83 40.35 29.32 33.96
L.+ G(Pose) 40.93 41.24 44.78 31.45 36.95
L.+ G(Exp) 42.97 42.98 42.13 30.17 35.16
L.+ G(pose) + G(Exp) 43.84 44.46 48.52 32.80 39.14
L.+ AttGAN 40.14 38.55 43.90 26.55 33.09
**Comp-GAN** **44.19** **45.79** **50.18** **35.02** **41.25**
: Comparison results of ER-FE setting with 1 training image of each class in $C_{novel}$ on F$^{2}$ED. L.: indicates the facial expression recognition backbone LightCNN-29v2. \[tab:metrics\]
[\
]{}
**Our model can achieve the best performance among five metrics.** Tab. \[tab:metrics\] shows the results of our model, its variants and the most comparable existing generative method AttGAN [@he2019attgan] among five metrics under ER-FE setting in F$^{2}$ED. As can be seen, our model gets the best results and beats the AttGAN with a noticeable gap. It is worth noticing that among five metrics, ‘LightCNN + G (Exp)’ and ‘LightCNN + G (Pose)’ models have better performance compared with ‘LightCNN’, this further proves the validity of our generated images. On the other settings, we have similar observations.
![Visualization of 9 original images (drawn as stars) and the corresponding generated images (drawn as dots) using t-SNE. One color indicates one identity. (a) and (b) show the image identity distribution generated by G (Pose) or G (Exp) respectively. Best view in color. \[fig:T-sne\]](T-sne){width="0.98\linewidth"}
****Quality of synthesized images.**** For implications in real-world applications, we expect the generated faces not only to look realistic but also preserve identity information. As shown in Fig. \[fig:T-sne\], it visualizes the identity feature distributions of original and specified pose or desired expression generated data using randomly sampled 9 images via t-SNE. One color indicates one identity, and it is noticeable that the generated data are clustered around the original images with the same identities. It means our Comp-GAN can effectively preserve the identity information during the generative process.
**The number of synthesized images.** We choose to generate 10 synthesized images for each novel input category in the former experiments. To evaluate the relationship between the number of generated images and the recognition accuracy under the few-shot learning task, we also compare the results of generating 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 synthesized images, while all the other parameters are kept the same ( the number of training images $k$ per $C_{novel}$ category is set as $k=5$). Under the ER-FE setting, we list the corresponding expression recognition mean accuracy as: 39.24%, 44.19%, 44.22%, 45.67%, 47.45%, 49.78%, 53.98%, 55.17%, 56.31%, 56.92%, and 57.14%, respectively. It’s clear that changing this parameter may lead to a slight change in the final performance, but our results are still significantly better than the baseline.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we introduce $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED, a new facial expression database containing 54 different fine-grained expression types and more than 200k examples. This largely complements the lack of diversity in the existing expression datasets. Furthermore, we propose a novel end-to-end compositional generative adversarial network (Comp-GAN) framework to generate natural and realistic face images and we use the generated images to train a robust expression recognition model. Comp-GAN can dynamically change the facial expression and pose according to the input reference images, while preserving the expression-excluding details. To evaluate the framework, we perform several few-shot learning tasks on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED dataset, and the results show that our model can relieve the limitation of data. Subsequently, we fine-tune our model pre-trained on $\mathrm{F}^{2}$ED for the existing FER2013 and JAFFE database, and the results demonstrate the efficacy of our dataset in pre-training the facial expression recognition network.
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- ZEUS Collaboration
title: |
Measurement of high-$\bold{Q^{2}}$ neutral current\
deep inelastic $\bold{e^+ p}$ scattering cross sections\
with a longitudinally polarised positron beam at HERA\
---
[ The ZEUS Collaboration ]{}
[H. Abramowicz$^{45, ah}$, I. Abt$^{35}$, L. Adamczyk$^{13}$, M. Adamus$^{54}$, R. Aggarwal$^{7, c}$, S. Antonelli$^{4}$, P. Antonioli$^{3}$, A. Antonov$^{33}$, M. Arneodo$^{50}$, O. Arslan$^{5}$, V. Aushev$^{26, 27, z}$, Y. Aushev,$^{27, z, aa}$, O. Bachynska$^{15}$, A. Bamberger$^{19}$, A.N. Barakbaev$^{25}$, G. Barbagli$^{17}$, G. Bari$^{3}$, F. Barreiro$^{30}$, N. Bartosik$^{15}$, D. Bartsch$^{5}$, M. Basile$^{4}$, O. Behnke$^{15}$, J. Behr$^{15}$, U. Behrens$^{15}$, L. Bellagamba$^{3}$, A. Bertolin$^{39}$, S. Bhadra$^{57}$, M. Bindi$^{4}$, C. Blohm$^{15}$, V. Bokhonov$^{26, z}$, T. Bo[ł]{}d$^{13}$, K. Bondarenko$^{27}$, E.G. Boos$^{25}$, K. Borras$^{15}$, D. Boscherini$^{3}$, D. Bot$^{15}$, I. Brock$^{5}$, E. Brownson$^{56}$, R. Brugnera$^{40}$, N. Brümmer$^{37}$, A. Bruni$^{3}$, G. Bruni$^{3}$, B. Brzozowska$^{53}$, P.J. Bussey$^{20}$, B. Bylsma$^{37}$, A. Caldwell$^{35}$, M. Capua$^{8}$, R. Carlin$^{40}$, C.D. Catterall$^{57}$, S. Chekanov$^{1}$, J. Chwastowski$^{12, e}$, J. Ciborowski$^{53, al}$, R. Ciesielski$^{15, h}$, L. Cifarelli$^{4}$, F. Cindolo$^{3}$, A. Contin$^{4}$, A.M. Cooper-Sarkar$^{38}$, N. Coppola$^{15, i}$, M. Corradi$^{3}$, F. Corriveau$^{31}$, M. Costa$^{49}$, G. D’Agostini$^{43}$, F. Dal Corso$^{39}$, J. del Peso$^{30}$, R.K. Dementiev$^{34}$, S. De Pasquale$^{4, a}$, M. Derrick$^{1}$, R.C.E. Devenish$^{38}$, D. Dobur$^{19, t}$, B.A. Dolgoshein $^{33, \dagger}$, G. Dolinska$^{27}$, A.T. Doyle$^{20}$, V. Drugakov$^{16}$, L.S. Durkin$^{37}$, S. Dusini$^{39}$, Y. Eisenberg$^{55}$, P.F. Ermolov $^{34, \dagger}$, A. Eskreys $^{12, \dagger}$, S. Fang$^{15, j}$, S. Fazio$^{8}$, J. Ferrando$^{20}$, M.I. Ferrero$^{49}$, J. Figiel$^{12}$, B. Foster$^{38, ad}$, G. Gach$^{13}$, A. Galas$^{12}$, E. Gallo$^{17}$, A. Garfagnini$^{40}$, A. Geiser$^{15}$, I. Gialas$^{21, w}$, A. Gizhko$^{27, ab}$, L.K. Gladilin$^{34, ac}$, D. Gladkov$^{33}$, C. Glasman$^{30}$, O. Gogota$^{27}$, Yu.A. Golubkov$^{34}$, P. Göttlicher$^{15, k}$, I. Grabowska-Bo[ł]{}d$^{13}$, J. Grebenyuk$^{15}$, I. Gregor$^{15}$, G. Grigorescu$^{36}$, G. Grzelak$^{53}$, O. Gueta$^{45}$, M. Guzik$^{13}$, C. Gwenlan$^{38, ae}$, T. Haas$^{15}$, W. Hain$^{15}$, R. Hamatsu$^{48}$, J.C. Hart$^{44}$, H. Hartmann$^{5}$, G. Hartner$^{57}$, E. Hilger$^{5}$, D. Hochman$^{55}$, R. Hori$^{47}$, A. Hüttmann$^{15}$, Z.A. Ibrahim$^{10}$, Y. Iga$^{42}$, R. Ingbir$^{45}$, M. Ishitsuka$^{46}$, H.-P. Jakob$^{5}$, F. Januschek$^{15}$, T.W. Jones$^{52}$, M. Jüngst$^{5}$, I. Kadenko$^{27}$, B. Kahle$^{15}$, S. Kananov$^{45}$, T. Kanno$^{46}$, U. Karshon$^{55}$, F. Karstens$^{19, u}$, I.I. Katkov$^{15, l}$, M. Kaur$^{7}$, P. Kaur$^{7, c}$, A. Keramidas$^{36}$, L.A. Khein$^{34}$, J.Y. Kim$^{9}$, D. Kisielewska$^{13}$, S. Kitamura$^{48, aj}$, R. Klanner$^{22}$, U. Klein$^{15, m}$, E. Koffeman$^{36}$, N. Kondrashova$^{27, ab}$, O. Kononenko$^{27}$, P. Kooijman$^{36}$, Ie. Korol$^{27}$, I.A. Korzhavina$^{34, ac}$, A. Kotański$^{14, f}$, U. Kötz$^{15}$, H. Kowalski$^{15}$, O. Kuprash$^{15}$, M. Kuze$^{46}$, A. Lee$^{37}$, B.B. Levchenko$^{34}$, A. Levy$^{45}$, V. Libov$^{15}$, S. Limentani$^{40}$, T.Y. Ling$^{37}$, M. Lisovyi$^{15}$, E. Lobodzinska$^{15}$, W. Lohmann$^{16}$, B. Löhr$^{15}$, E. Lohrmann$^{22}$, K.R. Long$^{23}$, A. Longhin$^{39, af}$, D. Lontkovskyi$^{15}$, O.Yu. Lukina$^{34}$, J. Maeda$^{46, ai}$, S. Magill$^{1}$, I. Makarenko$^{15}$, J. Malka$^{15}$, R. Mankel$^{15}$, A. Margotti$^{3}$, G. Marini$^{43}$, J.F. Martin$^{51}$, A. Mastroberardino$^{8}$, M.C.K. Mattingly$^{2}$, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann$^{15}$, S. Mergelmeyer$^{5}$, S. Miglioranzi$^{15, n}$, F. Mohamad Idris$^{10}$, V. Monaco$^{49}$, A. Montanari$^{15}$, J.D. Morris$^{6, b}$, K. Mujkic$^{15, o}$, B. Musgrave$^{1}$, K. Nagano$^{24}$, T. Namsoo$^{15, p}$, R. Nania$^{3}$, A. Nigro$^{43}$, Y. Ning$^{11}$, T. Nobe$^{46}$, D. Notz$^{15}$, R.J. Nowak$^{53}$, A.E. Nuncio-Quiroz$^{5}$, B.Y. Oh$^{41}$, N. Okazaki$^{47}$, K. Olkiewicz$^{12}$, Yu. Onishchuk$^{27}$, K. Papageorgiu$^{21}$, A. Parenti$^{15}$, E. Paul$^{5}$, J.M. Pawlak$^{53}$, B. Pawlik$^{12}$, P. G. Pelfer$^{18}$, A. Pellegrino$^{36}$, W. Perlański$^{53, am}$, H. Perrey$^{15}$, K. Piotrzkowski$^{29}$, P. Pluciński$^{54, an}$, N.S. Pokrovskiy$^{25}$, A. Polini$^{3}$, A.S. Proskuryakov$^{34}$, M. Przybycień$^{13}$, A. Raval$^{15}$, D.D. Reeder$^{56}$, B. Reisert$^{35}$, Z. Ren$^{11}$, J. Repond$^{1}$, Y.D. Ri$^{48, ak}$, A. Robertson$^{38}$, P. Roloff$^{15, n}$, I. Rubinsky$^{15}$, M. Ruspa$^{50}$, R. Sacchi$^{49}$, U. Samson$^{5}$, G. Sartorelli$^{4}$, A.A. Savin$^{56}$, D.H. Saxon$^{20}$, M. Schioppa$^{8}$, S. Schlenstedt$^{16}$, P. Schleper$^{22}$, W.B. Schmidke$^{35}$, U. Schneekloth$^{15}$, V. Schönberg$^{5}$, T. Schörner-Sadenius$^{15}$, J. Schwartz$^{31}$, F. Sciulli$^{11}$, L.M. Shcheglova$^{34}$, R. Shehzadi$^{5}$, S. Shimizu$^{47, n}$, I. Singh$^{7, c}$, I.O. Skillicorn$^{20}$, W. S[ł]{}omiński$^{14, g}$, W.H. Smith$^{56}$, V. Sola$^{22}$, A. Solano$^{49}$, D. Son$^{28}$, V. Sosnovtsev$^{33}$, A. Spiridonov$^{15, q}$, H. Stadie$^{22}$, L. Stanco$^{39}$, N. Stefaniuk$^{27}$, A. Stern$^{45}$, T.P. Stewart$^{51}$, A. Stifutkin$^{33}$, P. Stopa$^{12}$, S. Suchkov$^{33}$, G. Susinno$^{8}$, L. Suszycki$^{13}$, J. Sztuk-Dambietz$^{22}$, D. Szuba$^{22}$, J. Szuba$^{15, r}$, A.D. Tapper$^{23}$, E. Tassi$^{8, d}$, J. Terrón$^{30}$, T. Theedt$^{15}$, H. Tiecke$^{36}$, K. Tokushuku$^{24, x}$, J. Tomaszewska$^{15, s}$, V. Trusov$^{27}$, T. Tsurugai$^{32}$, M. Turcato$^{22}$, O. Turkot$^{27, ab}$, T. Tymieniecka$^{54, ao}$, M. Vázquez$^{36, n}$, A. Verbytskyi$^{15}$, O. Viazlo$^{27}$, N.N. Vlasov$^{19, v}$, R. Walczak$^{38}$, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah$^{10}$, J.J. Whitmore$^{41, ag}$, K. Wichmann$^{15}$, L. Wiggers$^{36}$, M. Wing$^{52}$, M. Wlasenko$^{5}$, G. Wolf$^{15}$, H. Wolfe$^{56}$, K. Wrona$^{15}$, A.G. Yagües-Molina$^{15}$, S. Yamada$^{24}$, Y. Yamazaki$^{24, y}$, R. Yoshida$^{1}$, C. Youngman$^{15}$, O. Zabiegalov$^{27, ab}$, A.F. Żarnecki$^{53}$, L. Zawiejski$^{12}$, O. Zenaiev$^{15}$, W. Zeuner$^{15, n}$, B.O. Zhautykov$^{25}$, N. Zhmak$^{26, z}$, A. Zichichi$^{4}$, Z. Zolkapli$^{10}$, D.S. Zotkin$^{34}$ ]{}
[*Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439-4815, USA*]{} $^{A}$
\
[*Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104-0380, USA*]{}
\
[*INFN Bologna, Bologna, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*University and INFN Bologna, Bologna, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany*]{} $^{C}$
\
[*H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom*]{} $^{D}$
\
[*Panjab University, Department of Physics, Chandigarh, India*]{}
\
[*Calabria University, Physics Department and INFN, Cosenza, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University,\
Kwangju, South Korea*]{}
\
[*Jabatan Fizik, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*]{} $^{E}$
\
[*Nevis Laboratories, Columbia University, Irvington on Hudson, New York 10027, USA*]{} $^{F}$
\
[*The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of\
Sciences, Krakow, Poland*]{} $^{G}$
\
[*AGH-University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Krakow, Poland*]{} $^{H}$
\
[*Department of Physics, Jagellonian University, Cracow, Poland*]{}
\
[*Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Germany*]{}
\
[*Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Zeuthen, Germany*]{}
\
[*INFN Florence, Florence, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*University and INFN Florence, Florence, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Fakultät für Physik der Universität Freiburg i.Br., Freiburg i.Br., Germany*]{}
\
[*School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom*]{} $^{D}$
\
[*Department of Engineering in Management and Finance, Univ. of the Aegean, Chios, Greece*]{}
\
[*Hamburg University, Institute of Experimental Physics, Hamburg, Germany*]{} $^{I}$
\
[*Imperial College London, High Energy Nuclear Physics Group, London, United Kingdom*]{} $^{D}$
\
[*Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK, Tsukuba, Japan*]{} $^{J}$
\
[*Institute of Physics and Technology of Ministry of Education and Science of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kazakhstan*]{}
\
[*Institute for Nuclear Research, National Academy of Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine*]{}
\
[*Department of Nuclear Physics, National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine*]{}
\
[*Kyungpook National University, Center for High Energy Physics, Daegu, South Korea*]{} $^{K}$
\
[*Institut de Physique Nucléaire, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve,\
Belgium*]{} $^{L}$
\
[*Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain*]{} $^{M}$
\
[*Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8*]{} $^{N}$
\
[*Meiji Gakuin University, Faculty of General Education, Yokohama, Japan*]{} $^{J}$
\
[*Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia*]{} $^{O}$
\
[*Lomonosov Moscow State University, Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow, Russia*]{} $^{P}$
\
[*Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany*]{}
\
[*NIKHEF and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands*]{} $^{Q}$
\
[*Physics Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA*]{} $^{A}$
\
[*Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom*]{} $^{D}$
\
[*INFN Padova, Padova, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ Università and INFN, Padova, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Department of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,\
Pennsylvania 16802, USA*]{} $^{F}$
\
[*Polytechnic University, Tokyo, Japan*]{} $^{J}$
\
[*Dipartimento di Fisica, Università ’La Sapienza’ and INFN, Rome, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, United Kingdom*]{} $^{D}$
\
[*Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, School of Physics,\
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel*]{} $^{R}$
\
[*Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan*]{} $^{J}$
\
[*Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan*]{} $^{J}$
\
[*Tokyo Metropolitan University, Department of Physics, Tokyo, Japan*]{} $^{J}$
\
[*Università di Torino and INFN, Torino, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, and INFN, Torino, Italy*]{} $^{B}$
\
[*Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A7*]{} $^{N}$
\
[*Physics and Astronomy Department, University College London, London, United Kingdom*]{} $^{D}$
\
[*Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland*]{}
\
[*National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland*]{}
\
[*Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel*]{}
\
[*Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA*]{} $^{A}$
\
[*Department of Physics, York University, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3*]{} $^{N}$
\
supported by the US Department of Energy
\
supported by the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN)
\
supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), under contract No. 05 H09PDF
\
supported by the Science and Technology Facilities Council, UK
\
supported by an FRGS grant from the Malaysian government
\
supported by the US National Science Foundation. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
\
supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education as a scientific project No. DPN/N188/DESY/2009
\
supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and its grants for Scientific Research
\
supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), under contract No. 05h09GUF, and the SFB 676 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
\
supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and its grants for Scientific Research
\
supported by the Korean Ministry of Education and Korea Science and Engineering Foundation
\
supported by FNRS and its associated funds (IISN and FRIA) and by an Inter-University Attraction Poles Programme subsidised by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office
\
supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science through funds provided by CICYT
\
supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
\
partially supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF)
\
supported by RF Presidential grant N 4142.2010.2 for Leading Scientific Schools, by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science through its grant for Scientific Research on High Energy Physics and under contract No.02.740.11.0244
\
supported by the Netherlands Foundation for Research on Matter (FOM)
\
supported by the Israel Science Foundation
\
now at University of Salerno, Italy
\
now at Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
\
also funded by Max Planck Institute for Physics, Munich, Germany
\
also Senior Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow at Hamburg University, Institute of Experimental Physics, Hamburg, Germany
\
also at Cracow University of Technology, Faculty of Physics, Mathemathics and Applied Computer Science, Poland
\
supported by the research grant No. 1 P03B 04529 (2005-2008)
\
supported by the Polish National Science Centre, project No. DEC-2011/01/BST2/03643
\
now at Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA
\
now at DESY group FS-CFEL-1
\
now at Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
\
now at DESY group FEB, Hamburg, Germany
\
also at Moscow State University, Russia
\
now at University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
\
now at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
\
also affiliated with Universtiy College London, UK
\
now at Goldman Sachs, London, UK
\
also at Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
\
also at FPACS, AGH-UST, Cracow, Poland
\
partially supported by Warsaw University, Poland
\
now at Istituto Nucleare di Fisica Nazionale (INFN), Pisa, Italy
\
now at Haase Energie Technik AG, Neumünster, Germany
\
now at Department of Physics, University of Bonn, Germany
\
also affiliated with DESY, Germany
\
also at University of Tokyo, Japan
\
now at Kobe University, Japan
\
supported by DESY, Germany
\
deceased
\
member of National Technical University of Ukraine, Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, Kyiv, Ukraine
\
member of National University of Kyiv - Mohyla Academy, Kyiv, Ukraine
\
partly supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant 11-02-91345-DFG\_a
\
Alexander von Humboldt Professor; also at DESY and University of Oxford
\
STFC Advanced Fellow
\
now at LNF, Frascati, Italy
\
This material was based on work supported by the National Science Foundation, while working at the Foundation.
\
also at Max Planck Institute for Physics, Munich, Germany, External Scientific Member
\
now at Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan
\
now at Nihon Institute of Medical Science, Japan
\
now at Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
\
also at Łódź University, Poland
\
member of Łódź University, Poland
\
now at Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
\
also at Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw, Poland
\
Introduction {#sec-int}
============
The study of deep inelastic scattering (DIS) of leptons off nucleons has contributed significantly to tests of the Standard Model (SM) of the electroweak and strong interactions. The structure of nucleons has mainly been determined from DIS experiments. The $ep$ collider HERA has allowed an extension in the four-momentum-transfer squared, $Q^2$, and in Bjorken $x$ by several orders of magnitude with respect to previous fixed-target experiments [@rmp:71:1275]. The higher $Q^2$ reach of HERA has also allowed the exploration of the electroweak sector of the SM.
The ZEUS and H1 collaborations have both measured the $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ neutral current (NC) DIS cross sections up to $Q^2$ of $30\,000\,{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ using the data collected in the years 1992–2000, referred to as the HERAI data-taking period. A combination of the results has been published [@:2009wt].
The combined cross sections were used as the sole input to a next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD analysis to determine the set of parton distribution functions (PDFs) called HERAPDF1.0 [@:2009wt]. The HERAI data were sufficiently precise to demonstrate the effects of $Z$ exchange by comparing the $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ NC DIS cross sections at high $Q^2$ [@:2009wt].
HERA underwent a major upgrade before the 2003–2007 data-taking period, referred to as HERAII running. The upgrade significantly increased the instantaneous luminosity delivered by HERA and also provided longitudinally polarised electron[^1] beams for the collider experiments. The larger collected luminosity provided a higher reach in $Q^2$ and the longitudinal lepton-beam polarisation gave a unique opportunity to study the helicity structure of the electroweak interaction.
The ZEUS collaboration has already published the NC and CC inclusive cross sections for all HERAII running periods except for the NC $e^+p$ data collected in 2006–2007 [@Chekanov:2006da; @Chekanov:2008aa; @Chekanov:2009gm; @Collaboration:2010xc]. In this paper, we report NC $e^+p$ cross sections for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ for this period. The H1 collaboration has recently also published NC and CC cross sections for the HERAII running periods [@Aaron:2012qi].
Parity-violating effects induced by electroweak processes can be demonstrated via the difference between the cross sections involving negatively and positively polarised electron beams. For positrons, this is expressed through the asymmetry parameter $A^{+}$, which is proportional to the product of the electron axial ($a_e$) and quark vector ($v_q$) couplings to the $Z$ boson. In this paper, the cross sections and the polarisation asymmetry are presented and compared to SM predictions, providing a test of the electroweak sector and a key input to further QCD fits.
Predictions from the Standard Model {#sec-pred}
===================================
Inclusive deep inelastic lepton-proton scattering can be described in terms of the kinematic variables $x$, $y$, and $Q^2$. The variable $Q^2$ is defined as $Q^2 = -q^2 = -(k-k')^2$, where $k$ and $k'$ are the four-momenta of the incoming and scattered lepton, respectively. Bjorken $x$ is defined as $x=Q^2/2P \cdot q$, where $P$ is the four-momentum of the incoming proton. The fraction of the lepton energy transferred to the proton in the rest frame of the proton is given by $y = P \cdot q / P \cdot k$. The variables $x$, $y$ and $Q^2$ are related by $Q^2=sxy$, where $s$ is the square of the lepton-proton centre-of-mass energy. At HERA, $s=4E_e E_p$, where $E_{e}$ and $E_{p}$ are the initial electron and proton energies, respectively. The electroweak Born-level cross section for $e^ \pm p$ NC interactions can be written as [@devenish:2003:dis; @zfp:c24:151] $${\frac{d^{2}\sigma(e^{\pm}p)}{dx dQ^{2}}} =
\frac{2 \pi \alpha^{2} }{xQ^{4}}
[Y_{+} \tilde{F_{2}}(x,Q^{2})
\mp Y_{-} x\tilde{F_{3}}(x,Q^{2})
- y^{2}\tilde {F_{L}}(x,Q^{2})],
\label{eqn:unpol_xsec}$$ where $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, $Y_{\pm} = 1 \pm (1 - y)^{2}$ and $\tilde{F_{2}}(x,Q^{2})$, $\tilde{F_{3}}(x,Q^{2})$ and $\tilde{F_{L}}(x,Q^{2})$ are generalised structure functions. NLO QCD calculations predict [@devenish:2003:dis; @zfp:c24:151] and measurements confirm [@Chekanov:2009na; @Collaboration:2010ry] that the contribution of the longitudinal structure function, $\tilde {F_L}$, to $d^2\sigma /dx dQ^2$ is approximately $1\%$, averaged over the kinematic range considered here. However, in the high-$y$ region, the $\tilde {F_L}$ contribution to the cross section can be as large as $10\%$ and it is therefore included in the SM predictions compared to the measurements presented in this paper.
The generalised structure functions depend on the longitudinal polarisation of the lepton beam, which is defined as $$P_{e}=\frac{N_{R}-N_{L}}{N_{R}+N_{L}},
\label{eqn:pol}$$ where $N_{R}$ and $N_{L}$ are the numbers of right- and left-handed leptons in the beam[^2].
The $\tilde{F_{2}}$ term in Eq. (\[eqn:unpol\_xsec\]) is dominant at low $Q^{2}$, where only photon exchange is important, while the $\tilde{F_{3}}$ term starts to contribute significantly to the cross section only at $Q^{2}$ values of the order of the mass of the $Z$ boson squared, $M_Z^2$, and above. It results from $\gamma / Z$ interference and $Z$ exchange. The sign of the $\tilde{F_{3}}$ term in Eq. (\[eqn:unpol\_xsec\]) shows that electroweak effects decrease (increase) the $e^{+} p$ ($e^{-} p$) cross section.
The reduced cross sections for $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ scattering are defined as $$\tilde{\sigma}^{e^{\pm} p}
=
\frac {xQ^{4}} {2 \pi \alpha^{2} }
\frac {1} {Y_{+}}
{\frac{d^{2}\sigma(e^{\pm}p)}{dx dQ^{2}}}
=
\tilde{F_{2}}(x,Q^{2}) \mp \frac {Y_{-}} {Y_{+}} x \tilde{F_{3}}(x,Q^{2})- \frac {y^2} {Y_{+}} F_{L}(x,Q^{2}).
\label{eqn:red}$$ Thus $x\tilde{F_3}$ can be obtained from the difference of the $e^{-} p$ and $e^{+} p$ reduced cross sections as $$x\tilde{F_3}
= \frac {Y_{+}} {2Y_{-}}( \tilde{\sigma}^{e^{-} p} - \tilde{\sigma}^{e^{+} p} ).
\label{eqn:xf3}$$
The generalised structure functions can be split into terms depending on $\gamma$ exchange ($F_2^{\gamma}$), $Z$ exchange ($F_2^Z$, $xF_3^Z$) and $\gamma/Z$ interference ($F_2^{\gamma Z}$, $xF_3^{\gamma Z}$) as $$ \tilde{F_2}^\pm = F_2^{\gamma} - (v_e \pm P_e a_e) \chi_{Z} F_2^{\gamma Z} +
(v_e^2 + a_e^2 \pm 2 P_e v_e a_e) {\chi_{Z}^{2}} F_2^{Z} ,
\label{eqn:gen_f2}$$ $$ x\tilde{F_3}^\pm = - (a_e \pm P_e v_e) \chi_{Z} xF_3^{\gamma Z} + (2 v_e a_e
\pm P_e(v_e^2 + a_e^2)) {\chi_{Z}^{2}} xF_3^{Z}.
\label{eqn:gen_xf3}$$ The SM predictions for the respective vector and axial couplings of the electron to the $Z$ boson are $v_{e} = -1/2 + 2\sin^2\theta_W$ and $a_{e} = -1/2$, where $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle. The relative fraction of events coming from $Z$ with respect to $\gamma$ exchange is given by $$\chi_{Z}=\frac{1}{\sin^2{2\theta_W}} \frac{Q^{2}}{M_{Z}^{2}+Q^{2}} .
\label{eqn:chiz}$$ This fraction varies between 0.03 and 1.1 over the range of the analysis, $185~{{\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2 < Q^2 < 50\,000~{{\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$. For the unpolarised case ($P_{e} = 0$), ignoring terms containing $v_e$, which is small ($\approx -0.04$), the interference structure function, $xF_3^{\gamma Z}$, is the dominant term in $x\tilde{F_3}$, and $$x\tilde{F_3} \simeq - a_e \chi_{Z} xF_3^{\gamma Z}.
\label{eqn:gen_xf3gz}$$
The structure functions can be written in terms of the sum and differences of the quark and anti-quark momentum distributions. At leading order (LO) in QCD, $$[F_2^{\gamma},F_2^{\gamma Z},F_2^{Z}] =
\sum _q [e_{q}^{2}, 2e_{q}v_{q},v_{q}^{2}+a_{q}^{2}]
x (q + \bar{q}),
\label{eqn:struc1}$$ $$[xF_3^{\gamma Z},xF_3^{Z}] =
\sum _q [e_{q}a_{q},v_{q}a_{q}]
2x (q - \bar{q}),
\label{eqn:struc2}$$
where $v_{q}$ and $a_{q}$ are the respective vector and axial couplings of the quark $q$ to the $Z$ boson, and $e_{q}$ is the electric charge of the quark. The densities of the quarks and anti-quarks are given by $q$ and $\bar{q}$, respectively. The sum runs over all quark flavours except the top quark.
The sensitivity of $xF_3^{\gamma Z}$ to the $u$ and $d$ valence-quark momentum distributions is demonstrated in LO QCD through the expression $$xF_3^{\gamma Z}
= 2x [e_u a_u u_v + e_d a_d d_v] = \frac{x}{3}(2u_{v} + d_{v}),
\label{eqn:xf3gz_simple}$$ where the SM values $v_{u} = 1/2 -4/3\sin^2\theta_W$ and $a_{u} = 1/2$ have been used.
The charge-dependent polarisation asymmetry, $A^+$, for a pure right-handed ($P_{e} = +1$) and left-handed ($P_{e} = -1$) positron beam is defined as $$A^+ \equiv \frac{\sigma^{+}(P_{e} = +1) -\sigma^{+}(P_{e} = -1)}{\sigma^{+}(P_{e} = +1) +\sigma^{+}(P_{e} = -1)},
\label{eqn:asymDefn}$$ where $\sigma^{+}(P_{e}=+1)$ and $\sigma^{+}(P_{e}=-1)$ are the differential $e^+p$ cross sections evaluated at longitudinal polarisation values of $+1$ and $-1$, respectively. In general, $A^+$ can be calculated as
$$A^{+} = \frac{\sigma^+(P_{e,+}) - \sigma^+(P_{e,-})}
{P_{e,+}\sigma^+(P_{e,-}) - P_{e,-}\sigma^+(P_{e,+})} \ ,
\label{eqn:asymMeas}$$
where $\sigma^{+}(P_{e,+})$ and $\sigma^{+}(P_{e,-})$ are the differential $e^+p$ cross sections evaluated at any positive and negative polarisation values. For $P_{e,+}\approx -P_{e,-}$ this equation becomes $$A^+ =\frac{2}{P_{e,+}- P_{e,-}} \cdot \frac{\sigma^+(P_{e,+}) - \sigma^+(P_{e,-})} { \sigma^+(P_{e,+}) +\sigma^+(P_{e,-})}.
\label{eqn:asymapp}$$ Keeping only the leading terms, $A^+$ can be written as $$A^+ \simeq -\chi_{Z} a_e \frac{F_2^{\gamma Z}}{F_2^{\gamma}}
= -2 \chi_{Z}a_e v_q e_q/e_q^2 \propto a_e v_q.
\label{fgf}$$ As the asymmetry parameter is proportional to the ratio of the $F_2^{\gamma Z}$ and $F_2^{\gamma}$ structure functions, it is to first order insensitive to PDFs. Therefore a measurement of $A^+$ can give direct evidence of parity violation with minimal assumptions on the proton structure. As, in the SM, $A^+$ is expected to be a small quantity, less than 10% for $Q^2$ values below $2\,000\,{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, increasing slowly to 30% by $Q^2$ of $10\,000\,{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, precise measurements of the polarised cross sections are required.
Experimental set-up {#sec-ncdet}
===================
The analysis is based on a data sample collected in 2006–2007, when HERA collided positrons of energy $E_e = 27.5 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$ with protons of energy $E_p = 920{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$, corresponding to a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 318 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$. The total integrated luminosity of the sample is $135.5 \pm 2.5 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, of which $78.8 \pm 1.4 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$ were collected at a luminosity-weighted lepton-beam polarisation $P_e = 0.32 \pm 0.01$ and $56.7 \pm 1.1 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$ at $P_e = -0.36 \pm 0.01$.
[A detailed description of the ZEUS detector can be found elsewhere [@zeus:1993:bluebook]. A brief outline of the components that are most relevant for this analysis is given below.]{} Charged particles were tracked in the central tracking detector (CTD) which operated in a magnetic field of $1.43~{\rm T}$ provided by a thin superconducting solenoid. The CTD consisted of 72 cylindrical drift chamber layers, organised in nine superlayers covering the polar-angle[^3] region $15^\circ < \theta < 164^\circ$. The CTD was complemented by a silicon microvertex detector (MVD) , consisting of three active layers in the barrel and four disks in the forward region. For CTD-MVD tracks that pass through all nine CTD superlayers, the momentum resolution was $\sigma(p_T )/p_T = 0.0029 p_T \oplus 0.0081 \oplus 0.0012/p_T$, with $p_T$ in GeV.
[The high-resolution uranium–scintillator calorimeter (CAL) consisted of three parts: the forward (FCAL), the barrel (BCAL) and the rear (RCAL) calorimeters. Each part was subdivided transversely into towers and longitudinally into one electromagnetic section (EMC) and either one (in RCAL) or two (in BCAL and FCAL) hadronic sections (HAC). The smallest subdivision of the calorimeter is called a cell. The CAL energy resolutions, as measured under test-beam conditions, were $\sigma(E)/E=0.18/\sqrt{E}$ for electrons and $\sigma(E)/E=0.35/\sqrt{E}$ for hadrons, with $E$ in ${{\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$.]{}
[The luminosity was measured using the Bethe-Heitler reaction $ep\,\rightarrow\, e\gamma p$ by a luminosity detector which consisted of independent lead–scintillator calorimeter [@desy-92-066; @*zfp:c63:391; @*acpp:b32:2025] and magnetic spectrometer [@physics-0512153] systems. The fractional systematic uncertainty on the measured luminosity was [.]{}1.8 % for the period with $P_e = 0.32$ and 1.9 % for the period with $P_e = -0.36$]{}
The lepton beam in HERA became naturally transversely polarised through the Sokolov-Ternov effect [@sovpdo:8:1203]. The characteristic build-up time in HERA was approximately 40 minutes. Spin rotators on either side of the ZEUS detector changed the transverse polarisation of the beam into longitudinal polarisation and back to transverse. The electron beam polarisation was measured using two independent polarimeters, the transverse polarimeter (TPOL) [@Baier:1969hw; @nim:a329:79] and the longitudinal polarimeter (LPOL) [@nim:a479:334]. Both devices exploited the spin-dependent cross section for Compton scattering of circularly polarised photons off electrons to measure the beam polarisation. The luminosity and polarisation measurements were made over time scales that were much shorter than the polarisation build-up time.
Monte Carlo simulation {#sec-mc}
======================
Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to determine the efficiency of the event selection, the accuracy of the kinematic reconstruction, to estimate the background rate and to extrapolate the measured cross sections to the full kinematic region. The effective luminosities of the MC samples were at least five times larger than that of the data sample and were normalised to the total integrated luminosity of the data.
Neutral current DIS events were simulated, including radiative effects, using the [Heracles]{} [@cpc:69:155] program with the [Djangoh]{} 1.6 [@proc:hera:1991:1419; @*spi:www:djangoh11] interface to the hadronisation programs and using the CTEQ5D [@epj:c12:375] PDFs. The hadronic final state was simulated using the colour-dipole model of [Ariadne]{} 4.12 [@cpc:71:15]. To investigate systematic uncertainties, the [Meps]{} model of [Lepto]{} 6.5 [@pl:b366:371] was also used. The Lund string model of [Jetset]{} 7.4 [@cpc:39:347; @*cpc:43:367; @*cpc:82:74] was used for the hadronisation. Photoproduction ($\gamma p$) events were simulated using [Herwig]{} 5.9 [@cpc:67:465] to study this background.
The ZEUS detector response was simulated using a program based on [Geant]{} 3.21 [@tech:cern-dd-ee-84-1]. The generated events were passed through the detector simulation, subjected to the same trigger requirements as the data and processed by the same reconstruction programs.
The distribution of the Z position of the interactions was a crucial input to the MC simulation with which the event-selection efficiency was determined. In order to measure this distribution, a special NC DIS sample was selected, for which the event selection efficiency did not depend on the Z of the interaction[@stewart:phd:2012].
Event reconstruction {#sec-recon}
====================
Neutral current events at high $Q^2$ are characterised by the presence of an isolated high-energy electron in the final state. The transverse momentum of the scattered electron balances that of the hadronic final state. Therefore the net transverse momentum of the event, $P_T$, representing the vectorial sum of the transverse momenta of all particles, $\vec{p}_T$, should be small. The measured net $P_T$ and transverse energy, $E_T$, were calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
P_T^2 & = & P_X^2 + P_Y^2 = & \left( \sum\limits_{i} E_i \sin \theta_i \cos
\phi_i \right)^2+ \left( \sum\limits_{i} E_i \sin \theta_i \sin \phi_i
\right)^2,
\label{eq-PT2}\\
E_T & = & \sum\limits_{i} E_i \sin \theta_i, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the sum ran over all calorimeter energy deposits, $E_i$, and the polar ($\theta_i$) and azimuthal ($\phi_i$) angles were measured with respect to the interaction vertex. The variable $\delta$, defined as $$\delta \equiv \sum\limits_{i} (E-P_Z)_{i} = \sum\limits_{i} ( E_i - E_i \cos
\theta_{i} )\equiv E-P_Z,
\label{eq-Delta}$$ was also used in the event selection. Conservation of energy and longitudinal momentum implies that $\delta = 2E_e= 55 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$, if all final-state particles were detected and perfectly measured. Undetected particles that escape through the forward beam-hole had a negligible effect on $\delta$. However, particles lost through the rear beam-hole could lead to a substantial reduction in $\delta$. This was the case for $\gamma p$ events, where the electron emerged at a very small scattering angle, or for events in which an initial-state bremsstrahlung photon was emitted.
The CAL energy deposits were separated into those associated with the scattered electron and all other energy deposits. The sum of the latter was called the hadronic energy. The hadronic polar angle, $\gamma_h$, was defined as $$\cos\gamma_h = \frac{P_{T,h}^2 - \delta^2_h}{P_{T,h}^2 + \delta^2_h},
\label{eqn:gamma_h}$$ where the quantities $P_{T,h}$ and $\delta_h$ were derived from Eqs. (\[eq-PT2\]$-$\[eq-Delta\]) using only the hadronic energy. In the naïve quark-parton model, $\gamma_h$ is the angle by which the struck quark is scattered.
The double angle (DA) method [@proc:hera:1991:23; @*proc:hera:1991:43] used the polar angle of the scattered electron, $\theta_e$, and the hadronic angle, $\gamma_h$, to reconstruct the kinematic variables $x_{{\rm DA}}$, $y_{{\rm DA}}$, and $Q^2_{{\rm DA}}$. For the determination of $\theta_e$, tracking information was also used when available. The DA method was insensitive to uncertainties in the overall energy scale of the calorimeter. However, it was sensitive to initial-state QED radiation and an accurate simulation of the detector response was necessary. The variable $y$ was reconstructed using the electron method ($y_e$). The Jacquet-Blondel method ($y_{{\rm JB}}$) [@proc:epfacility:1979:391] was used in the event selection in kinematic regions where it provided better resolution.
Event selection {#sec-sel}
===============
Trigger requirements {#sec-Trigger}
--------------------
Events were selected using a three-level trigger system [@zeus:1993:bluebook; @uproc:chep:1992:222; @nim:a580:1257]. At the first level, only coarse calorimeter and tracking information was available. Events were selected if they had an energy deposit in the CAL consistent with an isolated electron. In addition, events with high $E_{T}$ or high energy in the electromagnetic part of the calorimeter in coincidence with a CTD track were selected. At the second level, a requirement on $\delta$ was used to select NC DIS events. Timing information from the calorimeter was used to reject events inconsistent with the bunch-crossing time. At the third level, events were fully reconstructed. The requirements were similar to, but looser than the offline cuts described below.
Offline requirements {#sec-ncsel}
--------------------
The following criteria were imposed to select NC events.
- [Electron identification:]{}\
an algorithm which combined information from the energy deposits in the calorimeter with tracks measured in the central tracking detectors was used to identify the scattered electron [@epj:c11:427]. To ensure a high purity and to reject background, the identified electron was required to have an energy, $E_e^\prime$, of at least $10 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$ and to be isolated such that the energy not associated with the electron in an $\eta-\phi$ cone of radius 0.8 centred on the electron was less than $5 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$.\
A track matched to the energy deposit in the calorimeter was required for events in which an electron was found within the region of good acceptance of the tracking detectors, which was $0.3<\theta<2.5$ [@januschek:phd:2011]. This was done by restricting the distance of closest approach (DCA) between the track extrapolated to the calorimeter surface and the energy cluster position to within 10 cm and by requiring an electron track momentum ($p_{e}^{\rm trk}$) larger than $3 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$.
A matched track was not required if the electron emerged outside the acceptance of the tracking detectors.
- [Background rejection:]{}\
the requirement $38 < \delta < 65 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$ was imposed to remove $\gamma p$ and beam-gas events and to reduce the number of events with significant QED initial-state radiation. To further reduce background from $\gamma p$ events, $y_{e}$ was required to be less than $0.9$. The measured $P_T$ was expected to be small for NC events. Therefore, in order to remove cosmic rays and beam-related background events, the quantity $P_{T}/\sqrt{E_{T}}$ was required to be less than $4\sqrt{{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}}$, and the quantity $P_{T}/E_{T}$ was required to be less than 0.7.
- [Additional requirements:]{}\
the projection of $\gamma_h$ onto the face of FCAL was required to be outside a radius of $18~{\mathrm{cm}}$ centred on the beam-pipe axis, to reject events where most of the hadronic final state was lost in the forward beam-pipe. The $Z$ coordinate of the $ep$ interaction vertex, reconstructed using tracks in the CTD and the MVD, was required to satisfy $| Z_{\rm vtx} | < 30$ cm.
In order to avoid the kinematic region in which the MC simulation is not appropriate due to missing higher-order QED corrections [@proc:hera:1991:1419; @*spi:www:djangoh11], the requirement $y_{\rm JB}(1-x_{\rm DA})^2>0.004$ was applied.
The final event sample was selected by requiring $Q^{2}_{\rm DA}>185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$.
A total of 302,073 candidate events passed the selection criteria. The background contamination estimated from the $\gamma p$ MC was about 0.2% overall.
Figure \[fig-cont\] shows a comparison between data and MC distributions for the variables $Q^{2}_{\rm DA}$, $x_{\rm DA}$, $y_{\rm DA}$, $E -P_Z$ of the event, $\theta_e$ and $E_e^\prime$ of the scattered electron and $\gamma_h$ and $P_{T,h}$ of the final hadronic system. The description of the data by the MC is good.
Cross-section determination {#sec-xsecdet}
===========================
The kinematic region of the measurement was defined as $Q^2 > 185{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, $y < 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2 > 0.004$. The single-differential cross-sections $d\sigma/dQ^2$, $d\sigma/dx$ and $d\sigma/dy$ and the reduced cross-section $\tilde{\sigma}^{e^+p}$ were measured. In addition, the single-differential cross-sections $d\sigma/dx$ and $d\sigma/dy$ were measured for the restricted range $Q^2 > 3\,000{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, $y< 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2 > 0.004$. The cross section in a particular bin ($d^2\sigma/dx dQ^2$ is used as an example) was determined according to $$\frac{d^2 \sigma}{dx dQ^2} = \frac{N_{\rm data}-N_{\rm bg}}{N_{\rm MC}}
\cdot \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm SM}_{\rm Born}}{dx dQ^2} \ ,
\label{eq-xsect}$$ where $N_{\rm data}$ is the number of data events in the bin, $N_{\rm bg}$ is the number of background events predicted from the photoproduction MC and $N_{\rm MC}$ is the number of signal MC events normalised to the luminosity of the data. The SM prediction for the Born-level cross section, $d^2 \sigma^{\rm SM}_{\rm Born}/dx dQ^2$, was evaluated using the CTEQ5D PDFs [@epj:c12:375] as used for the MC simulation and using the PDG [@epj:c15:1] values for the fine-structure constant, the mass of the $Z$ boson and the weak mixing angle. This procedure implicitly takes into account the acceptance, bin-centering, and radiative corrections from the MC simulation. The bin sizes used for the determination of the single-differential and reduced cross sections were chosen to be commensurate with the detector resolutions. The statistical uncertainties on the cross sections were calculated from the number of events observed in the bins, taking into account the statistical uncertainty of the MC simulation (signal and background). Poisson statistics were used for all bins.
Systematic uncertainties {#sec-sys}
========================
Systematic uncertainties were estimated [@stewart:phd:2012; @januschek:phd:2011] by re-calculating the cross sections after modifying the analysis, in turn, for the uncertainties detailed below.
- $\delta_1$: the variation of the electron energy scale in the MC by its estimated uncertainty of $\pm 1 \%$ resulted in changes of less than $0.5\%$ in the cross sections over most of the kinematic region, due to the use of the DA reconstruction method. The effect was at most $3\%$ in the high-$y$ region of $d\sigma/dy$;
- $\delta_2$: the uncertainties due to “overlay” events, in which a DIS event overlapped with additional energy deposits from some other interaction in the RCAL, were estimated by narrowing or widening the $38 < \delta < 65{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$ interval symmetrically by $\pm 2{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$.[^4] The effect on the cross sections was typically below 1%. In a few high-$Q^2$ bins, the uncertainty was as large as 5%, reaching 11% in one reduced-cross-section bin;
- $\delta_3$: systematic uncertainties arising from the normalisation of the photoproduction background were determined by changing the background normalisation by its estimated uncertainty of $\pm 50\%$[@wlasenko:phd:2009]. The resulting changes in the cross sections were typically below $0.5\%$, reaching about $2\%$ in the medium-$Q^2$ reduced-cross-section bins;
- $\delta_4$: to estimate the systematic uncertainty associated with the electron finder, an alternative electron-finding algorithm [@nim:a365:508] was used and the results were compared to those obtained using the nominal algorithm. The systematic uncertainty from the electron-finding procedure was below 1% for most of the phase space;
- $\delta_5$: the upper limit of the $\theta$ range for which a matched track for the electron candidate was required was varied by $\pm 0.1$ to account for uncertainties in the track-matching efficiency towards the edge of the CTD and BCAL. The uncertainty was mostly below $1.0 \%$, but about $2\%$ for the lower-$Q^2$ region;
- $\delta_6$: the systematic uncertainty due to the choice of the parton-shower scheme was evaluated by using the [Meps]{} model of [Lepto]{} to calculate the acceptance instead of [Ariadne]{}[^5]. The uncertainty was typically within $3\%$, but reached up to 8% in some bins of the reduced cross section and the highest bins of $d\sigma/dy$;
- $\delta_7$: the simulation of the first-level trigger was corrected in order to match the measured efficiency in the data. The systematic effect of the uncertainty of the correction on the cross section was typically less than $1\%$, but reached about $2\%$ for medium $Q^2$ and high $y$;
- $\delta_8$: to evaluate the systematic uncertainty related to the electron isolation criterion, the isolation requirement was changed by $\pm 2 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$ from its nominal value of $5 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$. The cross sections typically changed by much less than $0.5\%$;
- $\delta_{9}$: the DCA requirement was changed from $10$ to $8 {\,\text{cm}}$ to estimate the uncertainty in the background contamination due to falsely identified electrons. The uncertainties in the cross sections associated with this variation were below $1\%$ over most of the kinematic range;
- $\delta_{10}$: the energy resolution used in the MC for the scattered electron was varied by its estimated uncertainty $\pm 1\%$. The effect on the cross sections was mostly less than $0.5 \%$ and less than $1 \%$ over the full kinematic range;
- $\delta_{11}$: to account for differences of the $p_e^{\rm trk}$ distributions in data and MC, the $p_e^{\rm trk}$ requirement was varied by $\pm 1 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$, resulting in a variation of the cross section by less than $0.5\%$ over most of the kinematic range, and up to $6\%$ in a few reduced-cross-section bins;
- $\delta_{12}$: the cut of $18 {\,\text{cm}}$ on the projected radius of the hadronic angle onto the FCAL was varied by $\pm 2 {\,\text{cm}}$. The cross sections typically changed by much less than $0.5\%$. The effect rises up to a maximum of $7\%$ for the highest bins of both $d\sigma/dy$ and the reduced cross section;
- $\delta_{13}$: the variation of the hadronic energy scale by its estimated uncertainty of $\pm2\%$ in the MC resulted in changes of mostly below 0.5% and always less than 2% in the cross sections over the full kinematic range;
- $\delta_{14}$: the systematic uncertainty associated with cosmic-ray rejection was evaluated by varying the $P_T/\sqrt{E_T}$ cut by $\pm 1 \sqrt{{{\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}}$ and the $P_T/E_T$ cut by $\pm 0.1$ . The cross-section uncertainties were mostly below $0.5 \%$ reaching a maximum of $6\%$ in one reduced-cross-section bin for the variation of the $p_T/\sqrt{E_T}$ cut;
- $\delta_{15}$: The limit on the accepted $|Z_{\rm vtx}|$ was varied by $\pm 5 {\,\text{cm}}$, resulting in less than a $1\%$ change in the cross sections over most of the kinematic range, reaching a maximum of $6\%$ in the highest-$Q^2$ bins.
The 15 sources of systematic uncertainty were treated as uncorrelated to each other. Bin-to-bin correlations were found for $\delta$ 1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12 and 13. The positive and negative deviations from the nominal cross-section values were added in quadrature separately to obtain the total positive and negative systematic uncertainty.
The relative uncertainty in the measured polarisation was 4%. This has a negligible effect on the cross sections. The choice of which polarimeter to consider was made run-by-run to maximise the available luminosity and minimise the uncertainty in the measured polarisation.
The measured luminosity had a relative uncertainty of $1.8\%$ for the period with right-handed and $1.9\%$ for the period with left-handed polarisation. The uncertainties in the luminosity and polarisation measurements were not included in the total systematic uncertainty shown in the final results.
Results {#sec-res}
=======
Unpolarised cross sections
--------------------------
The single-differential cross sections as a function of $Q^{2}$, $x$ and $y$, extracted using the full data sample, are shown in Figs. \[fig-q2sing\]–\[fig-ysing\] and tabulated in Tables \[tab:dsdq2Total\]–\[tab:dsdyTotal\]. In all tables, the total systematic uncertainty as described in Section \[sec-sys\] is given. The numbers for the individual contributions are available electronically [@upub:zeusdat; @upub:durham].
Combining the data from the negatively and positively polarised beams resulted in a residual polarisation of 0.03 which was corrected for using theoretical predictions in NLO QCD with electroweak corrections.
The measurement of $d\sigma/dQ^{2}$, shown in [Fig. \[fig-q2sing\]]{}, falls over seven orders of magnitude in the measured range covering two orders of magnitude in $Q^{2}$. In this figure, the ratio of the measured cross sections and the SM predictions evaluated using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs [@Abramowicz:2011a; @Radescu:2010zz] and the PDFs from ZEUSJETS [@epj:c42:1], CTEQ6M [@jhep:07:012] and MSTW2008 [@Martin:2009iq] are shown. The SM predictions differ depending on the PDFs. Taking into account the luminosity uncertainty, which is not shown in the figures, the data are well described by the SM predictions. The cross-sections $d\sigma/dx$ and $d\sigma/dy$ are shown in [Fig. \[fig-xsing\]]{} and [Fig. \[fig-ysing\]]{} for the nominal range, $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, and for $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$. The figures demonstrate the precision of this measurement. The measured cross sections are well described by the SM prediction evaluated using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs.[^6]
The reduced cross sections of unpolarised $e^ + p$ NC DIS, tabulated in Table \[tab:ds2dxdq2Total\_1\], are shown in [Fig. \[fig-red\_unpol\]]{}. The residual polarisation was corrected for using theoretical predictions. The SM predictions are in good agreement with the measurements over the full kinematic range. Also shown are the unpolarised $e^ - p$ NC DIS cross sections, measured using an integrated luminosity of $169.9 {\,\text{pb}}^{-1}$ collected between 2005 and 2006 [@Chekanov:2009gm]. In Section \[sec-pred\], it was discussed that the $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ reduced cross sections only differ at high $Q^2$. As the contribution of $x\tilde{F_3}$ has to be extracted through a subtraction (see Eq. (\[eqn:xf3\])), a very precise measurement of these cross sections is needed. [Figure \[fig-xf3\]]{} shows the result on $x\tilde{F_3}$ obtained according to Eq. (\[eqn:xf3\]) from the unpolarised $e^+ p$ and $e^- p$ reduced cross sections in the high-$Q^2$ region. The systematic uncertainties were treated as uncorrelated between the $e^+p$ and the $e^-p$ measurements in the extraction of $x\tilde{F_3}$. The measurements are well described by the SM predictions. The results are also given in Table \[tab:xF3\].
The structure-function $xF_{3}^{\gamma Z}$ has little dependence on $Q^{2}$. Therefore a higher statistical significance could be obtained by averaging the measurements after an extrapolation to $1\,500 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^{2}$. The structure-function $xF_{3}^{\gamma Z}$ measured at $Q^2 = 1\,500 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^{2}$, tabulated in Table \[tab:xF3gz\], is shown in [Fig. \[fig-xf3\_gz\]]{}. It is well described by the SM predictions. The inclusive cross sections presented here provide valuable information to the global fits [@Nadolsky:2008zw; @Martin:2009iq] for parton distribution functions over a wide range of Bjorken $x$ values from $\sim 10^{-2}$ to $0.65$.
Polarised cross sections
------------------------
The effects of the longitudinal polarisation of the electrons becomes significant at the electroweak scale, where the contributions of both $\gamma$ and $Z$ exchange to the cross section are comparable. The reduced cross sections for positive and negative longitudinal polarisations, tabulated in Tables \[tab:ds2dxdq2Rh\_1\] to \[tab:ds2dxdq2Lh\_1\], are shown in [Fig. \[fig-red\_pol\]]{}. The data are also well described by the SM predictions using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs. At high $Q^2$, a difference between the positively and negatively polarised cross sections is predicted. To demonstrate this effect, the single-differential cross-section $d\sigma/dQ^{2}$ was measured separately for positive and negative beam polarisations. The results are shown in [Fig. \[fig-dsdq2\]]{}. Both measurements are well described by the SM predictions using different sets of PDFs taking the uncertainty due to the luminosity measurement into account. The single-differential cross sections as a function of $Q^{2}$, $x$ and $y$, extracted using the negatively and positively polarised data samples separately, are tabulated in Tables \[tab:dsdq2Rh\] to \[tab:dsdyLh\]. The ratio of the measured single-differential cross-section $d\sigma/dQ^{2}$ for the two different polarisation states is shown in [Fig. \[fig-asym\]]{} (a). The difference between the two polarisation states is clearly visible at higher $Q^{2}$. The asymmetry $A^{+}$ (see Eq. (\[eqn:asymMeas\])) extracted from these measurements is tabulated in Table \[tab:asym\] and is shown in [Fig. \[fig-asym\]]{} (b), where only statistical uncertainties are considered. The uncertainty in $A^{+}$ arising from the relative normalization between the data sets was evaluated to be $1\,\%$. The other systematic uncertainties are assumed to cancel. The SM also describes these results well. The deviation of $A^{+}$ from zero, particularly at high $Q^2$, shows the difference in the behaviour of the two polarisation states and is clear evidence of parity violation. The precision of the data makes the effect also clearly visible at relatively low $Q^2$, where it is intrinsically small.
The effect of $\gamma$/$Z$ interference is quantified by calculating the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of $A^{+}$ with respect both to zero and to the SM prediction using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs. The $\chi^2/\rm{d.o.f.}$ with respect to zero is determined to be 9.0, whereas the $\chi^2/\rm{d.o.f.}$ with respect to the SM prediction is 1.5. Thus parity violation in $e p$ NC DIS is demonstrated at scales down to $\approx 10^{-18}$ m.
The polarised cross sections presented here constrain the vector couplings of the quarks to the $Z$ (see Eq. (\[fgf\])) when included in the PDF fits. Therefore, this measurement is a stringent test of the electroweak sector of the Standard Model. The data can also be used to test physics beyond the Standard Model like setting limits on the production of leptoquarks [@Abramovic:2012].
Conclusions {#sec-conclusion}
===========
The cross sections for neutral current deep inelastic $e^+p$ scattering with a longitudinally polarised positron beam have been measured. The measurements are based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $135.5 {\,\text{pb}}^{-1}$ collected with the ZEUS detector at HERA from 2006 to 2007 at a centre-of-mass energy of $318 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}$. The accessible range in $Q^2$ extended to $Q^2 = 50\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, allowing for a stringent test of electroweak effects in the Standard Model.
The single-differential cross sections as a function of $Q^2$, $x$ and $y$ were presented for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, $y < 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2>0.004$, where the data obtained with negatively and positively polarised beams were combined. The cross-sections $d\sigma/dx$ and $d\sigma/dy$ were also measured for $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$, $y < 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2>0.004$. The reduced cross section was measured at zero polarisation by correcting for the residual polarisation of the combined data sample. These measurements were combined with previously measured $e^-p$ neutral current cross sections to extract $x\tilde{F_3}$. In addition, the interference structure function $xF_{3}^{\gamma Z}$ was extracted at an average value of $Q^{2} = 1\,500 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$.
The reduced cross section and the single-differential cross-sections $d\sigma/dQ^2$, $d\sigma/dx$ and $d\sigma/dy$ were also measured separately for positive and negative values of the longitudinal polarisation of the positron beam. Parity violation was observed through the polarisation asymmetry $A^+$. The measured cross sections confirm the predictions of the Standard Model and provide strong constraints at the electroweak scale.
Acknowledgements {#sec-ack .unnumbered}
================
[We appreciate the contributions to the construction and maintenance of the ZEUS de- tector of many people who are not listed as authors. The HERA machine group and the DESY computing staff are especially acknowledged for their success in providing excel- lent operation of the collider and the data-analysis environment. We thank the DESY directorate for their strong support and encouragement.]{}
----------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------
$185 - 210$ 195 ($1.91 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 55281 110.1
$210 - 240$ 220 ($1.43 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 47861 73.8
$240 - 270$ 255 ($1.01 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 34808 59.2
$270 - 300$ 285 ($7.79 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$) 25835 18.9
$300 - 340$ 320 ($5.79 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$) 24184 32.8
$340 - 380$ 360 ($4.35 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.07}_{-0.02}$) 17201 22.8
$380 - 430$ 400 ($3.33 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$) 15791 28.5
$430 - 480$ 450 ($2.56 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$) 11903 40.1
$480 - 540$ 510 ($1.89 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$) 10365 19.9
$540 - 600$ 570 ($1.39 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) 6943 36.2
$600 - 670$ 630 ($1.14 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$) 6366 20.1
$670 - 740$ 700 ($8.70 \pm 0.12 ^{+0.19}_{-0.29}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 5655 22.5
$740 - 820$ 780 ($6.65 \pm 0.09 ^{+0.09}_{-0.19}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 5750 16.9
$820 - 900$ 860 ($5.08 \pm 0.07 ^{+0.09}_{-0.17}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 4654 25.0
$900 - 990$ 940 ($4.16 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.06}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 4295 15.6
$990 - 1080$ 1030 ($3.20 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.09}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 3304 10.5
$1080 - 1200$ 1130 ($2.55 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 3522 18.1
$1200 - 1350$ 1270 ($1.96 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 3439 14.6
$1350 - 1500$ 1420 ($1.42 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 2501 16.4
$1500 - 1700$ 1590 ($1.08 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 2549 8.3
$1700 - 1900$ 1790 ($7.84 \pm 0.18 ^{+0.21}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 1849 8.5
$1900 - 2100$ 1990 ($5.88 \pm 0.16 ^{+0.21}_{-0.10}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 1393 9.1
$2100 - 2600$ 2300 ($4.02 \pm 0.08 ^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 2311 7.2
$2600 - 3200$ 2800 ($2.34 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 1565 3.3
$3200 - 3900$ 3500 ($1.31 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 1083 1.1
$3900 - 4700$ 4200 ($7.77 \pm 0.29 ^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 715 3.9
$4700 - 5600$ 5100 ($4.18 \pm 0.20 ^{+0.04}_{-0.12}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 447 0.0
$5600 - 6600$ 6050 ($2.66 \pm 0.15 ^{+0.03}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 320 0.0
$6600 - 7800$ 7100 ($1.47 \pm 0.10 ^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 208 0.0
$7800 - 9200$ 8400 ($9.20 \pm 0.74 ^{+0.31}_{-0.34}$) $\times$ $10^{-4}$ 152 0.0
$9200 - 12800$ 10800 ($3.40 \pm 0.28 ^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$) $\times$ $10^{-4}$ 145 0.0
$12800 - 18100$ 15200 ($9.21 \pm 1.21 ^{+0.31}_{-0.76}$) $\times$ $10^{-5}$ 57 0.0
$18100 - 25600$ 21500 ($3.81 ^{+0.76}_{-0.64}$ $^{+0.23}_{-0.23}$) $\times$ $10^{-5}$ 35 0.0
$25600 - 50000$ 36200 ($8.23 ^{+6.51}_{-3.94}$ $^{+0.71}_{-0.44}$) $\times$ $10^{-7}$ 4 0.0
----------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dQ^{2}$ ($y < 0.9$, $y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 135.5 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, corrected to $P_{e} = 0$). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. The first (second) error on the cross section corresponds to the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The number of observed data events ($N_{\text{data}}$) and simulated background events ($N^{\text{MC}}_{\text{bg}}$) are also shown.[]{data-label="tab:dsdq2Total"}
------ ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- -------
185 $(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-2}$ $0.794\times 10^{-2}$ ($8.71 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 34570 161.0
$(0.10 - 0.16)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.126\times 10^{-1}$ ($5.84 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.07}_{-0.17}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 39862 122.5
$(0.16 - 0.25)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.200\times 10^{-1}$ ($3.63 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 39233 82.9
$(0.25 - 0.40)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.316\times 10^{-1}$ ($2.10 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 38384 30.2
$(0.40 - 0.63)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.501\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.24 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 33557 5.5
$(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.794\times 10^{-1}$ ($6.90 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.08}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 31825 5.1
$0.10 - 0.16$ $0.126$ ($3.89 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 30244 1.4
$0.16 - 0.25$ $0.200$ ($2.04 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 18768 0.0
3000 $(0.40 - 0.63)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.501\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.71 \pm 0.08 ^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 440 1.1
$(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.794\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.60 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 714 3.9
$0.10 - 0.16$ $0.126$ ($1.18 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.01}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 859 0.0
$0.16 - 0.25$ $0.200$ ($6.72 \pm 0.25 ^{+0.06}_{-0.16}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 730 0.0
$0.25 - 0.40$ $0.316$ ($3.22 \pm 0.14 ^{+0.04}_{-0.08}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 567 0.0
$0.40 - 0.75$ $0.687$ ($1.20 \pm 0.08 ^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$) 240 0.0
------ ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- -------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dx$ ($y<0.9$, $y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 135.5 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}},$ corrected to $P_{e} = 0$). The $Q^2$ and bin range, bin centre ($x_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdxTotal"}
------ --------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- -------
185 $0.00 - 0.05$ 0.025 ($1.63 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 75314 0.0
$0.05 - 0.10$ 0.075 ($8.10 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 50532 7.4
$0.10 - 0.15$ 0.125 ($5.64 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 34944 11.6
$0.15 - 0.20$ 0.175 ($4.37 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.02}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 26237 24.7
$0.20 - 0.25$ 0.225 ($3.61 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 20974 19.8
$0.25 - 0.30$ 0.275 ($2.93 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 16254 17.7
$0.30 - 0.35$ 0.325 ($2.53 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 13919 44.6
$0.35 - 0.40$ 0.375 ($2.24 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 12202 43.8
$0.40 - 0.45$ 0.425 ($1.98 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 10402 62.6
$0.45 - 0.50$ 0.475 ($1.73 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.05}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 8761 50.6
$0.50 - 0.55$ 0.525 ($1.54 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 7661 54.4
$0.55 - 0.60$ 0.575 ($1.42 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 6794 64.1
$0.60 - 0.65$ 0.625 ($1.29 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 5723 63.0
$0.65 - 0.70$ 0.675 ($1.21 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 4671 25.1
$0.70 - 0.75$ 0.725 ($1.12 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 3542 48.3
$0.75 - 0.90$ 0.825 ($9.54 \pm 0.14 ^{+0.76}_{-0.46}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 4433 103.8
3000 $0.05 - 0.10$ 0.075 ($3.27 \pm 0.25 ^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 174 0.0
$0.10 - 0.15$ 0.125 ($5.56 \pm 0.31 ^{+0.05}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 326 0.0
$0.15 - 0.20$ 0.175 ($5.91 \pm 0.31 ^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 357 0.0
$0.20 - 0.25$ 0.225 ($5.62 \pm 0.30 ^{+0.05}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 345 0.0
$0.25 - 0.30$ 0.275 ($4.97 \pm 0.28 ^{+0.04}_{-0.18}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 312 0.0
$0.30 - 0.35$ 0.325 ($5.13 \pm 0.29 ^{+0.05}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 321 0.0
$0.35 - 0.40$ 0.375 ($3.72 \pm 0.24 ^{+0.04}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 233 0.0
$0.40 - 0.45$ 0.425 ($3.40 \pm 0.23 ^{+0.04}_{-0.12}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 214 0.0
$0.45 - 0.50$ 0.475 ($3.59 \pm 0.24 ^{+0.04}_{-0.08}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 224 0.0
$0.50 - 0.55$ 0.525 ($2.82 \pm 0.21 ^{+0.04}_{-0.08}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 173 0.0
$0.55 - 0.60$ 0.575 ($2.94 \pm 0.22 ^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 178 0.0
$0.60 - 0.65$ 0.625 ($2.41 \pm 0.20 ^{+0.14}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 152 3.9
$0.65 - 0.70$ 0.675 ($2.27 \pm 0.20 ^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 134 0.0
$0.70 - 0.75$ 0.725 ($2.35 \pm 0.20 ^{+0.05}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 134 0.0
$0.75 - 0.80$ 0.775 ($2.10 \pm 0.19 ^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 119 0.0
$0.80 - 0.85$ 0.825 ($1.89 \pm 0.19 ^{+0.26}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 103 1.1
$0.85 - 0.90$ 0.875 ($1.92 \pm 0.21 ^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 87 0.0
------ --------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- -------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dy$ for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ ($y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{-}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 135.5{\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, corrected to $P_{e} = 0$). The $Q^2$ and bin range, bin centre ($y_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdyTotal"}
------------- ----- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------- -------
$185 - 240$ 200 $0.004 - 0.006$ 0.005 ($1.110 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.029}_{-0.017}$) 13313 108.0
200 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.945 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.008}_{-0.022}$) 15647 38.8
200 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.801 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.002}_{-0.022}$) 16074 14.1
200 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.680 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.013}_{-0.004}$) 11107 5.1
200 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.566 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.015}_{-0.001}$) 9767 0.0
200 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.511 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.011}_{-0.002}$) 10375 1.1
200 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.433 \pm 0.004 ^{+0.016}_{-0.001}$) 13867 0.0
200 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.346 \pm 0.004 ^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$) 8823 0.0
$240 - 310$ 250 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.929 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.022}_{-0.011}$) 9190 34.9
250 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.821 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.006}_{-0.035}$) 10611 10.0
250 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.692 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.005}_{-0.008}$) 7770 6.4
250 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.585 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.012}_{-0.011}$) 7466 1.1
250 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.513 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.012}_{-0.008}$) 7740 0.0
250 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.435 \pm 0.004 ^{+0.010}_{-0.005}$) 10142 0.0
250 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.337 \pm 0.004 ^{+0.005}_{-0.008}$) 8042 0.0
$310 - 410$ 350 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.948 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.033}_{-0.008}$) 5579 27.3
350 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.809 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.009}_{-0.019}$) 7000 6.1
350 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.673 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.009}_{-0.010}$) 5167 0.9
350 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.575 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.017}_{-0.004}$) 4869 1.1
350 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.507 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.011}_{-0.005}$) 5306 1.1
350 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.418 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.016}_{-0.004}$) 6823 0.0
350 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.325 \pm 0.004 ^{+0.007}_{-0.005}$) 6340 0.0
$410 - 530$ 450 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($1.023 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.019}_{-0.020}$) 4548 44.9
450 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.816 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.010}_{-0.018}$) 3304 6.8
450 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.706 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.012}_{-0.034}$) 2711 2.2
450 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.582 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.007}_{-0.021}$) 2962 1.1
450 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.511 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.007}_{-0.005}$) 3618 0.0
450 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.425 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$) 3305 0.0
450 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.365 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.005}_{-0.002}$) 3094 0.0
450 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.257 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$) 2612 0.0
------------- ----- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------- -------
: The reduced cross-section $\tilde{\sigma}$ for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 135.5 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, corrected to $P_{e} = 0$). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$ and $x_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\]. This table has two continuations.[]{data-label="tab:ds2dxdq2Total_1"}
--------------- ------ ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
$530 - 710$ 650 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.865 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.024}_{-0.025}$) 4045 29.0
650 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.735 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.008}_{-0.018}$) 2564 0.0
650 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.609 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.009}_{-0.025}$) 2043 1.1
650 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.512 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.003}_{-0.010}$) 2028 0.0
650 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.434 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.002}_{-0.011}$) 1809 0.0
650 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.335 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.005}_{-0.003}$) 1598 0.0
650 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.238 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$) 1453 0.0
$710 - 900$ 800 $0.009 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.836 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.027}_{-0.027}$) 2600 41.2
800 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.741 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.009}_{-0.014}$) 1757 3.3
800 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.610 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.007}_{-0.021}$) 1747 7.9
800 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.514 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.006}_{-0.022}$) 1966 1.1
800 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.454 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.003}_{-0.017}$) 1768 0.0
800 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.344 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.007}_{-0.011}$) 1387 0.0
800 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.243 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.006}_{-0.002}$) 1110 0.0
$900 - 1300$ 1200 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.014 ($0.815 \pm 0.021 ^{+0.073}_{-0.037}$) 1631 36.5
1200 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.737 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.018}_{-0.012}$) 1819 12.2
1200 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.626 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.007}_{-0.020}$) 1863 0.0
1200 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.513 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.008}_{-0.021}$) 2209 0.0
1200 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.423 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.005}_{-0.013}$) 2037 1.1
1200 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.352 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.003}_{-0.011}$) 1845 0.0
1200 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.247 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.002}_{-0.009}$) 1459 0.0
1200 $0.300 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.129 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.001}_{-0.003}$) 624 0.0
$1300 - 1800$ 1500 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.724 \pm 0.024 ^{+0.086}_{-0.014}$) 924 17.5
1500 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.583 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.026}_{-0.008}$) 952 1.5
1500 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.532 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.005}_{-0.012}$) 1309 1.1
1500 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.446 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.004}_{-0.012}$) 1303 0.0
1500 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.373 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.003}_{-0.009}$) 902 0.3
1500 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.306 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.003}_{-0.006}$) 789 0.0
1500 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.242 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$) 528 0.0
1500 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.119 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.002}_{-0.004}$) 251 0.0
$1800 - 2500$ 2000 $0.023 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.594 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.067}_{-0.012}$) 701 12.2
2000 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.495 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.011}_{-0.006}$) 790 1.9
2000 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.474 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.004}_{-0.019}$) 940 1.1
2000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.352 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.005}_{-0.009}$) 607 1.1
2000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.273 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.003}_{-0.007}$) 499 0.0
2000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.247 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.004}_{-0.009}$) 387 0.0
2000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.119 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.003}_{-0.001}$) 180 0.0
--------------- ------ ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
[*Continuation 1.*]{} \[tab:ds2dxdq2Total\_2\]
----------------- ------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -----
$2500 - 3500$ 3000 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.500 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.012}_{-0.012}$) 502 2.2
3000 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.429 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.004}_{-0.010}$) 575 0.0
3000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.366 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.003}_{-0.014}$) 448 0.0
3000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.276 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$) 356 0.0
3000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.243 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.002}_{-0.008}$) 286 0.0
3000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.121 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$) 127 0.0
3000 $0.530 - 0.750$ 0.650 ($0.015 ^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$ $^{+0.001}_{-0.000}$) 21 0.0
$3500 - 5600$ 5000 $0.040 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.405 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.017}_{-0.007}$) 628 3.9
5000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.328 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.003}_{-0.013}$) 344 0.0
5000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.286 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.002}_{-0.007}$) 333 0.0
5000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.215 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.002}_{-0.005}$) 232 0.0
5000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.135 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$) 137 0.0
$5600 - 9000$ 8000 $0.070 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.312 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.010}_{-0.012}$) 277 0.0
8000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.239 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.002}_{-0.010}$) 161 0.0
8000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.213 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.004}_{-0.007}$) 136 0.0
8000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.104 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$) 66 0.0
8000 $0.530 - 0.750$ 0.650 ($0.017 ^{+0.006}_{-0.004}$ $^{+0.002}_{-0.001}$) 15 0.0
$9000 - 15000$ 12000 $0.090 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.192 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.004}_{-0.006}$) 95 0.0
12000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.152 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.002}_{-0.007}$) 56 0.0
12000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.115 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$) 44 0.0
$15000 - 25000$ 20000 $0.150 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.154 ^{+0.029}_{-0.025}$ $^{+0.012}_{-0.010}$) 38 0.0
20000 $0.350 - 0.750$ 0.400 ($0.064 ^{+0.021}_{-0.016}$ $^{+0.005}_{-0.012}$) 15 0.0
$25000 - 50000$ 30000 $0.250 - 0.750$ 0.400 ($0.040 ^{+0.024}_{-0.016}$ $^{+0.001}_{-0.004}$) 6 0.0
----------------- ------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -----
[*Continuation 2.*]{} \[tab:ds2dxdq2Total\_3\]
---------------- ------- ---------------- ------- ----------------------------------
$1300-1800 $ 1500 $0.017-0.025 $ 0.021 $0.24 \pm 0.20^{+0.52}_{-0.14}$
$ $ 1500 $0.025-0.037 $ 0.032 $0.39 \pm 0.23^{+0.24}_{-0.08}$
$ $ 1500 $0.037-0.06 $ 0.050 $-0.15 \pm 0.29^{+0.11}_{-0.18}$
$ $ 1500 $0.06-0.1 $ 0.080 $0.76 \pm 0.41^{+0.17}_{-0.33}$
$ $ 1500 $0.1-0.15 $ 0.130 $0.14 \pm 0.69^{+0.35}_{-0.46}$
$ $ 1500 $0.15-0.23 $ 0.180 $0.36 \pm 0.86^{+0.40}_{-0.46}$
$ $ 1500 $0.23-0.35 $ 0.250 $1.81 \pm 1.19^{+0.51}_{-0.49}$
$ $ 1500 $0.35-0.53 $ 0.400 $1.23 \pm 1.36^{+1.49}_{-0.96}$
$1800-2500 $ 2000 $0.023-0.037 $ 0.032 $0.29 \pm 0.21^{+0.46}_{-0.10}$
$ $ 2000 $0.037-0.06 $ 0.050 $0.82 \pm 0.26^{+0.13}_{-0.08}$
$ $ 2000 $0.06-0.1 $ 0.080 $-0.27 \pm 0.37^{+0.18}_{-0.38}$
$ $ 2000 $0.1-0.15 $ 0.130 $0.68 \pm 0.59^{+0.18}_{-0.30}$
$ $ 2000 $0.15-0.23 $ 0.180 $1.57 \pm 0.74^{+0.14}_{-0.40}$
$ $ 2000 $0.23-0.35 $ 0.250 $0.02 \pm 1.02^{+0.33}_{-0.62}$
$ $ 2000 $0.35-0.53 $ 0.400 $0.07 \pm 1.18^{+0.49}_{-0.50}$
$2500-3500 $ 3000 $0.037-0.06 $ 0.050 $0.57 \pm 0.21^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$
$ $ 3000 $0.06-0.1 $ 0.080 $0.90 \pm 0.29^{+0.09}_{-0.13}$
$ $ 3000 $0.1-0.15 $ 0.130 $0.24 \pm 0.45^{+0.10}_{-0.29}$
$ $ 3000 $0.15-0.23 $ 0.180 $1.23 \pm 0.57^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$
$ $ 3000 $0.23-0.35 $ 0.250 $1.71 \pm 0.80^{+0.84}_{-0.89}$
$ $ 3000 $0.35-0.53 $ 0.400 $0.90 \pm 0.96^{+0.40}_{-0.37}$
$ $ 3000 $0.53-0.75 $ 0.650 $0.24 \pm 0.41^{+0.26}_{-0.22}$
$3500-5600 $ 5000 $0.04-0.1 $ 0.080 $0.82 \pm 0.16^{+0.13}_{-0.05}$
$ $ 5000 $0.1-0.15 $ 0.130 $1.52 \pm 0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.15}$
$ $ 5000 $0.15-0.23 $ 0.180 $0.87 \pm 0.35^{+0.06}_{-0.12}$
$ $ 5000 $0.23-0.35 $ 0.250 $0.65 \pm 0.46^{+0.10}_{-0.14}$
$ $ 5000 $0.35-0.53 $ 0.400 $0.19 \pm 0.61^{+0.35}_{-0.36}$
$5600-9000 $ 8000 $0.07-0.15 $ 0.130 $1.70 \pm 0.21^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$
$ $ 8000 $0.15-0.23 $ 0.180 $1.87 \pm 0.28^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$
$ $ 8000 $0.23-0.35 $ 0.250 $1.33 \pm 0.37^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$
$ $ 8000 $0.35-0.53 $ 0.400 $0.24 \pm 0.42^{+0.20}_{-0.20}$
$ $ 8000 $0.53-0.75 $ 0.650 $0.06 \pm 0.22^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$
$9000-15000 $ 12000 $0.09-0.23 $ 0.180 $1.72 \pm 0.22^{+0.04}_{-0.12}$
$ $ 12000 $0.23-0.35 $ 0.250 $1.77 \pm 0.31^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$
$ $ 12000 $0.35-0.53 $ 0.400 $0.62 \pm 0.39^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$
$15000-25000 $ 20000 $0.15-0.35 $ 0.250 $1.68 \pm 0.27^{+0.17}_{-0.11}$
$ $ 20000 $0.35-0.75 $ 0.400 $1.01 \pm 0.27^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$
$25000-50000 $ 30000 $0.25-0.75 $ 0.400 $1.13 \pm 0.24^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$
---------------- ------- ---------------- ------- ----------------------------------
: The structure-function $x\tilde{F_3}$ extracted using the $e^{+}p$ data set ($\mathcal{L} = 135.5 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, corrected to $P_{e}=0$) and previously published NC $e^{-}p$ DIS results ($\mathcal{L} = 169.9 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, corrected to $P_{e} = 0$). The bin range and bin centre for $Q^2$ and $x$, and measured $x\tilde{F_3}$ are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:xF3"}
------ ------- ---------------------------------
1500 0.021 $2.85 \pm 1.21^{+1.57}_{-0.88}$
0.032 $1.74 \pm 1.05^{+1.32}_{-0.62}$
0.050 $3.35 \pm 0.84^{+0.46}_{-0.43}$
0.080 $3.23 \pm 0.52^{+0.37}_{-0.21}$
0.130 $4.91 \pm 0.50^{+0.17}_{-0.26}$
0.180 $4.47 \pm 0.41^{+0.11}_{-0.22}$
0.250 $3.86 \pm 0.41^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$
0.400 $2.16 \pm 0.35^{+0.12}_{-0.14}$
0.650 $0.32 \pm 0.73^{+0.28}_{-0.24}$
------ ------- ---------------------------------
: The interference structure-function $xF^{\gamma Z}_{3}$ evaluated at $Q^{2}=1\ 500 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^{2}$ for $x$ bins centred on $x_c$. The first (second) error on the measurement refers to the statistical (systematic) uncertainties.[]{data-label="tab:xF3gz"}
------------- ----- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
$185 - 240$ 200 $0.004 - 0.006$ 0.005 ($1.126 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.029}_{-0.018}$) 7884 61.0
200 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.944 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.008}_{-0.020}$) 9129 22.3
200 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.797 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.003}_{-0.022}$) 9345 8.1
200 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.682 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.013}_{-0.005}$) 6504 3.0
200 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.563 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.015}_{-0.001}$) 5678 0.0
200 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.512 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.011}_{-0.003}$) 6074 0.7
200 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.434 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.016}_{-0.001}$) 8126 0.0
200 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.346 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$) 5163 0.0
$240 - 310$ 250 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.939 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.020}_{-0.010}$) 5432 20.1
250 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.822 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.007}_{-0.035}$) 6209 6.3
250 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.711 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.003}_{-0.011}$) 4663 2.6
250 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.606 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.012}_{-0.012}$) 4518 0.7
250 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.514 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.013}_{-0.008}$) 4529 0.0
250 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.437 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.010}_{-0.005}$) 5960 0.0
250 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.340 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.006}_{-0.009}$) 4741 0.0
$310 - 410$ 350 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.963 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.030}_{-0.007}$) 3313 15.5
350 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.817 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.011}_{-0.019}$) 4131 3.3
350 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.689 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$) 3088 0.7
350 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.576 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.019}_{-0.003}$) 2847 0.7
350 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.520 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.011}_{-0.007}$) 3181 0.7
350 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.426 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.016}_{-0.005}$) 4063 0.0
350 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.336 \pm 0.005 ^{+0.008}_{-0.005}$) 3834 0.0
$410 - 530$ 450 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($1.044 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.020}_{-0.018}$) 2718 26.0
450 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.828 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.013}_{-0.018}$) 1957 3.8
450 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.715 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.014}_{-0.034}$) 1607 1.3
450 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.598 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.008}_{-0.022}$) 1779 0.6
450 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.504 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.005}_{-0.006}$) 2087 0.0
450 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.434 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.009}_{-0.008}$) 1968 0.0
450 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.382 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.005}_{-0.002}$) 1891 0.0
450 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.264 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$) 1571 0.0
------------- ----- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
: The reduced cross-section $\tilde{\sigma}$ for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 78.8 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}, P_{e} = +0.32$). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$ and $x_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\]. This table has two continuations.[]{data-label="tab:ds2dxdq2Rh_1"}
--------------- ------ ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
$530 - 710$ 650 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.899 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.019}_{-0.025}$) 2458 17.2
650 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.763 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.007}_{-0.018}$) 1551 0.0
650 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.627 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.009}_{-0.025}$) 1222 0.7
650 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.520 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.003}_{-0.010}$) 1199 0.0
650 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.440 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.004}_{-0.011}$) 1071 0.0
650 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.320 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.006}_{-0.003}$) 892 0.0
650 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.244 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$) 869 0.0
$710 - 900$ 800 $0.009 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.873 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.022}_{-0.027}$) 1590 25.2
800 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.748 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.008}_{-0.012}$) 1039 1.9
800 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.605 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.006}_{-0.020}$) 1014 4.6
800 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.534 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.004}_{-0.023}$) 1192 0.7
800 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.455 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.003}_{-0.017}$) 1031 0.0
800 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.363 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.008}_{-0.012}$) 850 0.0
800 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.243 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.006}_{-0.003}$) 646 0.0
$900 - 1300$ 1200 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.014 ($0.853 \pm 0.028 ^{+0.065}_{-0.038}$) 994 21.5
1200 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.758 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.017}_{-0.010}$) 1090 7.1
1200 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.641 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.006}_{-0.020}$) 1114 0.0
1200 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.531 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.009}_{-0.022}$) 1334 0.0
1200 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.437 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.005}_{-0.013}$) 1227 0.7
1200 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.365 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.004}_{-0.012}$) 1115 0.0
1200 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.259 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.002}_{-0.010}$) 893 0.0
1200 $0.300 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.133 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$) 375 0.0
$1300 - 1800$ 1500 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.747 \pm 0.032 ^{+0.088}_{-0.013}$) 556 10.5
1500 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.585 \pm 0.025 ^{+0.040}_{-0.007}$) 558 0.6
1500 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.562 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.005}_{-0.013}$) 806 0.6
1500 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.458 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.006}_{-0.012}$) 780 0.0
1500 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.387 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.003}_{-0.010}$) 547 0.0
1500 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.329 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.003}_{-0.007}$) 496 0.0
1500 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.249 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$) 318 0.0
1500 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.115 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.002}_{-0.004}$) 142 0.0
$1800 - 2500$ 2000 $0.023 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.584 \pm 0.030 ^{+0.082}_{-0.011}$) 402 7.1
2000 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.522 \pm 0.024 ^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$) 486 1.3
2000 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.503 \pm 0.021 ^{+0.004}_{-0.020}$) 582 0.7
2000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.355 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.003}_{-0.009}$) 358 0.7
2000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.275 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.001}_{-0.008}$) 294 0.0
2000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.254 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.004}_{-0.010}$) 233 0.0
2000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.120 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.007}_{-0.001}$) 106 0.0
--------------- ------ ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
[*Continuation 1.*]{} \[tab:ds2dxdq2Rh\_2\]
----------------- ------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -----
$2500 - 3500$ 3000 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.497 \pm 0.029 ^{+0.013}_{-0.012}$) 290 1.3
3000 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.434 \pm 0.024 ^{+0.009}_{-0.009}$) 338 0.0
3000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.380 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.003}_{-0.015}$) 271 0.0
3000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.300 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$) 225 0.0
3000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.264 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.002}_{-0.008}$) 181 0.0
3000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.114 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$) 70 0.0
3000 $0.530 - 0.750$ 0.650 ($0.016 ^{+0.006}_{-0.004}$ $^{+0.002}_{-0.000}$) 13 0.0
$3500 - 5600$ 5000 $0.040 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.450 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.017}_{-0.006}$) 401 2.3
5000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.370 \pm 0.025 ^{+0.007}_{-0.015}$) 224 0.0
5000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.326 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.002}_{-0.008}$) 220 0.0
5000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.235 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.002}_{-0.007}$) 147 0.0
5000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.149 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$) 88 0.0
$5600 - 9000$ 8000 $0.070 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.339 \pm 0.026 ^{+0.010}_{-0.018}$) 173 0.0
8000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.229 \pm 0.024 ^{+0.003}_{-0.009}$) 89 0.0
8000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.241 \pm 0.026 ^{+0.004}_{-0.009}$) 89 0.0
8000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.111 ^{+0.020}_{-0.017}$ $^{+0.006}_{-0.003}$) 41 0.0
8000 $0.530 - 0.750$ 0.650 ($0.020 ^{+0.008}_{-0.006}$ $^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$) 10 0.0
$9000 - 15000$ 12000 $0.090 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.218 \pm 0.028 ^{+0.007}_{-0.013}$) 62 0.0
12000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.188 ^{+0.035}_{-0.030}$ $^{+0.004}_{-0.013}$) 40 0.0
12000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.148 ^{+0.030}_{-0.026}$ $^{+0.003}_{-0.008}$) 33 0.0
$15000 - 25000$ 20000 $0.150 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.135 ^{+0.039}_{-0.031}$ $^{+0.020}_{-0.008}$) 19 0.0
20000 $0.350 - 0.750$ 0.400 ($0.059 ^{+0.029}_{-0.020}$ $^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$) 8 0.0
$25000 - 50000$ 30000 $0.250 - 0.750$ 0.400 ($0.023 ^{+0.031}_{-0.015}$ $^{+0.001}_{-0.022}$) 2 0.0
----------------- ------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -----
[*Continuation 2.*]{} \[tab:ds2dxdq2Rh\_3\]
------------- ----- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
$185 - 240$ 200 $0.004 - 0.006$ 0.005 ($1.089 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.029}_{-0.015}$) 5429 47.1
200 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.947 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.010}_{-0.026}$) 6518 16.5
200 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.807 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.003}_{-0.022}$) 6729 6.0
200 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.679 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.013}_{-0.005}$) 4603 2.1
200 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.571 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.016}_{-0.003}$) 4089 0.0
200 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.510 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.011}_{-0.002}$) 4301 0.5
200 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.431 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.015}_{-0.001}$) 5741 0.0
200 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.346 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.006}_{-0.009}$) 3660 0.0
$240 - 310$ 250 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.916 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.026}_{-0.012}$) 3758 14.8
250 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.821 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.005}_{-0.034}$) 4402 3.7
250 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.667 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.009}_{-0.004}$) 3107 3.7
250 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.557 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.011}_{-0.009}$) 2948 0.5
250 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.513 \pm 0.009 ^{+0.012}_{-0.009}$) 3211 0.0
250 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.432 \pm 0.007 ^{+0.010}_{-0.004}$) 4182 0.0
250 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.334 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.004}_{-0.007}$) 3301 0.0
$310 - 410$ 350 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.929 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.038}_{-0.009}$) 2266 11.8
350 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.800 \pm 0.015 ^{+0.009}_{-0.018}$) 2869 2.8
350 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.652 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.009}_{-0.010}$) 2079 0.2
350 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.576 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.016}_{-0.006}$) 2022 0.4
350 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.489 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.011}_{-0.004}$) 2125 0.5
350 $0.060 - 0.120$ 0.080 ($0.407 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.016}_{-0.003}$) 2760 0.0
350 $0.120 - 0.250$ 0.180 ($0.310 \pm 0.006 ^{+0.006}_{-0.003}$) 2506 0.0
$410 - 530$ 450 $0.006 - 0.010$ 0.008 ($0.997 \pm 0.024 ^{+0.021}_{-0.023}$) 1830 18.9
450 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.802 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.010}_{-0.020}$) 1347 2.9
450 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.696 \pm 0.021 ^{+0.010}_{-0.034}$) 1104 0.9
450 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.563 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.007}_{-0.020}$) 1183 0.5
450 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.523 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.010}_{-0.003}$) 1531 0.0
450 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.415 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$) 1337 0.0
450 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.342 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.007}_{-0.002}$) 1203 0.0
450 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.248 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.009}_{-0.007}$) 1041 0.0
------------- ----- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
: The reduced cross-section $\tilde{\sigma}$ for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 56.7 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}, P_{e} = -0.36$). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$ and $x_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\]. This table has two continuations.[]{data-label="tab:ds2dxdq2Lh_1"}
--------------- ------ ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
$530 - 710$ 650 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.822 \pm 0.021 ^{+0.033}_{-0.026}$) 1587 11.8
650 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.699 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.010}_{-0.019}$) 1013 0.0
650 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.587 \pm 0.020 ^{+0.010}_{-0.024}$) 821 0.5
650 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.503 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.004}_{-0.011}$) 829 0.0
650 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.426 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.002}_{-0.012}$) 738 0.0
650 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.358 \pm 0.013 ^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$) 706 0.0
650 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.232 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$) 584 0.0
$710 - 900$ 800 $0.009 - 0.017$ 0.013 ($0.788 \pm 0.025 ^{+0.034}_{-0.028}$) 1010 16.0
800 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.734 \pm 0.027 ^{+0.012}_{-0.017}$) 718 1.4
800 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.620 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.012}_{-0.022}$) 733 3.3
800 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.489 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.010}_{-0.022}$) 774 0.4
800 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.456 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.005}_{-0.017}$) 737 0.0
800 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.320 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.005}_{-0.010}$) 537 0.0
800 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.244 \pm 0.011 ^{+0.007}_{-0.003}$) 464 0.0
$900 - 1300$ 1200 $0.010 - 0.017$ 0.014 ($0.769 \pm 0.031 ^{+0.085}_{-0.037}$) 637 14.9
1200 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.715 \pm 0.027 ^{+0.019}_{-0.015}$) 729 5.1
1200 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.608 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.011}_{-0.020}$) 749 0.0
1200 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.490 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.007}_{-0.021}$) 875 0.0
1200 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.406 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.006}_{-0.013}$) 810 0.5
1200 $0.100 - 0.170$ 0.130 ($0.336 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.003}_{-0.011}$) 730 0.0
1200 $0.170 - 0.300$ 0.250 ($0.232 \pm 0.010 ^{+0.002}_{-0.008}$) 566 0.0
1200 $0.300 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.125 \pm 0.008 ^{+0.002}_{-0.004}$) 249 0.0
$1300 - 1800$ 1500 $0.017 - 0.025$ 0.021 ($0.699 \pm 0.037 ^{+0.083}_{-0.020}$) 368 7.1
1500 $0.025 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.585 \pm 0.030 ^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$) 394 0.9
1500 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.496 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.007}_{-0.011}$) 503 0.5
1500 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.434 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.005}_{-0.012}$) 523 0.0
1500 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.356 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.005}_{-0.009}$) 355 0.3
1500 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.276 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$) 293 0.0
1500 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.234 \pm 0.016 ^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$) 210 0.0
1500 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.126 \pm 0.012 ^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$) 109 0.0
$1800 - 2500$ 2000 $0.023 - 0.037$ 0.032 ($0.615 \pm 0.036 ^{+0.048}_{-0.015}$) 299 5.1
2000 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.463 \pm 0.027 ^{+0.029}_{-0.007}$) 304 0.6
2000 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.439 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.006}_{-0.018}$) 358 0.4
2000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.351 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.011}_{-0.009}$) 249 0.4
2000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.273 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$) 205 0.0
2000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.239 \pm 0.019 ^{+0.005}_{-0.009}$) 154 0.0
2000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.120 \pm 0.014 ^{+0.002}_{-0.004}$) 74 0.0
--------------- ------ ----------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------
[*Continuation 1.*]{} \[tab:ds2dxdq2Lh\_2\]
----------------- ------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -----
$2500 - 3500$ 3000 $0.037 - 0.060$ 0.050 ($0.511 \pm 0.035 ^{+0.012}_{-0.013}$) 212 0.9
3000 $0.060 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.429 \pm 0.028 ^{+0.006}_{-0.015}$) 237 0.0
3000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.350 \pm 0.026 ^{+0.005}_{-0.015}$) 177 0.0
3000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.247 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.005}_{-0.008}$) 131 0.0
3000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.217 \pm 0.021 ^{+0.003}_{-0.012}$) 105 0.0
3000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.133 \pm 0.018 ^{+0.006}_{-0.004}$) 57 0.0
3000 $0.530 - 0.750$ 0.650 ($0.014 ^{+0.007}_{-0.005}$ $^{+0.001}_{-0.000}$) 8 0.0
$3500 - 5600$ 5000 $0.040 - 0.100$ 0.080 ($0.351 \pm 0.023 ^{+0.016}_{-0.010}$) 227 1.7
5000 $0.100 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.276 \pm 0.025 ^{+0.005}_{-0.014}$) 120 0.0
5000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.235 \pm 0.022 ^{+0.003}_{-0.007}$) 113 0.0
5000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.191 \pm 0.021 ^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$) 85 0.0
5000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.118 \pm 0.017 ^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$) 49 0.0
$5600 - 9000$ 8000 $0.070 - 0.150$ 0.130 ($0.281 \pm 0.028 ^{+0.012}_{-0.009}$) 104 0.0
8000 $0.150 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.258 \pm 0.030 ^{+0.003}_{-0.016}$) 72 0.0
8000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.179 \pm 0.026 ^{+0.006}_{-0.005}$) 47 0.0
8000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.096 ^{+0.023}_{-0.019}$ $^{+0.002}_{-0.007}$) 25 0.0
8000 $0.530 - 0.750$ 0.650 ($0.014 ^{+0.010}_{-0.006}$ $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$) 5 0.0
$9000 - 15000$ 12000 $0.090 - 0.230$ 0.180 ($0.161 ^{+0.033}_{-0.028}$ $^{+0.012}_{-0.007}$) 33 0.0
12000 $0.230 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.106 ^{+0.034}_{-0.026}$ $^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$) 16 0.0
12000 $0.350 - 0.530$ 0.400 ($0.070 ^{+0.028}_{-0.021}$ $^{+0.008}_{-0.006}$) 11 0.0
$15000 - 25000$ 20000 $0.150 - 0.350$ 0.250 ($0.185 ^{+0.053}_{-0.042}$ $^{+0.017}_{-0.020}$) 19 0.0
20000 $0.350 - 0.750$ 0.400 ($0.073 ^{+0.040}_{-0.027}$ $^{+0.009}_{-0.026}$) 7 0.0
$25000 - 50000$ 30000 $0.250 - 0.750$ 0.400 ($0.065 ^{+0.052}_{-0.031}$ $^{+0.026}_{-0.003}$) 4 0.0
----------------- ------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -----
[*Continuation 2.*]{} \[tab:ds2dxdq2Lh\_3\]
--------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------
$185.0 - 300.0$ 250 ($1.07 \pm 0.00 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 96158 149.8
$300.0 - 400.0$ 350 ($4.74 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$) 28667 33.6
$400.0 - 475.7$ 440 ($2.73 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$) 11858 36.2
$475.7 - 565.7$ 520 ($1.83 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.05}$) 8698 22.7
$565.7 - 672.7$ 620 ($1.19 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$) 6108 22.4
$672.7 - 800.0$ 730 ($8.02 \pm 0.11 ^{+0.10}_{-0.24}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 5859 20.0
$800.0 - 1050.0$ 900 ($4.75 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.07}_{-0.17}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 7622 29.7
$1050.0 - 1460.0$ 1230 ($2.11 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 5875 32.9
$1460.0 - 2080.0$ 1730 ($9.00 \pm 0.15 ^{+0.23}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 3832 14.9
$2080.0 - 3120.0$ 2500 ($3.28 \pm 0.07 ^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 2298 6.1
$3120.0 - 5220.0$ 3900 ($1.04 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 1416 2.9
$5220.0 - 12500.0$ 7000 ($1.73 \pm 0.07 ^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 616 0.0
$12500.0 - 51200.0$ 22400 ($2.03 \pm 0.26 ^{+0.02}_{-0.08}$) $\times$ $10^{-5}$ 60 0.0
--------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dQ^{2}$ ($y < 0.9$, $y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 78.8 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}, P_{e} = +0.32$). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdq2Rh"}
------ ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------
185 $(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-2}$ $0.794\times 10^{-2}$ ($8.80 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 20397 91.9
$(0.10 - 0.16)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.126\times 10^{-1}$ ($5.88 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.06}_{-0.17}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 23452 71.7
$(0.16 - 0.25)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.200\times 10^{-1}$ ($3.69 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 23332 49.5
$(0.25 - 0.40)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.316\times 10^{-1}$ ($2.12 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 22669 17.5
$(0.40 - 0.63)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.501\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.25 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 19901 3.3
$(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.794\times 10^{-1}$ ($6.98 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.08}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 18738 2.9
$0.10 - 0.16$ $0.126$ ($3.97 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.05}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 18025 0.7
$0.16 - 0.25$ $0.200$ ($2.09 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 11263 0.0
3000 $(0.40 - 0.63)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.501\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.81 \pm 0.11 ^{+0.08}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 269 0.6
$(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.794\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.69 \pm 0.08 ^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 437 2.3
$0.10 - 0.16$ $0.126$ ($1.28 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.01}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 542 0.0
$0.16 - 0.25$ $0.200$ ($7.46 \pm 0.34 ^{+0.06}_{-0.19}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 471 0.0
$0.25 - 0.40$ $0.316$ ($3.41 \pm 0.18 ^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 350 0.0
$0.40 - 0.75$ $0.687$ ($1.29 \pm 0.11 ^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$) 151 0.0
------ ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dx$ ($y<0.9$, $y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 78.8 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}},$ $P_{e} = +0.32$). The $Q^2$ and bin range, bin centre ($x_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdxRh"}
------ --------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------
185 $0.00 - 0.05$ 0.025 ($1.65 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 44541 0.0
$0.05 - 0.10$ 0.075 ($8.19 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 29853 4.4
$0.10 - 0.15$ 0.125 ($5.73 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.03}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 20723 5.3
$0.15 - 0.20$ 0.175 ($4.40 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.02}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 15423 15.0
$0.20 - 0.25$ 0.225 ($3.66 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.21}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 12419 11.7
$0.25 - 0.30$ 0.275 ($2.96 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 9588 10.2
$0.30 - 0.35$ 0.325 ($2.58 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 8283 25.2
$0.35 - 0.40$ 0.375 ($2.26 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 7167 24.7
$0.40 - 0.45$ 0.425 ($2.01 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 6164 35.7
$0.45 - 0.50$ 0.475 ($1.76 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.05}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 5223 28.7
$0.50 - 0.55$ 0.525 ($1.56 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 4534 32.9
$0.55 - 0.60$ 0.575 ($1.46 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 4079 38.4
$0.60 - 0.65$ 0.625 ($1.31 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 3415 37.2
$0.65 - 0.70$ 0.675 ($1.22 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 2788 25.1
$0.70 - 0.75$ 0.725 ($1.13 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 2097 28.8
$0.75 - 0.90$ 0.825 ($9.76 \pm 0.19 ^{+0.69}_{-0.46}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 2685 58.5
3000 $0.05 - 0.10$ 0.075 ($3.50 \pm 0.34 ^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 109 0.0
$0.10 - 0.15$ 0.125 ($5.86 \pm 0.41 ^{+0.08}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 201 0.0
$0.15 - 0.20$ 0.175 ($6.38 \pm 0.43 ^{+0.04}_{-0.13}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 225 0.0
$0.20 - 0.25$ 0.225 ($6.32 \pm 0.42 ^{+0.08}_{-0.22}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 226 0.0
$0.25 - 0.30$ 0.275 ($5.59 \pm 0.39 ^{+0.03}_{-0.21}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 204 0.0
$0.30 - 0.35$ 0.325 ($5.66 \pm 0.40 ^{+0.05}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 206 0.0
$0.35 - 0.40$ 0.375 ($3.90 \pm 0.33 ^{+0.07}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 142 0.0
$0.40 - 0.45$ 0.425 ($3.56 \pm 0.31 ^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 130 0.0
$0.45 - 0.50$ 0.475 ($3.62 \pm 0.32 ^{+0.14}_{-0.10}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 131 0.0
$0.50 - 0.55$ 0.525 ($2.89 \pm 0.29 ^{+0.03}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 103 0.0
$0.55 - 0.60$ 0.575 ($3.19 \pm 0.30 ^{+0.23}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 112 0.0
$0.60 - 0.65$ 0.625 ($2.55 \pm 0.26 ^{+0.13}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 93 2.3
$0.65 - 0.70$ 0.675 ($2.69 \pm 0.28 ^{+0.05}_{-0.15}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 92 0.0
$0.70 - 0.75$ 0.725 ($2.39 \pm 0.27 ^{+0.07}_{-0.18}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 79 0.0
$0.75 - 0.80$ 0.775 ($2.17 \pm 0.26 ^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 71 0.0
$0.80 - 0.85$ 0.825 ($2.16 \pm 0.26 ^{+0.28}_{-0.07}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 68 0.6
$0.85 - 0.90$ 0.875 ($1.98 \pm 0.28 ^{+0.22}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 52 0.0
------ --------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dy$ for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ ($y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 78.8{\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, $P_{e} = +0.32$). The $Q^2$ and bin range, bin centre ($y_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdyRh"}
--------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------
$185.0 - 300.0$ 250 ($1.06 \pm 0.00 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 67629 112.2
$300.0 - 400.0$ 350 ($4.55 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$) 19579 25.5
$400.0 - 475.7$ 440 ($2.62 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$) 8079 27.6
$475.7 - 565.7$ 520 ($1.77 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$) 5919 15.2
$565.7 - 672.7$ 620 ($1.11 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) 4058 17.0
$672.7 - 800.0$ 730 ($7.64 \pm 0.12 ^{+0.19}_{-0.25}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 3969 15.0
$800.0 - 1050.0$ 900 ($4.41 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.09}_{-0.16}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 4994 19.7
$1050.0 - 1460.0$ 1230 ($2.01 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{-1}$ 3948 22.3
$1460.0 - 2080.0$ 1730 ($8.25 \pm 0.17 ^{+0.27}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 2485 10.9
$2080.0 - 3120.0$ 2500 ($3.11 \pm 0.08 ^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{-2}$ 1541 4.4
$3120.0 - 5220.0$ 3900 ($8.54 \pm 0.30 ^{+0.15}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 826 2.1
$5220.0 - 12500.0$ 7000 ($1.43 \pm 0.08 ^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{-3}$ 361 0.0
$12500.0 - 51200.0$ 22400 ($1.93 ^{+0.35}_{-0.30}$ $^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$) $\times$ $10^{-5}$ 41 0.0
--------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dQ^{2}$ ($y < 0.9$, $y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 56.7 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}, P_{e} = -0.36$). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdq2Lh"}
------ ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------
185 $(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-2}$ $0.794\times 10^{-2}$ ($8.61 \pm 0.07 ^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 14173 69.1
$(0.10 - 0.16)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.126\times 10^{-1}$ ($5.79 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.07}_{-0.17}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 16410 50.8
$(0.16 - 0.25)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.200\times 10^{-1}$ ($3.54 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 15901 33.4
$(0.25 - 0.40)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.316\times 10^{-1}$ ($2.07 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 15715 12.7
$(0.40 - 0.63)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.501\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.21 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 13656 2.3
$(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.794\times 10^{-1}$ ($6.84 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.08}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 13087 2.1
$0.10 - 0.16$ $0.126$ ($3.79 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 12219 0.7
$0.16 - 0.25$ $0.200$ ($1.97 \pm 0.02 ^{+0.03}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 7505 0.0
3000 $(0.40 - 0.63)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.501\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.61 \pm 0.12 ^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 171 0.5
$(0.63 - 1.00)\times 10^{-1}$ $0.794\times 10^{-1}$ ($1.50 \pm 0.09 ^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 277 1.7
$0.10 - 0.16$ $0.126$ ($1.05 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.01}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 317 0.0
$0.16 - 0.25$ $0.200$ ($5.81 \pm 0.36 ^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 259 0.0
$0.25 - 0.40$ $0.316$ ($3.02 \pm 0.21 ^{+0.04}_{-0.09}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 217 0.0
$0.40 - 0.75$ $0.687$ ($1.10 \pm 0.12 ^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$) 89 0.0
------ ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dx$ ($y<0.9$, $y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 56.7 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}},$ $P_{e} = -0.36$). The $Q^2$ and bin range, bin centre ($x_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdxLh"}
------ --------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------
185 $0.00 - 0.05$ 0.025 ($1.60 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$) $\times$ $10^{4}$ 30773 0.0
$0.05 - 0.10$ 0.075 ($7.98 \pm 0.06 ^{+0.09}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 20679 3.0
$0.10 - 0.15$ 0.125 ($5.53 \pm 0.05 ^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 14221 6.3
$0.15 - 0.20$ 0.175 ($4.34 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.03}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 10814 9.7
$0.20 - 0.25$ 0.225 ($3.55 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.03}_{-0.20}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 8555 8.1
$0.25 - 0.30$ 0.275 ($2.89 \pm 0.04 ^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 6666 7.6
$0.30 - 0.35$ 0.325 ($2.47 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 5636 19.4
$0.35 - 0.40$ 0.375 ($2.24 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 5035 19.1
$0.40 - 0.45$ 0.425 ($1.95 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 4238 26.9
$0.45 - 0.50$ 0.475 ($1.68 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.06}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 3538 21.8
$0.50 - 0.55$ 0.525 ($1.52 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 3127 21.5
$0.55 - 0.60$ 0.575 ($1.38 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 2715 25.8
$0.60 - 0.65$ 0.625 ($1.26 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 2308 25.8
$0.65 - 0.70$ 0.675 ($1.18 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.03}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 1883 10.5
$0.70 - 0.75$ 0.725 ($1.11 \pm 0.03 ^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$) $\times$ $10^{3}$ 1445 19.5
$0.75 - 0.90$ 0.825 ($9.24 \pm 0.22 ^{+0.86}_{-0.46}$) $\times$ $10^{2}$ 1748 45.3
3000 $0.05 - 0.10$ 0.075 ($2.99 \pm 0.37 ^{+0.09}_{-0.04}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 65 0.0
$0.10 - 0.15$ 0.125 ($5.21 \pm 0.47 ^{+0.05}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 125 0.0
$0.15 - 0.20$ 0.175 ($5.33 \pm 0.46 ^{+0.15}_{-0.07}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 132 0.0
$0.20 - 0.25$ 0.225 ($4.73 \pm 0.43 ^{+0.09}_{-0.25}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 119 0.0
$0.25 - 0.30$ 0.275 ($4.19 \pm 0.40 ^{+0.06}_{-0.15}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 108 0.0
$0.30 - 0.35$ 0.325 ($4.47 \pm 0.42 ^{+0.07}_{-0.12}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 115 0.0
$0.35 - 0.40$ 0.375 ($3.54 \pm 0.37 ^{+0.06}_{-0.21}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 91 0.0
$0.40 - 0.45$ 0.425 ($3.24 \pm 0.35 ^{+0.04}_{-0.19}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 84 0.0
$0.45 - 0.50$ 0.475 ($3.61 \pm 0.37 ^{+0.06}_{-0.24}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 93 0.0
$0.50 - 0.55$ 0.525 ($2.77 \pm 0.33 ^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 70 0.0
$0.55 - 0.60$ 0.575 ($2.64 \pm 0.33 ^{+0.31}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 66 0.0
$0.60 - 0.65$ 0.625 ($2.26 \pm 0.29 ^{+0.16}_{-0.06}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 59 1.7
$0.65 - 0.70$ 0.675 ($1.72 ^{+0.31}_{-0.27}$ $^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 42 0.0
$0.70 - 0.75$ 0.725 ($2.32 \pm 0.31 ^{+0.05}_{-0.11}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 55 0.0
$0.75 - 0.80$ 0.775 ($2.05 \pm 0.30 ^{+0.19}_{-0.14}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 48 0.0
$0.80 - 0.85$ 0.825 ($1.55 ^{+0.31}_{-0.26}$ $^{+0.27}_{-0.07}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 35 0.5
$0.85 - 0.90$ 0.875 ($1.87 ^{+0.37}_{-0.32}$ $^{+0.19}_{-0.12}$) $\times$ $10^{1}$ 35 0.0
------ --------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------
: The single-differential cross-section $d\sigma / dy$ for $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and $Q^2 > 3\,000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ ($y(1-x)^2>0.004$) for the reaction $e^{+}p \rightarrow e^{+}X$ ($\mathcal{L} = 56.7{\,\text{pb}^{-1}}$, $P_{e} = -0.36$). The $Q^2$ and bin range, bin centre ($y_c$) and measured cross section corrected to the electroweak Born level are shown. Other details as in Table \[tab:dsdq2Total\].[]{data-label="tab:dsdyLh"}
---------------------- ------- ---------------- ----------------
$185.0 - 300.0 $ 250 $1.01\pm 0.01$ $0.18\pm 0.07$
$300.0 - 400.0 $ 350 $1.04\pm 0.01$ $0.57\pm 0.14$
$400.0 - 475.7 $ 440 $1.04\pm 0.02$ $0.59\pm 0.21$
$475.7 - 565.7 $ 520 $1.04\pm 0.02$ $0.54\pm 0.25$
$565.7 - 672.7 $ 620 $1.07\pm 0.02$ $0.95\pm 0.30$
$672.7 - 800. $ 730 $1.05\pm 0.02$ $0.71\pm 0.30$
$800.0 - 1050.0 $ 900 $1.08\pm 0.02$ $1.09\pm 0.27$
$1050.0 - 1460.0 $ 1230 $1.05\pm 0.02$ $0.73\pm 0.30$
$1460.0 - 2080.0 $ 1730 $1.09\pm 0.03$ $1.27\pm 0.38$
$2080.0 - 3120.0 $ 2500 $1.05\pm 0.03$ $0.77\pm 0.48$
$3120.0 - 5220.0 $ 3900 $1.21\pm 0.05$ $2.82\pm 0.63$
$5220.0 - 12500.0 $ 7000 $1.21\pm 0.08$ $2.74\pm 0.95$
$12500.0 - 51200.0 $ 22400 $1.05\pm 0.21$ $0.76\pm 2.96$
---------------------- ------- ---------------- ----------------
: The polarisation asymmetry measured using positively and negatively polarised $e^{+}p$ beams ($\mathcal{L} = 78.8 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}, P_{e} = +0.32$ and $\mathcal{L} = 56.7 {\,\text{pb}^{-1}}, P_{e} = -0.36$, respectively). The bin range, bin centre ($Q^2_c$), the cross section ratio of the samples with $P_{e} = +0.32$ and $P_{e} = -0.36$ and the measured asymmetry $A^+$ are shown. Only the statistical uncertainties on the measurement are shown as systematic uncertainties are assumed to cancel.[]{data-label="tab:asym"}
![ Comparison of the $e^+ p$ NC data sample with the predictions from the MC simulation. The MC distributions are normalised to the data luminosity. The distributions of (a) $Q^{2}_{\rm DA}$, (b) $x_{\rm DA}$, (c) $y_{\rm DA}$, (d) $E-P_{\rm Z}$, (e) $\theta_{\rm e}$, (f) $E_{\rm e}^{\prime}$, (g) $\gamma_{h}$ and (h) $P_{T,h}$ are shown. []{data-label="fig-cont"}](DESY-12-145_1.eps){width="6in"}
![ (a) The $e^+ p$ NC DIS cross-section $d\sigma/dQ^{2}$ for $y < 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2>0.004$ corrected to $P_e=0$ and (b) the ratio to the SM prediction. The closed circles represent data points in which the inner error bars show the statistical uncertainty while the outer bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The curves show the predictions of the SM evaluated using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs and the shaded band shows the uncertainties from the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs. In the ratio plot in addition the ratios between other PDFs (ZEUSJETS (dashed), CTEQ6M (dotted) and MSTW2008 (dash-dotted)) and HERAPDF1.5 are shown as curves. The uncertainties of CTEQ6M and MSTW2008 are of the same order as of HERAPDF1.5, the uncertainties of ZEUSJETS are about a factor 2 higher. []{data-label="fig-q2sing"}](DESY-12-145_2.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![ The $e^+ p$ NC DIS cross-section $d\sigma/dx$ for (a) $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and (b) $Q^2 > 3\;000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ for $y < 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2>0.004$. The closed circles represent data points in which the inner error bars show the statistical uncertainty while the outer bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The curves show the predictions of the SM evaluated using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs. []{data-label="fig-xsing"}](DESY-12-145_3.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![ The $e^+ p$ NC DIS cross-section $d\sigma/dy$ for (a) $Q^2 > 185 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and (b) $Q^2 > 3\;000 {{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ for $y(1-x)^2>0.004$. Other details as in Figure \[fig-xsing\]. []{data-label="fig-ysing"}](DESY-12-145_4.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![ The $e^\pm p$ unpolarised NC DIS reduced cross-section ${{\tilde\sigma}}$ plotted as a function of $x$ at fixed $Q^2$. The closed (open) circles represent data points for $e^+ p$ ($e^- p$) collisions in which the inner error bars show the statistical uncertainty while the outer bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature, although errors are too small to be seen in most cases. The curves show the predictions of the SM evaluated using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs. []{data-label="fig-red_unpol"}](DESY-12-145_5.eps){width="6in"}
![ The structure-function $x\tilde{F_3}$ plotted as a function of $x$ at fixed $Q^{2}$. The closed circles represent the ZEUS data. The inner error bars show the statistical uncertainty while the outer ones show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The curves show the predictions of the SM evaluated using HERAPDF1.5 (solid), ZEUSJETS (dashed), CTEQ6M (dotted) and MSTW2008 (dash-dotted) PDFs . []{data-label="fig-xf3"}](DESY-12-145_6.eps){width="6in"}
![ The structure function $xF_{3}^{\gamma Z}$ extrapolated to a single $Q^2$ value of $1\,500{{\,\text{Ge}{\kern-0.06667em}\text{V\/}}}^2$ and plotted as a function of $x$. Other details as in Figure \[fig-xf3\]. []{data-label="fig-xf3_gz"}](DESY-12-145_7.eps){width="6in"}
![ The $e^+p$ NC DIS reduced cross-section ${{\tilde\sigma}}$ for positively and negatively polarised beams plotted as a function of $x$ at fixed $Q^2$. The closed (open) circles represent the ZEUS data for negative (positive) polarisation. Other details as in Figure \[fig-red\_unpol\]. []{data-label="fig-red_pol"}](DESY-12-145_8.eps){width="6in"}
![ The $e^+ p$ NC DIS cross-section $d\sigma/dQ^2$ for $y < 0.9$ and $y(1-x)^2>0.004$ for (a) positive and (b) negative polarisation. Other details as in Figure \[fig-q2sing\]. []{data-label="fig-dsdq2"}](DESY-12-145_9.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![ The (a) ratio of $d\sigma/dQ^{2}$ using positive and negative polarisation and (b) the polarisation asymmetry $A^{+}$ as functions of $Q^2$. The closed circles represent ZEUS data. Only statistical uncertainties are considered as the systematic uncertainties are assumed to cancel. The curves show the predictions of the SM evaluated using the HERAPDF1.5 PDFs. []{data-label="fig-asym"}](DESY-12-145_10.eps){width="100.00000%"}
[^1]: In this paper, the word “electron” refers to both electrons and positrons, unless otherwise stated.
[^2]: At the HERA beam energies, the mass of the incoming leptons can be neglected, and therefore the difference between handedness and helicity can also be neglected.
[^3]: The ZEUS coordinate system is a right-handed Cartesian system, with the $Z$ axis pointing in the proton beam direction, referred to as the “forward direction”, and the $X$ axis pointing towards the centre of HERA. The coordinate origin is at the nominal interaction point. The pseudorapidity is defined as $\eta = - \ln(\tan (\theta/2))$, where the polar angle, $\theta$, is measured with respect to the proton beam direction.
[^4]: This would also affect remaining photoproduction events. However, their contribution was negligable.
[^5]: Since the simulation of the parton showers could, in principle, also have an influence on the electron isolation, the comparison was made removing the requirements on the electron isolation in order to prevent double counting of systematic uncertainty. However, no measurable influence of the isolation cut on $\delta_6$ was observed.
[^6]: HERAPDF1.5 is based on HERAI and HERAII data, but the data presented here is not used for the extraction.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The quantum charged rigid membrane model, which is a higher derivative theory has been considered to explore its gauge symmetries using a recently developed first order formalism [@BMP]. Hamiltonian analysis has been performed and the gauge symmetry of the model is identified as reparametrisation symmetry. First class constraints are shown to have a truncated Virasoro algebraic structure. An exact correspondence between the higher derivative theory and the first order formalism has been shown from the point of view of equations of motion.'
address:
- 'S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 098, India '
- 'bisu\[email protected]'
author:
- Biswajit Paul
title: ' Gauge symmetry and Virasoro algebra in quantum charged rigid membrane – a first order formalism '
---
Introduction
============
Higher derivative field theories are inseparable from modern day theoretical physics. Long ago physicists started considering Lagrangians with higher time derivatives [@podolsky1; @podolsky2; @mont]. Initially they were introduced to avoid infinities appearing in the scattering amplitudes. But, due to their distinctive properties, HD(from now on the term “HD" will refer to “higher derivative") theories find its place in various context of physics e.g. electrodynamics [@podolsky1; @podolsky2], non-local theories [@Pais], relativistic particle model with curvature and torsion [@pisarski; @nesterenko; @plyuschay1], string theory [@elie], supersymmetry [@Iliopoulos; @Gama] noncommutativive theory [@clz], dark energy physics [@gib; @caroll; @woodard1], cosmology [@neupane; @nojiri4; @cordero1], inflation theory [@ani], brane world scenario [@neupane], supergravity [@berg1; @berg2]. In quantum gravity, Stelle showed that adding higher derivative terms can ensure renormalizability [@stelle] although it breaks unitarity. But a suitable choice of the coefficients of the higher derivative terms can lead to unitarity too [@deser]. People constructed f(R) gravity where higher curvature terms were added to Einstein-Hilbert action and opened a vast sector of research. For HD gravity, the list is huge. Interesting features appeared when higher derivative terms were added to study Higgs mechanism [@jansen1]. Also, people working in one of the most exciting fields of recent theoretical physics like AdS/CFT correspondence have considered HD theories [@nojiri1; @nojiri2; @nojiri3; @fukuma] which indicate the importance and relevance of considering HD theories.\
Existence of gauge symmetries in theories with higher derivatives can be an interesting domain to study. For theories with single derivatives only, there exists well established Dirac’s method [@Dirac; @hanson; @rothe; @sunder; @henneaux]. But HD theories have some extra difficulties while performing canonical analysis and needed careful observation. Whereas, Ostrogradski’s method for performing Hamiltonian analysis [@ostro] specifically for HD theories can be useful , but with an extra burden of nontrivial definition of the momenta. For a long period the method was used in various sectors for higher derivatives theories. This method was presumably first applied in the invariant regularization of gauge theories[@slavnov1]. Other applications were done in various examples like equivalence theorems for spectrum changing transformations[@slavnov2], relativistic particle model[@pisarski; @nesterenko], Regge–Teitelboim type cosmology[@cordero1], geodetic brane cosmology[@cordero2], and recently for unambiguos quantization of nonabelian gauge theories[@slavnov3]. Other than this, an inspired first order formalism exists in the literature where the HD fields are considered as independent fields and usual Hamiltonian analysis can be performed(along with a trivial definition of the momenta) [@BMP; @MP]. For abstracting the gauge symmetries there exist a powerful method [@gitman; @BRR1; @BRR2] but only for first order theories with no higher derivative terms. Recently, we provided a general method for abstracting gauge symmetries with higher derivative theories [@BMP; @MP] which we referred to first order formalism. We obtained some peculiar result in gauge symmetries of HD theories. We took the relativistic particle model with curvature [@pisarski] and found that there are two independent PFCs(primary firstclass constraints) but with only one independent gauge symmetry, which is clearly contrary to the accepted result which states that the number of independent gauge symmetries is equal to number independent primary first-class constraints [@henneaux; @BRR1]. Surprisingly, there appears two gauge symmetries viz. diffeomorphism and W-symmetry when we considered the mass term to be zero [@BMP]. These results inspired us to consider a thorough analysis of gauge symmetries of models with HD terms (especially with curvature terms). Such a model is Dirac’s membrane model for the electron[@dirac_membrane; @cordero].\
Theories with extrinsic curvatures are frequently studied especially in string theory. Although, the concept is not new but recent inclusion of these in some physically interesting models added an extra urgency to revisit the symmetry features of this type of surfaces. Due to extrinsic curvature effects there appear geometrical frustration when nematic liquid crystals are constrained to a curved surface [@napoli]. Whereas, graphene too can be considered as electronic membrane and its rippling generates spatially varying electrochemical potential that is proportional to the square of the local curvature[@kim]. These extrinsic curvature terms also appear in various brane world senario[@davidson1; @davidson2; @Yilmaz; @czinner; @trzetrzelewski]. Recently, This concept of extrinsic curvature in membranes also have been incorporated for studying fluid dynamics[@roberts]. Generally these surfaces come into the picture where we consider the evolution of a surface with a background metric. The lowest dimensional generalisation is a point particle evolving in spacetime with a background metric [@nambu]. Applying this idea, in 1962 an extensible relativistic model of the electron was proposed by Dirac [@dirac_membrane]. With spherical symmetry, the model was in stable equilibrium due to its surface tension. In this paper we shall investigate the gauge symmetries of an updated version of the Dirac’s membrane model for the electron where extrinsic curvature terms of the world-volume were included as second order correction terms [@cordero].\
The paper is organised in the following manner. In section 2 we gave a general overview of higher derivative theories and their conversion to first order formalism. Construction of the gauge generator and the master equation for extracting independent gauge symmetries is introduced in this section. Section 3 comprises mainly of a very brief introduction to the model of quantum charged rigid membrane, since literature available for the model and its variants. Section 4 is purely new as our main work is concentrated here. In this section we derive the equation of motion from the variational principle and perform Hamiltonain analysis of the model. Section 5 is devoted to find out gauge symmetries. Interestingly, the first class constraints form truncated Virasoro algebra. In section 6 we show the equivalence between the higher derivative and the first order formalism via matching the equation of motion. Finally, we conclude with section 7.
Abstraction of gauge symmetries for higher derivative theories: a first order formalism
========================================================================================
A general form for HD Lagrangian is given by[^1] $$L = L\left(x, \dot{x}, \ddot{x}, \cdots , x^{\left(\nu\right)}\right)
\label{originallagrangean}$$ where $x = x_n(n = 1,2,\cdots,\nu)$ are the coordinates and $\dot{}$ means derivative with respect to time. $\nu$-th order derivative of time is denoted by $x^{\left(\nu\right)}$.\
In the first order formalism, we convert the Higher Derivative Lagrangian (\[originallagrangean\]) into a first order Lagrangian by defining the variables $q_{n,\alpha} \left(\alpha = 1, 2, ...., \nu - 1 \right)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
q_{n,1} &=& x_n\nonumber\\
q_{n,\alpha} &=& \dot{q}_{n,\alpha -1}, \left(\alpha > 1 \right)
\label{newvariables}\end{aligned}$$ Due to redefinition of the variables there emerges the following constraints $$\begin{aligned}
q_{n,\alpha} - \dot{q}_{n,\alpha -1} = 0, \left(\alpha > 1 \right)
\label{lagrangeanconstraints}\end{aligned}$$ which can be added to the HD Lagrangian via the Lagranges multipliers $\lambda_{n,\beta} (\beta = 2,\cdots , \nu - 1)$. Consequently, we can write down an auxiliary Lagrangian , $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\prime}(q_{n,\alpha},\dot{q}_{n,\alpha},\lambda_{n,\beta})
=L\left(q_{n,1},q_{n,2}\cdots,q_{n,\nu-1},
\dot{q}_{n,\nu-1}\right)+ \sum_{\beta=2}^{\nu-1}
\left(q_{n,\beta}-\dot{q}_{n,\beta-1}\right)\lambda_{n,\beta}\ ,
\label{extendedlagrangean}\end{aligned}$$ Considering the Lagrangian multipliers to be independent fields in addition to the fields $q_{n, \alpha}$, we define momenta as $$p_{n,\alpha}=\frac{\partial L^{\prime}}{\partial \dot{q}_{n,\alpha}}\ ,\ \
\pi_{n,\beta}=\frac{\partial L^{\prime}}{\partial\dot{\lambda}_{n,\beta}}\ .$$ Having found out the primary constraints of the theory, we can write down the total Hamiltonian as $$H_T = H_C + u_{n,\beta}\pi_{n,\beta} + v_{n,\beta}\Phi_{n,\beta},$$ where $u_{n,\beta}, v_{n,\beta}$ are Lagrange multipliers and $\pi_{n,\beta}, \Phi_{n,\beta}$ are primary constraints. So we can proceed to have all the secondary constraints by demanding time variation of the constraints as zero. After we have extracted all the constraints, we can move to distinguish the first class and second class constraints. Now, according to Dirac, the first class constraints generate gauge transformation. The second class constraints can be removed by introduction of Dirac brackets. Therefore, our theory is a first order theory with only first class constraints. To find out the gauge symmetries of the model we define the gauge generator as $$G = \sum_a \epsilon_a \Phi_a.
\label{217}$$
Here $\{\Phi_a\}$ is the whole set of primary constraints. All the gauge parameters $\epsilon_{a}$ may not be independent. To identify all the independent gauge transformation we refer to the method developed in [@BRR1; @BRR2] and write down the master equation relating the Lagrange multipliers $\Lambda_{a_{1}}$ and the gauge parameters $\epsilon_{a}$ $$\delta\Lambda_{a_{1}} = \frac{d\epsilon_{a_{1}}}{dt}
-\epsilon_{a}\left( {V_{a a_{1}}
+\Lambda_{b_{1}}C_{b_{1} a a_{1}} }\right)
\label{master1}$$ $$0 = \frac{d\epsilon_{a_{2}}}{dt}
-\epsilon_{a}\left(V_{a a_2}
+\Lambda_{b_1} C_{b_1 a a_2}\right)
\label{master2}$$
Here the indices $a_1, b_1 ...$ refer to the primary first class constraints while the indices $a_2, b_2 ...$ correspond to the secondary first class constraints. The coefficients $V_{a}^{a_{1}}$ and $C_{b_1a}^{a_1}$ are the structure functions of the involutive algebra, defined as [^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\{H_{can},\Phi_{a}\}_{D} = V_{ab}\Phi_{b}\nonumber\\
\{\Phi_{a},\Phi_{b}\}_{D} = C_{abc}\Phi_{c}
\label{2110}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the HD nature, a relation between the gauge transformations of the fields can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta q_{n,\alpha} - \frac{d}{dt}\delta{q}_{n,\alpha -1} = 0, \left(\alpha > 1 \right)
\label{varsgauge}\end{aligned}$$ which may impose some extra condition on the gauge parameters.\
Abstracting all independent gauge transformations, we can write gauge transformation of the basic fields as $$\delta_{\epsilon_{a}} {q_{n,\alpha}} = \{ q_{n,\alpha}, G \}_{D}$$ This completes our analysis of finding the gauge transformation for HD theories.
Quantum charged rigid membrane
==============================
In a background Minkowski spacetime $\eta^{\mu\nu}$, [^3] consider the evolving surface $\Sigma$. The surface is described by the local coordinate $x^{\mu}$ of the background spacetime. The embedding function $ X^{\mu}(\xi^{a})= x^{\mu}$ is a function of the local coordinates of the world volume m, swept out by the surface. We consider the following effective action underlying the dynamics of the surface $\Sigma$[@cordero]: $$S[X^{\mu}] = \int_{m} d^{3}\xi (-\alpha K + \beta j^{a} e^{\mu}_{ \ a} A_{\mu}),
\label{action1}$$ where $K=g^{ab} K_{ab}$ being the extrinsic curvature [^4] and $\alpha, \beta$ are constant related to the rigidity parameter and form factor respectively. On the other hand, $j^{a}$ which minimally couples the charged surface and the electromagnetic field $A_{\mu}$ [@barut], is a constant electric current density distributed over the world volume and is locally conserved on m with $\partial_{a}j^{a}=0$. Variation of the action with respect to the embedding function $X^{\mu}(\xi^{a})$ leads to the equation of motion $$\alpha \mathcal{R} = \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{-g}} j^{a}n^{\mu} e^{\nu}_{ \ a} F_{\mu\nu}.
\label{eom1}$$ The above equation (\[eom1\]) can be thought as a Lorentz force equation with $\mathcal{R}$ being the Gaussian curvature and $F_{\mu\nu} = 2 \partial_{[\mu}A_{\nu]}$ the electromagnetic field tensor. Under suitable choice of the embedding functions ($X^{\mu}(\tau, \theta, \varphi)=(t(\tau), r(\tau), \theta, \varphi)$) equation (\[action1\]) boils down to[@cordero] $$S = 4\pi \int d\tau L(r, \dot{r}, \ddot{r}, \dot{t}, \ddot{t}) \label{action2}$$ where the Lagrangian L, which is HD in nature is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
L = -\frac{\alpha r^{2}}{\dot{t}^{2} - \dot{r}^{2}}(\ddot{r}\dot{t}- \dot{r}\ddot{t}) -2\alpha r \dot{t} - \frac{\beta q^{2} \dot{t}}{r}.
\label{hdlagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ So, Lagrangian (\[hdlagrangian\]) will be our sole interest which is reparametrisation invariant under the parameter $\tau$. Promptly, we can write down the equation of motion for the HD Lagrangian: $$\frac{d}{d\tau}\left({\frac{\dot{r}}{\dot{t}}} \right) = - \frac{\dot{t}^{2} - \dot{r}^{2}}{2r \dot{t}^{3}}\left({\dot{t}^{2} - \frac{\beta(\dot{t}^{2} - \dot{r}^{2})^{2}q^{2}}{2 \alpha r^{2}}} \right).
\label{eom2}$$
Hamiltonian analysis
=====================
Before we start the Hamiltonian analysis we need to convert the HD Lagrangian (\[hdlagrangian\]) to a first order lagrangian, named as the auxiliary lagrangian, by introduction of the new fields $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\dot{r} &=& R\\
\dot{t} &=& T\end{aligned}$$ So, we write down the auxiliary Lagrangian as [^5] $$L^{\prime} = -\frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2}}(\dot{R}T -R \dot{T}) - 2 \alpha r T - \frac{\beta q^{2}T}{r} + \lambda_{1}(R-\dot{r}) + \lambda_{2}(T- \dot{t})$$ Inclusion of new fields impose constraints $$R -\dot{r} \approx 0, \ \ \ \ \ T- \dot{t} \approx 0
\label{lagcons}$$ which are taken care of via the multipliers $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$. Variation of $L^{\prime}$ with respect to $r, R, t, T, \lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ give rise to the following equation of motions: $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{2 \alpha r}{N^{2}} ( \dot{R} T - R \dot{T}) - 2 \alpha T + \frac{\beta q^{2} T}{r^{2}} + \dot{\lambda}_{1} &=& 0 \label{eom_r} \\
-\frac{2 \alpha r^{2}}{N^{4}}R ( \dot{R} T - R \dot{T}) + \frac{d}{d\tau} \left( {\frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2}}T}\right)+ \frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2}}\dot{T} + \lambda_{1} &=& 0 \label{eom_R} \\
\dot{\lambda}_{2}&=&0 \label{eom_t}\\
\frac{2 \alpha r^{2}}{N^{4}}T ( \dot{R} T - R \dot{T}) - \frac{d}{d\tau} \left( {\frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2}}R}\right)- \frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2}}\dot{R} -2 \alpha r - \frac{\beta q^{2}}{r} + \lambda_{2} &=& 0 \label{eom_T} \\
R-\dot{r}&=&0 \label{eom_lambda1}\\
T- \dot{t} &=& 0 \label{eom_lambda2}\end{aligned}$$ (\[eom\_lambda1\]), (\[eom\_lambda2\]) are obvious since they correspond to (\[lagcons\]).\
Before proceeding for Hamiltonian formulation, we identify the new phase space which is constituted of the variables are $(r, \Pi_{r}), (t, \Pi_{t}), (R, \Pi_{R}), (T, \Pi_{T}), ( \lambda_{1}, \Pi_{\lambda_{1}}), (\lambda_{2}, \Pi_{\lambda_{2}})$. Here $\Pi_{x^{\mu}}=\frac{\partial{L^{\prime}}}{\partial{\dot{x}^{\mu}}}$, are the momenta corresponding to $x^{\mu}$ which generically stands for the variables $r, R, t, T, \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2} $. We immediately obtain the primary constraints as listed bellow $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Phi_{1} &=& \Pi_{r} + \lambda_{1} \approx 0
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{2} &=& \Pi_{t} + \lambda_{2} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{3} &=& \Pi_{R} + \frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2} } T \approx 0
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{4} &=& \Pi_{T} - \frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2} } R \approx 0
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{5} &=& \Pi_{\lambda_{1}} \approx 0
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{6} &=& \Pi_{\lambda_{2}} \approx 0\end{aligned}$$ The poisson brackets between the field variables are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left\lbrace{x^{\mu}, \Pi_{x^{\nu}}} \right\rbrace &=& \delta_{\mu\nu}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{x^{\mu}, x^{\nu}} \right\rbrace&=& \left\lbrace{\Pi_{x^{\mu}}, \Pi_{x^{\nu}}} \right\rbrace=0
\label{pbs}\end{aligned}$$ With the aid of (\[pbs\]) the non zero Poisson brackets between the primary constraints can be written down $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{3}} \right\rbrace &=& - \frac{2 \alpha r}{N^{2}}T
\nonumber \\
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{4}} \right\rbrace &=& \frac{2 \alpha r}{N^{2}}R
\nonumber \\
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{5}} \right\rbrace &=& 1
\nonumber \\
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{2}, \Phi_{6}} \right\rbrace &=& 1
\label{pbs2}\end{aligned}$$ We can take the following combination of the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{3}^{\prime} &=& R \Phi_{3} + T \Phi_{4} \approx 0 \\
\Phi_{4}^{\prime} &=& \Phi_{4} - \frac{2\alpha r R}{N^{2}} \Phi_{5} \approx 0 \end{aligned}$$ so that the new set of primary constraints are $\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2}, \Phi_{3}^{\prime}, \Phi_{4}^{\prime}, \Phi_{5}, \Phi_{6}$. The complete algebra of primary constraints is now given by (only the nonzero brackets are listed), $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{5}} \right\rbrace &=&\left\lbrace{\Phi_{2}, \Phi_{6}} \right\rbrace =1
\label{pbs3}\end{aligned}$$ We can write Canonical Hamiltonian via Legendre transformation as $$H_{can} = 2 \alpha r T + \frac{\beta q^{2} T}{r} -\lambda_{1} R - \lambda_{2}T.
\label{H_{can}}$$ The total Hamiltonian is $$H_{T} =H_{can} + \Lambda_{1}\Phi_{1}+ \Lambda_{2}\Phi_{2}+ \Lambda_{3}\Phi_{3}^{\prime}+ \Lambda_{4}\Phi_{4}^{\prime}+ \Lambda_{5}\Phi_{5} + \Lambda_{6}\Phi_{6}$$ Here $\Lambda_{1},\Lambda_{2},\Lambda_{3}, \Lambda_{4},\Lambda_{5}, \Lambda_{6} $ are the Lagrange multipliers which are arbitrary at this stage. Only those multipliers which are attached to the primary second-class constraints will be determined, others corresponding to primary first class constraints will remain undetermined (although they can be determined too via equation of motion). At this level, loosely speaking $\Phi_{3}^{\prime}$ and $\Phi_{4}^{\prime} $ are first class constraints (this classification may be changed after we get the full list of constraints). These two may provide us two new secondary constraints and the list can still keep increasing until we get all the constraints. Now, we move towards extracting all constraints of this system. This can be done by demanding that Poisson brackets of the constraints with the total Hamiltonian(time evolution) of the constraints is zero. Preserving $\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2}, \Phi_{5}, \Phi_{6}$ in time solves the following multipliers respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Lambda_{5} &=& 2\alpha T - \frac{\beta q^{2} T}{r^{2}}
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{6} &=& 0
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{1} &=& R
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{2} &=& T.\end{aligned}$$ Whereas, time conservation of the primary constraints $\Phi_{3}^{\prime}$ and $\Phi_{4}^{\prime}$ leads to the secondary constraints $\Psi_{1}$ and $\Psi_{2}$ respectively given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Psi_{1}&=& -2\alpha r T - \frac{\beta q^{2} T}{r} + \lambda_{1}R + \lambda_{2}T \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Psi_{2} &=& -2 \alpha r - \frac{\beta q^{2}}{r} + \lambda_{2} - \frac{2 \alpha r}{N^{2}} R^{2} \approx 0\end{aligned}$$ Before proceeding further we list below all the nonzero Poisson brackets of the secondary constraints $\Psi_{1}$, $\Psi_{2}$ with other constraints: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{1}, \Psi_{1}}\right\rbrace &=& 2 \alpha T - \frac{\beta q^{2} T}{r^{2}}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{5}, \Psi_{1}}\right\rbrace &=& -R
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{6}, \Psi_{1}}\right\rbrace &=& -T
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{1}, \Psi_{2}}\right\rbrace &=& \frac{2 \alpha}{N^{2}} T^{2} - \frac{\beta q^{2}}{r^{2}}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{4}^{\prime}, \Psi_{2}}\right\rbrace &=& - \frac{4 \alpha r}{N^{4}} T R^{2}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{6}, \Psi_{2}}\right\rbrace &=& -1
\label{pbs4}\end{aligned}$$ Now, time preservation of the secondary constraint $\Psi_{1}$ gives identically $0=0$. And requirement of $\dot{\Psi}_{2}= 0$ solves the Lagrange multiplier $\Lambda_{4} = -\frac{A}{B} R$, with $A = \frac{2 \alpha T^{2}}{N^{2}} - \frac{\beta q^{2}}{r^{2}}$ and $B= -\frac{4 \alpha rT R^{2} }{N^{4}}$.\
From the constraint algebra (\[pbs3\]) and (\[pbs4\]) one can clearly assert that there is only one first class constraint $\Phi_{3}^{\prime}$ with seven other second class constraints $\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2}, \Phi_{4}^{\prime}, \Phi_{5}, \Phi_{6}, \Psi_{1}, \Psi_{2}$. One point worth noting since there are odd number of second class constraints, it indicate there might be some other first class constraint to make the pair of second class constraints even. Judiciously, we can choose a combination $\Psi_{1}^{\prime} = \Psi_{1} - \Lambda_{1}\Phi_{1}- \Lambda_{2}\Phi_{2}- \Lambda_{4}\Phi_{4}^{\prime}- \Lambda_{5}\Phi_{5} - \Lambda_{6}\Phi_{6} $ so that the pair ($\Phi_{3}^{\prime}, \Psi_{1}^{\prime}$) becomes first-class. This completes our constraint classification.
Having completed the constraint classification, its time to get rid of the unphysical sector $ (\lambda_{1}, \Pi_{\lambda_{1}})$ and $(\lambda_{2}, \Pi_{\lambda_{2}})$ by imposing the primary second class constraints $\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2}, \Phi_{5}, \Phi_{6}$ strongly zero. This can be done by replacing all Poisson brackets by Dirac brackets for rest of the calculations. Surprisingly, Dirac brackets between the basic fields remain same as their corresponding Poisson brackets. So, now our phase space is spanned by $\{ r,\Pi_{r}, t, \Pi_{t}, R, \Pi_{R}, T, \Pi_{T}\}$. For convenience of future calculations we rename the constraints as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1} &=& \Phi_{3}^{\prime} = R\Phi_{3} + T \Phi_{4} \approx 0
\\
F_{2} &=& \Psi_{1} - \Lambda_{4} \Phi_{4} \approx0
\\
S_{1}&=& \Phi_{4} \approx 0 \\
S_{2}&=& \Psi_{2}= - \Pi_{t} -2 \alpha r - \frac{\beta q^{2}}{r} - \frac{2 \alpha r R^{2}}{N^{2}} \approx 0.
\end{aligned}$$\
Here, ${F_{1}, F_{2}}$ is the first class pair with $F_{1}$ as primary first class constraint. So far we observed that in this theory, there is only one primary first class constraint with one undetermined multiplier which clearly indicate existence of gauge symmetry(s) in the system. In the next section we will extract the gauge symmetries of this quantum charged rigid membrane.
Gauge symmetry and Virasoro algebra
===================================
To study gauge symmetry we need to remove all the second class constraint from the system by setting them strongly zero and performing Dirac bracket defined by $$\left\lbrace {f, g}\right\rbrace _{D} = \{f,g\} - \sum_{i,j = 1,2}\{ f,S_{i}\} \triangle^{-1}_{ij} \{ S_{j},g\}$$ where f and g corresponds to the phase space variables or their functions. To compute $\triangle^{-1}_{ij}$ for the set of of second class constraints, we have $ \{ S_{1}, S_{2} \} = - \frac{4 \alpha rt R^{2}}{N^{2}}$. So, we can compute the Dirac Brackets between the basic fields. The nonzero DBs are: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left\lbrace {r, \Pi_{r}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& 1
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Pi_{r}, t} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& - \frac{N^{2}}{2TR}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Pi_{r}, t} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& \frac{A}{B}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Pi_{r}, \Pi_{T}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& -\frac{2 \alpha r R}{N^{2}}+ \frac{Ar}{2R}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { t, \Pi_{t}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& 1
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { t, \Pi_{R}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& \frac{r (T^{2} + R^{2})}{4 T R^{2}}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { t, T} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& - \frac{1}{B}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { t, \Pi_{T}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& - \frac{r}{2 R}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { R, \Pi_{R}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=&1
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { \Pi_{R}, T} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& - \frac{T}{R}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { \Pi_{r}, \Pi_{R}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& \frac{2 \alpha r T}{N^{2}} + \frac{A}{B} \frac{\alpha r^{2}(T^{2}+R^{2})}{N^{4}}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace { \Pi_{R}, \Pi_{T}} \right\rbrace_{D} &=& \frac{\alpha r^{2}}{N^{2}}
\label{dbs2}\end{aligned}$$
The generator of the gauge transformation is given by a linear combination of all first class constraints, $$G= \epsilon_{1} F_{1} + \epsilon_{2} F_{2}
\label{gaugegenerator11}$$ where $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ are gauge parameters. We need to find out whether these gauge parameters are independent or not.\
The Dirac brackets between the first class constraints are given by $$\{F_{i}, F_{j}\}_{D} = - \epsilon_{ij}F_{2} \ \ \ ;\ \ \ \ \ i, j=1, 2
\label{frstconsbrak}$$ Using a suggestive notation we rename the constraints $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
L_{0} &=& F_{1}\\
L_{1} &=& F_{2}\end{aligned}$$ We can easily identify a sort of truncated Virasoro algebra of the form $$\{ L_{m}, L_{n}\}_{D} = (m-n) L_{m+n}$$ with $m=0$, $n=1$ as proposed in [@ho] for HD cases.
Now, using equations (\[2110\], \[frstconsbrak\]) we compute the structure constraints as $C_{122} = -1 = -C_{212}$ and $V_{12} =1$(other structure constraints are zero). Exploiting the master equations (\[master2\]) we find the the following relation between the gauge parameters $$\epsilon_{1}= - \Lambda_{3}\epsilon_{2} - \dot{\epsilon}_{2}
\label{parameterrelation1}$$ and It is clear that we have only one independent gauge symmetry in this system which is supported by the fact that there is only one undetermined multiplier. We consider $\epsilon_{2}$ to be independent and compute the gauge transformation of the fields $$\begin{aligned}
\delta{r} &=& - \epsilon_{2} R \label{gaugetrans_r}\\
\delta{t} &=& - \epsilon_{2} T \label{gaugetrans_t}\\
\delta{R} &=& \epsilon_{1} R \label{gaugetrans_R}\\
\delta{T} &=& \epsilon_{1} T + \epsilon_{2} \frac{A}{B} R
\label{gaugetrans}
\end{aligned}$$
We can identify this gauge symmetry as reparametrisation symmetry in the following manner. Consider an infinitesimal transformation of r and t on the worldvolume as $\tau \rightarrow \tau + \sigma$. For some infinitesimal $\sigma$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\delta{r} = -\sigma r\\
\delta{t} = -\sigma t
\label{repara}\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, a comparison between (\[gaugetrans\_r\], \[gaugetrans\_t\]) and both equations of (\[repara\]) shows that the reparametrisation parameter is given by $\sigma = \epsilon_{2}$. Using (\[repara\]) we compute of Gauge variation of the Lagrangian (\[hdlagrangian\])which simplifies to $$\delta{L} = \frac{d}{d \tau} (\sigma L)$$ and ensure the invariance of the action under (\[repara\]).
Consistency check
=================
It would be worth to find out the Hamiltonian equations of motion which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{r}&=& R \label{eom_rH}\\
\dot{t}&=& T \label{eom_tH}\\
\dot{R}&=& \Lambda_{3} R \label{eom_RH} \\
\dot{T}&=& - \frac{A}{B} R + \frac{\dot{R}}{R} T \label{eom3}
\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eom\_rH\]) and (\[eom\_tH\]) are obvious as they arise as constraints at the Lagrangian level and agrees with (\[eom\_lambda1\]) and (\[eom\_lambda2\]). Taking time derivative of (\[gaugetrans\_r\]) and (\[gaugetrans\_t\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d \tau} \delta{r}&=& - \dot{\epsilon}_{2} R - \epsilon_{2} \dot{R} \label{commuta1}\\
\frac{d}{d \tau} \delta{t}&=& - \dot{\epsilon}_{2} T - \epsilon_{2} \dot{T} \label{commuta2}\end{aligned}$$ Using equation (\[parameterrelation1\]) alongwith (\[eom\_RH\], \[eom3\]) the above equations (\[commuta1\], \[commuta2\]) simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau} \delta{r} &=& \delta{R} \\
\frac{d}{d\tau} \delta{t} &=& \delta{T}\end{aligned}$$ which is a direct verification for (\[varsgauge\]). Whereas, (\[eom3\]) along with the trivial equation of motions (\[eom\_rH\]) and (\[eom\_tH\]) can be cast into the form so that it verify (\[eom2\]). This indeed is an important outcome of this analysis which agrees the validity of this first order formalism via matching the equation of motion at higher derivative and first order level.\
Taking gauge variation of the equation of (\[eom\_RH\]) and using (\[gaugetrans\_R\])we get $$\delta{\Lambda_{3}} = \dot{\epsilon_{1}}$$ which in turn verifies the first master equation (\[master1\]).
Discussion
==========
Studies in higher derivative field theories have been an intense field of research[@podolsky1; @podolsky2; @nesterenko; @plyuschay1]. Symmetry studies has always been interesting for theoreticians. We already have shown some result concerning inequality in number of independent first class constraints and number of independent gauge symmetries for a relativistic particle model with curvature[@BMP]. This mismatch inspired us a further study of some physically interesting model. Dirac’s relativistic membrane model for the electron can be a candidate with future prospect in brane inspired cosmology [@davidson1]. In this paper we presented a fresh Hamiltonian analysis purely in a first order formalism where higher time derivatives are considered to be independent fields and the corresponding momenta are defined in the usual way. Gauge symmetries were analysed with a novel way by constructing the gauge generator and extracting the independent gauge parameter. Number of independent primary first class constraint exactly is in accord with number of independent gauge symmetries leading to no mismatch. Also the constraint structure is shown to obey truncated Virasoro algebra. Reparametrization parameters have been identified through a suitable transformation of the fields.
The model continues to be in the highlight of recent interests like branes, cosmology and dark energy [@davidson1; @davidson2; @roberts; @barut; @aurilia]. Consideration of other variants of the model with more symmetries can be of utmost interest as future projects .
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank Rabin Banerjee, Pradip Mukherjee and Debraj Roy for useful discussions. He also acknowledges CSIR for financial support.
[999]{} R. Banerjee, P. Mukherjee, B. Paul, JHEP 1108(2011)085, arXiv : 1012.2969. B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. [**62**]{}, 68 (1942). B. Podolsky and C. Kikuchi, Phys. Rev. [**65**]{}, 228 (1944). [**67**]{}, 184 (1945). D. J. Montgomery, Phys. Rev. [**69**]{}, 117 (1946)
A. Pais and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Phys. Rev. [**79**]{}, 145 (1950). R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D [**[34]{}**]{} (1986), 670.
V.V.Nesterenko, J. Phys. A [**[ 22]{}**]{} (1989) 1673. M.S. Plyushchay, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A**4** (1989) 3851, Nuclear Physics B **362** (1991) 54. D. A. Eliezer and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B **325** (1989) 389. J. Iliopoulos, B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B **76** (1974) 310. F. S. Gama, M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, A.Yu. Petrov, A. J. da Silva. Phys. Rev. D **84** (2011) 045001. C. S. Chu, J. Lukierski and W. J. Zakrzewski, Nucl. Phys. B [**632**]{}, 219 (2002).
G. W. Gibbons, arXiv: hep-th/0302199. S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 023509 (2003). R. P. Woodard, Lect. Notes Phys. [**720**]{}, 403 (2007). I. P. Neupane JHEP, 09(2000)040. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, S. Ogushi, Phys. Rev. D **65** (2001)023521. R. Cordero, A. Molgado, E. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D **79** (2009) 024024. A. Anisimov, E. Babichev and A. Vikman, J. of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics [**06**]{}(2005) 006 . R. Andringa, E. A. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, O. Hohm, E. Sezgin,P. K. Townsend Class. Quantum Grav. **27** (2010) 025010 \[arXiv:0907.4658\]. E. A. Bergshoeff , O. Hohm , J. Rosseel , E. Sezgin and P. K. Townsend (2011) Class. Quantum Grav. **28** 015002 \[arXiv:1005.3952\]. K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D [**16**]{} (1977) 953. S Deser, R Jackiw, S Templeton, 1982 Ann. Phys. **140**(1982) 372; Ann. Phys. **185** (1988) 406 (erratum). K. Jansen, J. Kutl, C. Llu Phys. Lett. B **309** ( 1993 ) 119; Phys. Lett. B **309** (1993) 127. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, JHEP **07**(2000)049. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odinitsov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **15** (2000)413. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B **471**(1999)155. M. Fukuma, S. Matsuura, T. Sakai, Prog. Theor. Phys. **105** (2001) 1017 \[hep-th/0103187\]. P.A.M. Dirac, Can. J. Math. [**2**]{} (1950) 129; [*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Yeshiva University, 1964. A. Hanson, T. Regge, C. Tietelboim, “*Constrained Hamiltonian System*”, (Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei, Roma, 1976). H. J. Rothe, K. D. Rothe, “*Classical And Quantum Dynamics of Constrained Hamiltonian Systems*” , World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics - Vol. 81. K. Sundermeyer, “*Lecture Notes in Physics 169, Constrained Dynamics*”, (Springer-Verlag, 1982). M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, “ *Quantization of Gauge Systems*”, Princeton University Press. M. Ostrogradsky, *Mem. Ac. St. Petersbourg* [**V 14**]{} (1850) 385. A. A. Slavnov, Nucl. Phys. B **31** (1971) 301. A.A.Slavnov, Phys.Lett. B , **258** (1991) 391. R. Cordero, M. Cruz, A. Molgado and E. Rojas Class. Quantum Grav.**29**(2012) 175010. A.A.Slavnov JHEP **08** (2008) 047; A.Quadri, A.A.Slavnov JHEP **07** (2010) 087.
P. Mukherjee, B. Paul, Phys. Rev. D **85** (2012) 045028. D. M. Gitman and I. V. Tyutin, “ *Quantization of Fields with Constraints*”, [*Springer – Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (1990) 291 p*]{}. R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe and K. D. Rothe, Phys. Lett. B **463** (1999) 248 \[hep-th/9906072\]; Phys. Lett. B [**[ 479]{}**]{} (2000) 429 \[arXiv : hep-th/9907217\]. R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe, K. D. Rothe, J. Phys. A **33**(2000) 2059 \[hep-th/9909039\]. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **268**(1962) 57. R. Cordero, A. Molgado, E. Rojas, Class. Quantum Grav. **28** (2011) 065010.
G. Napoli, L. Vergori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 207803 (2012). E. Kim, A. H. C. Neto, EPL **84** (2008) 57007. A. Davidson, S. Rubin, Class. Quantum Grav. **26** (2009) 235006. A. Davidson, S. Rubin, Class. Quantum Grav. **28** (2011) 125005. N. T Yilmaz, Class. Quantum Grav. **27** (2010) 145019.
V. G. Czinner, Phys. Rev. D **80** 104017 (2009).
M. Trzetrzelewski, Phys. Lett. B **684** (2010) 256.
M. B. Roberts, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 9(4) (2011) 1016. J. Nambu, Copenhagen Summer Symposium, 1970, unpublished; T. Gotto Prog. Theor. Phys. 46(1971), 1560. P. M. Ho, Phys. Lett. B **558** (2003) 238. A.O. Barut, and M. Pavsic Phys. Lett. B **306** ( 1993 ) 49. A. Aurilia, M. Palmer, E. Spallucci, Phys. Rev. D **40** (1989) 2511.
[^1]: for an extended version of this first order formalism please see [@BMP]
[^2]: from now on we have to use only Dirac brackets since we removed all second class constraints. Poissson brackets are denoted by $\{ \ , \}$ , whereas, $\{ \ , \}_{D}$ refers to Dirac brackets
[^3]: with $\mu, \nu=0,1,2,3$ and $a,b=0,1,2$
[^4]: $g_{ab}$ is the worldvolume metric and $e^{\mu}_{ \ a} = X^{\mu}_{ \ ,a}$ are tangent vectors to the worldvolume
[^5]: consider $N^{2} = T^{2} - R^{2}$, for convenience
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
A classical result states that the determinant of an alternating link is equal to the number of spanning trees in a checkerboard graph of an alternating connected projection of the link.
We generalize this result to show that the determinant is the alternating sum of the number of quasi-trees of genus $j$ of the dessin of a non-alternating link.
Furthermore, we obtain formulas for coefficients of the Jones polynomial by counting quantities on dessins. In particular we will show that the $j$-th coefficient of the Jones polynomial is given by sub-dessins of genus less or equal to $j$.
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803'
author:
- 'Oliver T. Dasbach'
- David Futer
- Efstratia Kalfagianni
- 'Xiao-Song Lin'
- 'Neal W. Stoltzfus'
bibliography:
- '../linklit.bib'
title: |
Alternating sum formulae for the determinant\
and other link invariants
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A classical result in knot theory states that the determinant of an alternating link is given by the number of spanning trees in a checkerboard graph of an alternating, connected link projection (see e.g. [@BZ]). For non-alternating links one has to assign signs to the trees and count the trees with signs, where the geometric meaning of the signs is not apparent. Ultimately, these theorems are reflected in Kauffman’s spanning tree expansion for the Alexander polynomial (see [@Kauffman:OnKnots; @OzsvathSzabo:Alternating]) as well as Thistlethwaite’s spanning tree expansion for the Jones polynomial [@Thistlethwaite:SpanningTreeExpansion]; the determinant is the absolute value of the Alexander polynomial as well as of the Jones polynomial at $-1$.
The first purpose of this paper is to show that the determinant theorem for alternating links has a very natural, topological/geometrical generalization to non-alternating links, using the framework that we developed in [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins]: Every link diagram induces an embedding of the link into an orientable surface such that the projection is alternating on that surface. Now the two checkerboard graphs are graphs embedded on surfaces, i.e. dessins d’enfant (aka. combinatorial maps), and these two graphs are dual to each other. The minimal genus of all surfaces coming from that construction is the dessin-genus of the link. However, as in [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins] one doesn’t need the reference to the surface to construct the dessin directly from the diagram and to compute its genus. The Jones polynomial can then be considered as an evaluation of the polynomial [@BollobasRiordan:CyclicGraphs] of the dessin [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins]. Alternating non-split links are precisely the links of dessin-genus zero. Our determinant formula recovers the classical determinant formula in that case.
For a connected link projection of higher dessin genus we will show that the determinant is given as the alternating sum of the number of spanning quasi-trees of genus $j$, as defined below, in the dessin of the link projection. Thus the sign has a topological/geometrical interpretation in terms of the genus of sub-dessins. In particular, we will show that for dessin-genus $1$ projections the determinant is the difference between the number of spanning trees in the dessin and the number of spanning trees in the dual of the dessin. The class of dessin-genus one knots and links includes for example all non-alternating pretzel knots.
Every link can be represented as a dessin with one vertex, and we will show that with this representation the numbers of $j$-quasi-trees arrise as coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of a certain matrix assigned to the dessin. In particular we will obtain a new determinant formula for the determinant of a link which comes solely from the Jones polynomial. Recall that the Alexander polynomial - and thus every evaluation of it - can be expressed as a determinant in various ways. The Jones polynomial, however, is not defined as a determinant.
The second purpose of the paper is to develop dessin formulas for coefficients of the Jones polynomial. We will show that the $j$-th coefficient is completely determined by sub-dessins of genus less or equal to $j$ and we will give formulas for the coefficients. Again, we will discuss the simplifications in the formulas if the dessin has one vertex. Starting with the work of the first and fourth author [@DL:VolumeIsh] the coefficients of the Jones polynomial have recently gained a new significance because of their relationship to the hyperbolic volume of the link complement. Under certain conditions, the coefficients near the head and the tail of the polynomial give linear upper and lower bounds for the volume. In [@DL:VolumeIsh; @DasbachLin:HeadAndTail] this was done for alternating links and in [@FKP:VolumeJones] it was generalized to a larger class of links.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 recalls the pertinent results of [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins]. In Section 3 we develop the alternating sum formula for the determinant of the link. Section 4 shows a duality result for quasi-trees and its application to knots of dessin genus one. In Section 5 we look at the situation when the dessin has one vertex. Section 6 shows results on the coefficents of the Jones polynomial within the framework of dessins.
[**Acknowledgement:** ]{} We thank James Oxley for helpful discussions. The first author was supported in part by NSF grants DMS-0306774 and DMS-0456275 (FRG), the second author by NSF grant DMS-0353717 (RTG), the third author by NSF grants DMS-0306995 and DMS-0456155 (FRG) and the fifth author by NSF grant DMS-0456275 (FRG).
The Dessin d’enfant coming from a link diagram {#sec:dessin}
==============================================
We recall the basic definitions of [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins]:
A *dessin d’enfant* (combinatorial map, oriented ribbon map) can be viewed as a multi-graph (i.e. loops and multiple edges are allowed) equipped with a cyclic order on the edges at every vertex. Isomorphisms between dessins are graph isomorphisms that preserve the given cyclic order of the edges.
Equivalently, dessins correspond to graphs embedded on an orientable surface such that every region in the complement of the graph is a disk. We call the regions the *faces* of the dessins. Thus the genus $g(\D)$ of a dessin $\D$ with $k$ components is determined by its Euler characteristic: $$\chi(\D)=v(\D)-e(\D) +f(\D) = 2k-2g(\D).$$
For each Kauffman state of a (connected) link diagram a dessin is constructed as follows: Given a link diagram $P(K)$ of a link $K$ we have, as in Figure \[fig:AB-splicing\], an $A$-splicing and a $B$-splicing at every crossing. For any state assignment of an $A$ or $B$ at each crossing we obtain a collection of non-intersecting circles in the plane, together with embedded arcs that record the crossing splice. Again, Figure \[fig:AB-splicing\] shows this situation locally. In particular, we will consider the state where all splicings are $A$-splicings. The collection of circles will be the set of vertices of the dessin.
![Splicings of a crossing, $A$-graph and $B$-graph.[]{data-label="fig:AB-splicing"}](fig_1.eps){width="2.5in"}
To define the desired dessin associated to a link diagram, we need to define an orientation on each of the circles resulting from the $A$ or $B$ splicings, according to a given state assignment. We orient the set of circles in the plane by orienting each component clockwise or anti-clockwise according to whether the circle is inside an odd or even number of circles, respectively. Given a state assignment $s:E\rightarrow\{A,B\}$ on the crossings (the eventual edge set $E(\D)$ of the dessin), the associated dessin is constructed by first resolving all the crossings according to the assigned states and then orienting the resulting circles according to a given orientation of the plane.
The vertices of the dessin correspond to the collection of circles and the edges of the dessin correspond to the crossings. The orientation of the circles defines the orientation of the edges around the vertices. We will denote the dessin associated to state $s$ by $\D(s)$. Of particular interest for us will be the dessins $\D(A)$ and $\D(B)$ coming from the states with all-$A$ splicings and all-$B$ splicings. For alternating projections of alternating links $\D(A)$ and $\D(B)$ are the two checkerboard graphs of the link projection. In general, we showed in [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins] that $\D(A)$ and $\D(B)$ are dual to each other.
We will need several different combinatorial measurements of the dessin:
\[def:dessin-counts\] Denote by $v(\D), e(\D)$ and $f(\D)$ the number of vertices, edges and faces of a dessin $\D$. Furthermore, we define the following quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
k(\D) &=& \mbox{the number of connected components of } \D,\\
g(\D) &=& \frac{2k(\D)-v(\D) + e(\D) - f(\D)}{2}, \mbox{the \emph{genus} of } \D,\\
n(\D) &=& e(\D) - v(\D) + k(\D), \mbox{the \emph{nullity} of } \D.\end{aligned}$$
The following spanning sub-dessin expansion was obtained in [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins] by using results of [@BollobasRiordan:NonOrientableSurfaces]. A *spanning sub-dessin* is obtained from the dessin by deleting edges. Thus, it has the same vertex set as the dessin.
\[thm:sub-dessin\] Let $\langle P \rangle \in \Z[A,A^{-1}]$ be the Kauffman bracket of a connected link projection diagram $P$ and $\D := \D(A)$ be the dessin of $P$ associated to the all-$A$-splicing. The Kauffman bracket can be computed by the following spanning sub-dessin $\H$ expansion: $$A^{-e(\D)} \langle P \rangle = A^{2-2v(\D)} (X-1)^{-k(\D)}\sum_{\H \subset \D} (X-1)^{k(\H)}Y^{n(\H)} Z^{g(\H)}$$ under the following specialization: $\{X\rightarrow -A^4,Y\rightarrow A^{-2} \delta,Z\rightarrow \delta^{-2}\}$ where $\delta:=(-A^2-A^{-2})$.
Dessins determine the determinant
=================================
The determinant of a link is ubiquitous in knot theory. It is the absolute value of the Alexander polynomial at -1 as well as the Jones polynomial at -1. Furthermore, it is the order of the first homology group of the double branched cover of the link complement. For other interpretations, see e.g. [@BZ].
We find the following definition helpful:
\[def:quasi-tree\] Let $\D$ be a connected dessin that embeds into the surface $S$. A spanning quasi-tree of genus $j$ or spanning $j$-quasi-tree in $\D$ is a sub-dessin $\H$ of $\D$ with $v(\H)$ vertices and $e(\H)$ edges such that $\H$ is connected and spanning and
1. $\H$ is of genus $j$.
2. $S-\H$ has one component, i.e. $f(\H)=1$.
3. $H$ has $e(\H)=v(\H)-1 + 2 j$ edges.
In particular the spanning $0$-quasi-trees are the regular spanning trees of the graph. Note that by Definition \[def:dessin-counts\] either two of the three conditions in Definition \[def:quasi-tree\] imply the third one.
Theorem \[thm:sub-dessin\] now leads to the following formula for the determinant $\det (K)$ of a link $K$:
\[thm:determinant\] Let $P$ be a connected projection of the link $K$ and $\D:=\D(A)$ be the dessin of $P$ associated to the all-$A$ splicing. Suppose $\D$ is of genus $g(\D)$.
Furthermore, let $s(j,\D)$ be the number of spanning $j$-quasi-trees of $\D$.
Then $$\det(K)= \left |\sum_{j=0}^{g(\D)} (-1)^j \, s(j,\D) \right |.$$
Recall that the Jones polynomial $J_K(t)$ can be obtained from the Kauffman bracket, up to a sign and a power of $t$, by the substitution $t:=A^{-4}$.
By Theorem \[thm:sub-dessin\] we have for some power $u=u(\D)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pm J_K(A^{-4})&= A^u \sum_{\H \subset \D} (X-1)^{k(\H)-1} Y^{n(\H)} Z^{g(\H)} \nonumber\\
&= A^u \sum_{\H \subset \D} A^{-2 -2 e(\H)+ 2 v(\H)} \delta^{f(\H)-1}\end{aligned}$$
We are interested in the absolute value of $J_K(-1)$. Thus, $\delta =0$ and, since $k(\H)\leq f(\H)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\left |J_K(-1)\right | &= \left | \sum_{\H \subset \D, f(\H)=1} A^{-2 -2 e(\H) + 2 v(\H)} \right |\\
&= \left | \sum_{\H \subset \D, f(\H)=1} A^{-4 g(\H)} \right |\end{aligned}$$
Collecting the terms of the same genus and setting $A^{-4}:=-1$ proves the claim.
For genus $j=0$ we have $s(0,\D)$ is the number of spanning trees in the dessin $\D$. Recall that a link has dessin-genus zero if and only it is alternating. Thus, in particular, we recover the well-known theorem that for alternating links the determinant of a link is the number of spanning trees in a checkerboard graph of an alternating connected projection.
Theorem \[thm:determinant\] is a natural generalization of this theorem for non-alternating link projections.
\[Example821\] Figure \[fig:Eight21p\] shows the non-alternating 8-crossing knot $8_{21}$, as drawn by Knotscape (http://www.math.utk.edu/$\sim \!$ morwen/knotscape.html), and Figure \[fig:Eight21D\] the all-$A$ associated dessin.
The dessin in Figure \[fig:Eight21D\] contains 9 spanning trees. Therefore, $s(0,\D)=9$. A spanning sub-dessin of genus one with $4$ edges must contain either of the two loops and three additional edges. A simple count yields $24$ of these and thus the determinant of the knot is $24-9=15$.
![The eight-crossing knot $8_{21}$ with its all-$A$ splicing projection diagram.[]{data-label="fig:Eight21p"}](k8_21.eps){width="3in"}
![The eight-crossing knot $8_{21}$ with its all-$A$ splicing projection diagram.[]{data-label="fig:Eight21p"}](AltKnot8c21.eps){width="2in"}
![All-$A$ splicing dessin for $8_{21}$.[]{data-label="fig:Eight21D"}](Dessin8c21.eps){width="2in"}
Duality
=======
The following theorem is a generalization of the result that for planar graphs the spanning trees are in one-one correspondence to the spanning trees of the dual graphs:
Let $\D=\D(A)$ be the dessin of all-$A$ splicings of a connected link projection of a link $L$. Suppose $\D$ is of genus $g(\D)$ and $\D^*$ is the dual of $\D$.
We have: The $j$-quasi-trees of $\D$ are in one-one correspondence to the $(g(\D)-j)$-quasi-trees of $\D^*$. Thus $$s(j,\D)=s(g(\D)-j,\D^*).$$
Let $\H$ be a spanning $j$-quasi-tree in $\D$. Denote by $\D-\H$ the sub-dessin of $\D$ obtained by removing the edges of $\H$ from $\D$. From $f(\H)=1$ it follows that the dual $(\D-\H)^*$ is connected and spanning. Furthermore, $f((\D-\H)^*)=1$.
We have: $$\begin{aligned}
v(\H)-e(\H)+f(\H)&=&v(\D)-e(\H)+1 = 2 - 2 j\\
v(\D)-e(\D)+f(\D)&=& 2 - 2 g(\D)\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
v((\D-\H)^*)- e((\D-\H)^*)+f((\D-\H)^*) &=& f(\D) - (e(\D)-e(\H)) +1\\
&=& 2 - 2 g(\D) - v(\D) + e(\H) +1\\
&=& 2 - 2(g(\D)-j).\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $(\D-\H)^*$ is a $(g(\D)-j)$-quasi-tree in $\D^*$.
Recall that the dessin-genus zero links are precisely the alternating links. The following corollary generalizes to the class of dessin-genus one links the aforementioned, classical interpretation of the determinant of connected alternating links as the number of spanning trees in its checkerboard graph:
\[cor:Dessingenus1\] Let $\D=\D(A)$ be the all-$A$ dessin of a connected link projection of a link $L$ and $\D^*$ its dual. Suppose $\D$ is of dessin genus one. Then
$$\det (L) =| \# \{\mbox{spanning trees in } \D\} - \# \{\mbox {spanning trees in } \D^*\}|.$$
We apply Corollary \[cor:Dessingenus1\] to compute the determinants of non-alternating pretzel links. The Alexander polynomial as well as the Jones polynomial, and consequently the determinant is invariant under mutations (see e.g. [@Lickorish:Book]). Hence, it is sufficient to consider the case of $K(p_1, \dots, p_n, -q_1, \dots, -q_m)$ pretzel links, as depicted in Figure \[fig:pretzel\]. We assume that the links are non-alternating, i.e. $n\geq 1$ and $m \geq 1$.
![The $K(p_1, \dots, p_n, -q_1, \dots, -q_m)$ pretzel link.[]{data-label="fig:pretzel"}](Pretzel.eps){width="2.5in"}
![The all-$A$ splicings of the $K(p_1, \dots, p_n, -q_1, \dots, -q_m)$ pretzel link.[]{data-label="fig:asplicedpretzel"}](AsplicedPretzel.eps){width="2.5in"}
Consider the pretzel link $K(p_1,\dots,p_n,-q_1,\dots,-q_m)$, where $n \geq 1, m \geq 1$ and $p_i, q_i>0$ for all $i$. The determinant of $K(p_1,\dots,p_n,-q_1,\dots,-q_m)$, is $$\det(K(p_1, \dots, p_n, -q_1, \dots, -q_m))= \left | \prod_{i=1}^n p_i \prod_{j=1}^m q_j \left(\sum_{i=1}^n \frac 1 {p_i} - \sum_{j=1}^m \frac 1 {q_j} \right ) \right |$$
Figure \[fig:asplicedpretzel\] shows the all-$A$ splicing diagram of these links. The all-$A$ dessin $\D = \D(A)$ has $$v(\D)=n+\sum_{j=1}^m (q_j-1)= n-m + \sum_{j=1}^m q_j$$ vertices and $e(\D)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i + \sum_{j=1}^m q_j$ edges. For the numbers of faces we have to count the vertices in the all-$B$ dessin. We compute: $$f(\D)= m-n+\sum_{i=1}^n p_i.$$ Now we get for the Euler characteristic: $$\chi(\D)=v(\D)-e(\D)+f(\D)=0$$ and thus the dessin-genus is one.
It remains to compute the difference between the number of spanning trees in the dessin and the number of spanning trees in its dual. This is a simple counting argument.
The class of dessin-genus one knots and links is quite rich. For example, it contains all non-alternating Montesinos links. It also contains all semi-alternating links (whose diagrams are constructed by joining together two alternating tangles, and thus have exactly two over-over crossing arcs and two under-under arcs).
Dessins with one vertex
=======================
Link projection modifications
-----------------------------
Here we show that every knot/link admits a projection with respect to which the all-$A$ dessin has one vertex. Such dessins are useful for computations.
\[Onevertexdessin\] Let $\tilde P$ be a projection of a link $L$ with corresponding all-$A$ dessin $\tilde \D$. Then $\tilde P$ can be modified by Reidemeister moves to a new a projection $P$ such that the corresponding dessin $\D=\D(A)$ has one vertex. Furthermore, we have:
1. $e(\tilde \D)+ 2 v(\tilde D)-2 = e (\D)$
2. $g(\tilde \D)+ v(\tilde D) -1 = g(\D).$
For a connected projection of the link $L$ consider the collection of circles that we obtain by an all-$A$ splicing of the crossings. If there is only one circle we are done. Otherwise, one can perform a Reidemeister move II near a crossing on two arcs that lie on two neighbor circles as in Figure \[fig:vertexredux\].
![Reduction of the number of vertices by a Reidemeister II move[]{data-label="fig:vertexredux"}](Vertexredux.eps){width="3.5in"}
The new projection will have one circle less in its all-$A$ splicing diagram. Also two crossings were added and a new face was created. If the link projection is non-connected one can transform it by Reidemeister II moves into a connected link projection. It is easy to check that the genus behaves as predicted. The claim follows.
Dessins with one vertex are equivalent to Manturov’s “d-diagrams" [@Manturov:Ddiagrams]. Note that the procedure of using just Reidemeister moves of type II is similar in spirit to Vogel’s proof of the Alexander theorem [@Vogel:AlexanderTheorem; @BirmanBrendle:BraidSurvey].
The determinant of dessins with one vertex
------------------------------------------
Dessins with one vertex can also described as chord diagrams. The circle of the chord diagram corresponds to the vertex and the chords correspond to the edges. In our construction the circle of the chord diagram is the unique circle of the state resolution, and the chords correspond to the crossings. The cyclic orientation at the vertex induces the order of the chords around the circle. For each chord diagram $\D$ one can assign an intersection matrix [@CDL; @BN-G:Melvin-Morton] as follows: Fix a base point on the circle, disjoint from the chords and number the chords consecutively.
The intersection matrix is given by:
$$\IM(\D)_{i j}= \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\sign (i-j) & \mbox{if the $i$-th chord and the $j$-th chord intersect} \\
0 & \mbox {else}
\end{array} \right .$$
Recall that the number of spanning $j$-quasi trees in $\D$ was denoted by $s(j,D)$. Now:
For a dessin $\D$ with one vertex the characteristic polynomial of $\, \IM(\D)$ satisfies:
$$\det(\IM(\D) - x I) = (-1)^{m} \sum_{j=0}^{\lfloor \frac{m} 2 \rfloor } s(j,\D) x^{m-2 j},$$ where $m=e(\D)$ is the number of chords, i.e. the number of edges in the dessin.
In particular
$$\det(\D) = | \det (\IM(\D) - \sqrt {-1} I)|.$$
The result follows from combining Theorem \[thm:determinant\] and a result of Bar-Natan and Garoufalidis [@BN-G:Melvin-Morton]. Bar-Natan and Garoufalidis use chord diagrams to study weight systems coming from Vassiliev invariant theory, thus in a different setting than we do. However, by [@BN-G:Melvin-Morton] for a chord diagram $\D$ the determinant $\det(\IM(\D))$ is either $0$ or $1$ and, translated in our language, it is $1$ precisely if $f(\D)=1.$
Furthermore, since $f(\D)-1$ and the number of edges have the same parity, we know that $\det(\IM(\D))=0$ for an odd number of edges.
The matrix $\IM(\D)$ has zeroes on the diagonal. Thus the coefficient of $x^{m-j}$ in $\det(\IM(\D) - x I)$ is $(-1)^{m-j}$ the sum over the determinants of all $j \times j$ submatrices that are obtained by deleting $m-j$ rows and the $m-j$ corresponding columns in the matrix $\IM(\D)$. Those submatrices are precisely $\IM(\H)$ for $\H$ a subdessin of $\D$ with $j$ edges. In particular the determinant of $\IM(\H)$ is zero for $j$ odd. For $j$ even we know that $\det(\IM(\H)))=1$ if $f(\H)=1$ and $0$ otherwise. Since for $1$-vertex dessins $D$ the genus $2 g(\D)= e(\D)-f(\D)+1$ those $\H$ with $f(\H)$ are precisely the $j$-quasi-trees. This, together with Theorem \[thm:determinant\] implies the claim.
The $(p,q)$-twist knots as in Figure \[fig:pq-twist\] have an all-$A$-dessin with one vertex.
![The $(p,q)$-twist knot and its all-$A$ splicing dessin in chord diagram form.[]{data-label="fig:pq-twist"}](pqtwistknot.eps){width="4in"}
The figure-8 knot is given as the $(2,3)$-twist knot. Its intersection matrix is $$\IM(\D) = \left ( \begin{array}{ccccc}
0&0&-1&-1&-1\\
0&0&-1&-1&-1\\
1&1&0&0&0\\
1&1&0&0&0\\
1&1&0&0&0.
\end{array} \right )$$ The characteristic polynomial of $\IM(\D)$ is $-6 x^3 - x^5.$ In particular, the determinant of the figure-8 knot is $6-1=5$.
The Jones polynomial at $t=-2$.
-------------------------------
By work of Jaeger, Vertigan and Welsh [@JVW] evaluating the Jones polynomial is $\#P$-hard at all points, except at eight points: All fourth and sixth roots of unity. In particular, the determinant arises as one of these exceptional points. However, letting computational complexity aside, Theorem \[thm:sub-dessin\] gives an interesting formula in terms of the genus for yet another point: $t=A^{-4}=-2$:
\[Jonesat-2\] Let $P$ be the projection of a link $K$ with dessin $\D=\D(A)$ such that $\D$ has one vertex. Then the Kauffman bracket at $t=A^{-4}:=-2$ evaluates to
$$\langle P \rangle = A^{e(\D)} \sum_{\H \subset \D} (A^{-4})^{g(\H)}.$$.
Theorem \[thm:sub-dessin\], after substitution, yields the following sub-dessin expansion for the Kauffman bracket of $P$: $$\langle P \rangle = \sum_{\H \subset \D} A^{e(\D)- 2 e(\H)} \left ( -A^2-A^{-2} \right )^ {f(\H)-1}.$$ The term $$A^{-2} (-A^2-A^{-2})=(-1-A^{-4})$$ is $1$ at $t=A^{-4}=-2$ and, with $v(\D)=v(\H)$ for all spanning sub-dessin $\H$ of $\D$, the claim follows.
Dessins and the coefficients of the Jones Polynomial
====================================================
Let $P$ be a connected projection of a link $L$, with corresponding all-$A$ dessin $\D:=\D(A)$ and let
$$\langle P \rangle = \sum_{\H \subset \D} A^{e(\D)-2e(\H)} (-A^2 -A^{-2})^{f(\H)-1} \label{Eq:KauffmanBracket}$$
denote the spanning sub-dessin expansion of the Kauffman bracket of $P$ as obtained earlier. Let ${\H}_0\subset {\D}$ denote the spanning sub-dessin that contains no edges (so $f({\H}_0)=v(\D)$ and $e({\H}_0)=0$) and let $M:=M(P)$ and $m:=m(P)$ denote the maximum and minimum powers of $A$ that occur in the terms that lead to $\langle P \rangle$. We have $$M(P)\leq e(\D)+2v(\D)-2,$$ and the exponent $e(\D)+2v(\D)-2$ is realized by ${\H}_0$; see Lemma 7.1, [@DFKLS:KauffmanDessins]. Let $a_M$ denote the coefficient of the extreme term $A^{e(\D)+2v(\D)-2} $ of $ \langle P \rangle$. Below we will give formulae for $a_M$; similar formulae can be obtained for the lowest coefficient, say $a_m$, if one replaces the the all-$A$ dessin with the all-$B$ dessin in the statements below. We should note that $a_M$ is not, in general, the first non-vanishing coefficient of the Jones polynomial of $L$. Indeed, the exponent ${e(\D)+2v(\D)-2}$ as well as the expression for $a_M$ we obtain below, depends on the projection $P$ and it is not, in general, an invariant of $L$. In particular, $a_M$ might be zero and, for example, we will show that this is the case in Example \[example:821\].
The following theorem extends and recovers results of Bae and Morton, and Manch[ó]{}n [@MortonBae:ExtremeTerms; @Manchon:ExtremeCoefficients] within the dessin framework.
\[formula\] We have
1. For $l\geq 0$ let $a_{M-l}$ denote the coefficient of $A^{e(\D)+2 v(\D)-2 -4l}$ in the Kauffman bracket $\langle P \rangle$. Then, the term $a_{M-l}$ only depends on spanning sub-dessins $\H \subset \D$ of genus $g(\H)\leq l$.
2. The highest term is given by $$a_M = \sum_{\H \subset \D, \, g(\H)=0=k(\H)-v(\D)} (-1)^{v(\D)+e(\H)-1}.$$ In particular, if $\D$ does not contain any loops then $a_M=(-1)^{v(\D)-1}$ and the only contribution comes from ${\H}_0$.
The contribution of a spanning $\H \subset \D$ to $ \langle P \rangle$ is given by
$$X_{\H}:=
A^{e(\D)-2e(\H)} (-A^2 -A^{-2})^{f(\H)-1}.$$
A typical monomial of $X_{\H}$ is of the form $A^{e(\D)-2e(\H)+2f(\H)-2-4s}$, for $0\leq s \leq f(\H)-1$. For a monomial to contribute to $a_{M-l}$ we must have $$e(\D)-2e(\H)+2f(\H)-2-4s=e(\D)+2v(\D)-2-4l,$$ or $$f(\H)=v(\D)+e(\H)+2s-2l,$$
Now we have $$\begin{aligned}
2g(\H)&=&2k(\H)-v(\D) + e(\H) - f(\H)\\
&=& 2k(\H)-2v(\D) + 2l-2s,\\\end{aligned}$$ or $g(\H)=k(\H)-v(\D)+ l-s$. But since $v(\D)\geq k(\H)$ (every component must have a vertex) and $s \geq 0$ we conclude that
$$l = g(\H)+ v(\D)-k(\H) + s \geq g(\H),$$ as desired. Now to get the claims for $a_M$: Note that for a monomial of $X_{\H}$ to contribute to $a_M$ we must have $$g(\H)=k(\H)-v(\D) -s$$ which implies that $s=g(\H)=0$ and $v(\D)= k(\H)$. It follows that $\H$ contributes to $a_M$ if and only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $f(\H)=v(\D)+e(\H)$.
2. $k(\H)=v(\D)$. Thus $\H$ consists of $k:=k(\H)$ components each of which has exactly one vertex and either $\H$ has no edges or every edge is a loop.
3. $g(\H)=0$.
4. the contribution of $\H$ to $a_M$ is $(-1)^{f(\H)-1}$.
This finishes the proof of the theorem.
\[example:821\] The all-$A$ dessin of Figure \[fig:Eight21D\] contains one subdessin with no edges, two subdessins with exactly one loop and one subdessin of genus zero with two loops. Thus $a_M=0$.
A connected link projection is called $A$-adequate iff the all-$A$ dessin $\D(A)$ contains no loops; alternating links admit such projections. We consider two edges as equivalent if they connect the same two vertices. Let $e'=e'(\D(A)$ denote the number of edges of equivalence classes of edges.
The following is an extension in [@Stoimenow:SecondCoefficient] to the class of adequate links of a result in [@DL:VolumeIsh] for alternating links. We will give the dessin proof for completeness, since it shows a subtlety when dealing with dessins in our context: Not all dessins can occur as a dessin of a link diagram.
For $A$-adequate diagrams $a_{M-1}= (-1)^{v} (e'-v+1)$
With the notation and setting of the proof of Theorem \[formula\] we are looking to calculate the coefficient of the power $A^{e(\D)+2 v(\D)-6}$. The analysis in the proof of Theorem \[formula\] implies that a spanning sub-dessin $\H \subset \D$ contributes to $a_{M-1}$ if it satisfies one of the following:
\(1) $v(\H)=k(\H)$ and $g(\H)=1$.
\(2) $v(\H)=k(\H)$ and $g(\H)=0$.
\(3) $v(\H)=k(\H)+1$ and $g(\H)=0$.
Since the link is adequate $\D(A)$ contains no loops and we cannot have any $\H$ as in (1). Furthermore, the only $\H$ with the properties of (2) is the sub-dessin $\H_0$ that contains no edges. Finally the only case that occurs in (3) consists of those sub-dessins $\H_1$ that are obtained from $\H _0$ by adding edges between a pair of vertices. The dessin is special since it comes from a link diagram. Each vertex in the dessin represents a circle in the all-$A$ splicing diagram of the link and each edge represents an edge there. Because these edges do not intersect $\H_1$ must have genus $0$.
Note that any sub-dessin $\H'\subset \H_1$ is either $\H_0$ or is of the sort described in (3). We will call $\H_1$ maximal if its not properly contained in one of the same type with more edges. Thus there are $e'$ maximal $\H_1$ for $\D(A)$. The contribution of $\H_1$ to $a_{M-1}$ is $(-1)^{v(\D)-3+e(\H_1)}$. Thus the contribution of all $\H' \subset \H_1$ that are not $\H_0$ is $$\sum_{j=1}^{e(\H_1)} {e(\H_1) \choose j} (-1)^{v(\D)-3+j} = (-1)^{v(\D)}.$$
Thus, the total contribution in $a_{M-1}$ of all such terms is $(-1)^v e'$.
To finish the proof, observe that the contribution of $\H_0$ comes from the second term of the binomial expansion $$X_{\H_0}:=
A^{e(\D)} (-A^2 -A^{-2})^{f(\H_0)-1}.$$ Since $f(\H_0)=v$ this later contribution is $(-1)^{v-1} (v-1)$.
The expression in Theorem \[formula\] becomes simpler, and the lower order terms easier to express, if the dessin $\D$ has only one vertex. By Lemma \[Onevertexdessin\] the projection $P$ can always be chosen so that this is the case.
\[Cor:CoeffOneVertex\] Suppose $P$ is a connected link projection such that $\D=\D(A)$ has one vertex. Then, $$a_{M-l} = \sum_{\H \subset \D,\, g(\H)=0}^{g(\H)=l} (-1)^{e(\H)} {e(\H)-2 g(\H) \choose l - g(\H) }.$$
In particular, $$a_M = \sum_{\H \subset \D ,\, g(\H)=0} (-1)^{e(\H)}$$ and $$a_{M-1} = \sum_{\H \subset \D,\, g(\H)=1 } (-1)^{e(\H)} +
\sum_{\H \subset \D,\, g(\H)=0 } (-1)^{e(\H)} e(\H)$$
For a 1-vertex dessin $\D$ we have $$k(\D)=v(\D)=1 \mbox{ and, thus } 2 g(\D)=e(\D)-f(\D)+1.$$
Now Equation (\[Eq:KauffmanBracket\]) simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\langle P \rangle &=& \sum_{\H \subset \D} A^{e(\D)-2 e(\H)+ 2 f(\H)-2} \left (-1 - A^{-4} \right ) ^{f(\H)-1}\\
&=& \sum_{\H \subset \D} A^{e(\D)-4 g(\H)} \left ( -1 - A^{-4} \right )^{e(\H)- 2 g(\H) }.\end{aligned}$$ The claim follows from collecting the terms.
Parallel edges, i.e. neighboring edges that are parallel in the chord diagram, in a dessin are special since they correspond to twists in the diagram. It is useful to introduce weighted dessins: Collect all edges, say $\mu(e)-1$ edges parallel to a given edge $c$ and replace this set by $c$ weighted with weight $\mu(c)$. Note, that $\tilde \D$ has the same genus as $\D$.
\[weighted\_dessin\] For a knot projection with a $1$-vertex dessin $\D$ and weighted dessin $\tilde D$ we have: $$\langle P \rangle = \sum_{\tilde \H \subset \tilde \D} A^{e(\D)-4 g(\tilde \H)} (-1-A^{-4})^{-2 g(\tilde \H)}
\prod_{c \in \tilde \H} (-1 - A^{-4 \mu(c)}).$$
For a given edge $c$ collect in $$\langle P \rangle =\sum_{\H \subset \D} A^{e(\D)-4 g(\H)} \left ( -1 - A^{-4} \right )^{e(\H)- 2 g(\H) }$$ all terms where $\H$ contains an edge parallel to $c$. This sub-sum is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\H \subset \D, \, \H \, \mbox{\tiny contains edge parallel to } c } A^{e(\D)-4 g(\H)} \left ( -1 - A^{-4} \right )^{e(\H)- 2 g(\H)}&=& \\
\sum_{\H \subset \D, \, \tilde \H=\H -\{ \mbox{\tiny edges parallel to } c \} \cup {c}} \sum_{j=1}^{\mu(c)} {\mu(c) \choose j} A^{e(\D)-4 g(\H)} \left ( -1 - A^{-4} \right )^{e(\tilde \H)-1+j- 2 g(\H)}&=&\\
\sum_{\H \subset \D, \, \tilde \H=\H -\{ \mbox{\tiny edges parallel to } c \} \cup {c}} A^{e(\D)-4 g(\H)} \left ( -1 - A^{-4} \right )^{e(\tilde \H)-1- 2 g(\H)} \left ( -1 - A^{-4 \mu(c)} \right ) &&\end{aligned}$$ The claim follows by repeating this procedure for each edge $c$.
The $(p,q)$-twist knot is represented by the weighted, $1$-vertex dessin with two intersecting edges, one with weight $p$ and one with weight $q$. By Corollary \[weighted\_dessin\] its Kauffman bracket is: $$A^{-p-q} \langle P \rangle = 1 + (-1 - A^{-4 p}) + (-1-A^{-4 q}) + A^{-4} (-1 - A^{-4})^{-2} (-1 -A^{-4 p}) (-1 - A^{-4 q}).$$
Corollary \[Cor:CoeffOneVertex\] implies the following for the first coefficient $a_M$. Suppose $\D$ is a $1$-vertex, genus $0$ dessin with at least one edge. Then every sub-dessin also has genus $0$.
Thus,
$$\sum_{\H \subset \D,\, g(\H)=0} (-1)^{e(\H)} = \sum_{j=0}^{e(\D)} {e(\D) \choose j} (-1)^j = 0.$$
For an arbitrary dessin let $\H_1, \dots, \H_n$ be the maximal genus 0 subdessins of $\D$. Define a function $\phi$ on dessins which is $1$ if the dessin contains no edges and $0$ otherwise.
Then $$a_M= \sum_{i} \phi (\H_i) - \sum_{i,j,\, i < j} \phi(\H_i \cap \H_j) + \sum_{i,j,k,\, i<j<k} \phi(\H_i \cap \H_j \cap \H_k) - \dots$$
[^1]: We regretfully inform you that Xiao-Song Lin passed away on the 14th of January, 2007.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
D. PALLE\
Zavod za teorijsku fiziku\
Institut Rugjer Bošković\
Pošt. Pret. 180, HR-10002 Zagreb, CROATIA
date:
title: 'Comment on Hervik’s comment (astro-ph/0504071) on evidence of vorticity and shear of the Universe (astro-ph/0503213)'
---
Jaffe et al [@jaffe] performed recently the fit of WMAP data based on the work of Barrow et al [@barrow]. They claim [@jaffe] the existence of the nonvanishing vorticity and shear of the Universe. The spacetime vorticity [@goedel] in the model [@barrow] vanishes by definition, and this was the statement in my comment [@palle]. The spacetime vorticity vanishes even after the introduction of the angle of tilt that induces fluid vorticity [@king]. However, the model discussed in [@barrow] contains vanishing angle of tilt, thus also vanishing fluid vorticity. Barrow et al [@barrow] define their own “vorticity”, with unclear physical notion and relevance.
The correct treatment of perturbations in General Relativistic cosmology beyond FRW models is introduced and discussed by Ellis and Bruni [@ellis], few years after paper of Barrow et al had been published. One cannot work properly in the model beyond FRW, and then assume during some derivations “FRW background” [@hervik]. The gauge noninvariant formulae are the source of the embarrassing results of Jaffe et al [@jaffe]: extremely small shear beyond one-year WMAP data sensitivity.
SAPIENTI SAT.
[7]{} T. R. Jaffe et al: [**astro-ph/0503213**]{} J. D. Barrow, R. Juszkiewicz and D. H. Sonoda: MNRAS [**213**]{} (1985) 917 K. Gödel: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{} (1949) 447 D. Palle: [**astro-ph/0503562**]{} A. R. King and G. F. R. Ellis: Comm. Math. Phys. [**31**]{} (1973) 209 G. F. R. Ellis and M. Bruni: Phys. Rev. [**D 40**]{} (1989) 1804 S. Hervik: [**astro-ph/0504071**]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We find explicit solutions for giant magnons and spiky strings living on the Schrödinger $Schr_5 \times T^{1,1}$ and compute dispersion relations. The holographic dual field theory is conjectured to be a non-local dipole-deformed CFT at strong coupling. We find that the dependence between conserved charges in the dispersion relations is transcendental, which is quite different from the most symmetric case of spherical internal space. Keeping the squashing parameter $b$ general allows us to take some limits and to compare our results to known cases.'
author:
- 'A. Golubtsova'
- 'H. Dimov'
- 'I. Iliev'
- 'M. Radomirov'
- 'R. C. Rashkov'
- 'T. Vetsov'
title: More on Schrödinger holography
---
Introduction
============
The subject of the gauge/string duality has made rapid strides in recent years and remains the mainstream subject in string theory since its discovery. The impressive developments have triggered a profound boost in our thinking not only about those theories but also about fundamental laws of Nature and particularly spacetime itself.
Although widely accepted, there is no derivation of the AdS/CFT duality from first principles. This hinders wider applications of the gauge/string duality to other backgrounds and other gauge theories. Hence, understanding the origins of the gauge/string duality is a very important problem, for which the currently known mathematical apparatus is insufficient.
Having that, we are forced to focus on particular cases of gauge/string duality. The narrower topic of particular models in the AdS/CFT context is a subject of vigorous activity worldwide. Indeed, finding explicit solutions provides important bits of information and techniques that will be needed for further developments. As a result, the progress in this field has been very fast. The successful phenomenological applications of the holographic duality so far points rather to its general character, but certainly there is a long way to go until put the gauge/string duality is put into a full-fledged framework and/or its limitations understood.
Addressing strong coupling phenomenon, recent developments provided information for conformal field theories living on the boundary of spacetime allowing highest supersymmetry. Finding the spectrum of strings propagating on a generic curved background is extremely challenging task. Integrability properties widely presented in AdS/CFT correspondence became a key tool to find exact solutions of both, string theory in AdS space and gauge theory on its boundary. The analysis of large variety of rotating strings, spinning strings, giant magnons, folded strings, spiky strings, pulsating strings and their gauge theory duals provided invaluable information about the theories on both sides of the duality. According to the hoplographic correspondence, the dispersion relations on the string(gravity) side map to the anomalous dimensions of the gauge theory operators. This knowledge is a key input for the two main programs - studying strong coupled field theories on the boundary and bulk reconstruction from boundary data.
Important classes of string solutions allowing to go beyond the supergravity approximation of the holograhic duality are giant magnons, spiky strings and pulsating strings. The dispersion relations on string theory side provides information of the anomalous dimensions of the operators at strong coupling on the gauge theory side. The key tool in these studies is integrability [@Beisert:2010jr] allowing reliable information on both sides of duality.
Looking from more general point of view, symmetries have always been at the core of achievements in physics more than a century. The holographic duality is not an exception - it maps isometries of the bulk background to symmetries of the boundary gauge theory. Combined with integrability, this provides a powerful tool for extracting reliable information on both sides of the duality. The majority of studies have been focused on the cases of high amount of symmetry while the less symmetric cases are still a big challenge. These however are rare cases in the real physical systems. That’s why the problem of studying cases with less (super)symmetry is an important direction of investigations.
The first example of AdS/CFT correspondence is the duality between gravity in $AdS_5\times S^5$ and $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. The isometries of the spherical part of the background turn out to be responsible for the maximal amount of supersymmetry on the gauge theory side. The deformations of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM reducing supersymmetry has been systematically studied by Leigh and Strassler [@Leigh:1995ep]. The first steps towards mapping these deformations to the deformations of the string background have been initiated by Lunin and Maldacena in [@Lunin:2005jy]. The proposed simple mechanism advocated there enables to explicitly generate new background solutions suggesting, at the same time suggesting what holographic duals of these solutions could be. Shortly after that, Frolov formalized and further developed this solution generating technique that is now called a TsT transformation [@Frolov:2005ty]. At practical level the procedure consists of T-duality, a shift with parameter $\beta$, followed by another T-duality applied to the isometry direction. Explicitly, let us assume that the background has a two torus submanifold parametriized by ($\varphi_1 ,\varphi_2$). The TsT-transformation then consists of a T-duality along $\varphi_1$, followed by a shift $\varphi_2 \to \varphi_2 + \gamma\varphi_1$ in the T-dual background, and finally by another T-duality along $\varphi_1$. A very short and incomplete list of some applications of this method can be traced in [@Frolov:2005ty; @frolovnew; @Gursoy:2005cn; @Chu:2006ae; @Bobev:2006fg; @Bobev:2007bm; @Bobev:2005cz; @Bykov:2008bj; @Dimov:2009ut; @Michalcik:2012mr; @Frolov:2005dj] and references therein.
Going back to the role of symmetries in contemporary physics, one should note that nonrelativistic symmetries in theoretical physics have been always important. The Schrödinger equation, being the most fundamental element of quantum mechanics, has a large enough maximal symmetry group called the Schrödinger group. Due to its prominent role in theoretical physics, it deserves careful investigation in the context of the holographic correspondence. This line of investigations has been pioneered by Son [@Son:2008ye], and by Balasubramanian and McGreevy [@Balasubramanian:2008dm; @Adams:2008wt].
The extension of AdS/CFT correspondence to non-relativistic field theories in D spatial dimensions, featuring an anisotropic scale law $(t,X^i)\to (\lambda^2t,\lambda X^i)$ in combination with special conformal transformations, points towards replacing AdS with spaces possessing Schrödinger symmetry. In the two papers [@Son:2008ye; @Balasubramanian:2008dm] the geometry with Schödinger isometries, dubbed also as Schödinger spacetime, is proposed to be the gravitational background dual to non-relativistic field theories at strong coupling.
The non-relativistic limit of conformal symmetry is actually the Schrödinger algebra (for review see [@Dobrev:2013kha] and references therein). An incomplete list of some development in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence can be found in [@Duval:2008jg; @Akhavan:2008ep; @Bobev:2009zf], as well as in [@Dobrev:2013kha].
Recently there is a revival interest to non-relativistic version of AdS/CFT correspondence triggered by [@Guica:2017jmq]. By making use of Bethe ansätz techniques the authors investigated the integrability of holographic duality between $Schr_5\times S^5$ space and dipole field theories. It has been shown that Schrödinger holography matches the anomalous dimensions of certain gauge theory operators with calculation in BMN string limit. The established integrability and results of [@Guica:2017jmq] have motivated further study of the correspondence in non-relativistic cases, see for instance [@Ahn:2017bio; @Georgiou:2017pvi; @Georgiou:2018zkt; @Dimov:2019koi; @Georgiou:2019lqh; @Georgiou:2020qnh; @Ouyang:2017yko]. The BMN string spectrum has been considered in [@Ouyang:2017yko] while strings on Schrödinger pp-wave background [@Georgiou:2019lqh] have been complemented with the study of giant gravitons in the same background [@Georgiou:2020qnh]. The considerations of holographic three-point correlation function have been generalized to the case of Schrödinger/dipole CFT holography in [@Georgiou:2018zkt]. Giant magnons and spiky strings in $Schr_5\times S^5$ background have been subject of investigation in [@Ahn:2017bio] and [@Georgiou:2017pvi]. Pulsating string holography in this background was also studied in [@Dimov:2019koi].
In this paper we proceed with investigations of the Schrödinger holography, focusing on the giant magnon and spiky strings in $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$. In the case of the Klebanov-Witten model [@Klebanov:1998hh], i.e. $AdS_5\times T^{1,1}$/CFT holography, the supersymmetry is reduced and the dispersion relations are quite different [@Benvenuti:2008bd] from known ones in $AdS_5\times S^5$ case. This motivates us to thoroughly study its generalization to Schrödinger holography.
In the next section we quote the result for giant magnon and spiky string disppersion relations in the case of $Schr_5\times S^5$ background and set up the notations for $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ background.
In the third section we focus on finding giant magnon and spiky string solutions. The fourth section is devoted to the dispersion relations of giant magnon and spiky strings in $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ background. The last section contains some concluding remarks and discussion on our findings.
The setup
=========
In this Section we introduce our notations and formluae that will be needed, mention some known results and make preparations for next Sections.\
**General formulae and notations.** To fix the notations we start with the Polyakov string action in general background. $$S=-\frac{T}{2}\, \int d\tau d\sigma \left\{\sqrt{-h}\,h^{ab}\, \partial_a X^M \partial_b X^N \,G_{MN} + \epsilon^{ab}\, \partial_a X^M \partial_b X^N \,B_{MN}\right\},$$ where $a, b=0,1$ and $M,N=0,\dots, 9$. We recall that the string tension T is related to the ’t Hooft coupling $\lambda\equiv g^2 _{YM}\,N\,\,$, as $\,\,T=\dfrac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2\pi}$. The metric above is in conformal gauge $h^{ab}=\rm{diag}(-1,1)$ while for the antisymmetric tensor density we use the convention $\epsilon^{01}=-\epsilon^{10}=1$. In these notations the explicit form of the action is $$S =-\frac{T}{2} \int \!d\tau d\sigma \left\lbrace G_{MN} \left[ -\, {\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\tau X^N + {\partial}_\sigma X^M {\partial}_\sigma X^N \right] + 2B_{MN} \,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\sigma X^N \right\rbrace.
\label{action}$$
It is accompanied with the standard Virasoro constraints $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Vir}_1:\qquad G_{MN}\left(\partial_{\tau} X^M \partial_{\tau} X^N+\partial_{\sigma} X^M \partial_{\sigma} X^N\right)=0\,\label{vir1},\\
&\text{Vir}_2:\qquad G_{MN}\,\partial_{\tau} X^M \partial_{\sigma} X^N=0.\label{vir2}\end{aligned}$$ As it is well known, according to AdS/CFT the dispersion relation on the string side corresponds to the anomalous dimension of the operators on gauge theory side. The conserved charges associated with the symmetries of the background are defined as follow $$E=-\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \!d\sigma \,\frac{{\partial}\mathcal{L}}{{\partial}\left( \partial_{\tau} t\right)},
\qquad J_\phi = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \!d\sigma \,\frac{{\partial}\mathcal{L}}{{\partial}\left( {\partial}_{\tau} \phi \right) },$$ where $E$ is the energy and $\phi$ is an isometry direction.
For our purpose, namely to find solutions in the class of giant magnons or single spikes, it is convenient to choose another parametrization. We make the following change of worldsheet coordinates: $\tau\,\leftrightarrow\, \tau\,$ and $\sigma\,\rightarrow\, \xi = \alpha\sigma+\beta\tau\, ,\,\, \xi\in\,(-\infty,\, +\infty)$.\
In the new parametrization the Polyakov action takes the following convenient form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{actionMag}
S=\int \!d\tau d\xi \,L=-\frac{T}{2\alpha} \int \!d\tau d\xi \left\lbrace G_{MN} \left[ -\, {\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\tau X^N - 2\beta\,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N \right. \right. \\
\left. \left. +\,(\alpha^2 -\beta^2)\,{\partial}_\xi X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N \right]
+ 2\alpha \,B_{MN} \,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N \right\rbrace .\end{gathered}$$ The Virasoro constraints, rewritten in these notations are $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Vir}_1:\quad G_{MN}\left( {\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\tau X^N + 2\beta\,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N + (\alpha^2 +\beta^2)\,{\partial}_\xi X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N\right) = 0 \label{vir1Mag},\\
&\text{Vir}_2:\quad G_{MN} \left( {\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N + \beta\,{\partial}_\xi X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N\right) =0,\label{vir2Mag}\end{aligned}$$ while the corresponding conserved charges become $$E=-\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!d\xi \,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\left( {\partial}_\tau t\right) },
\qquad J_\phi = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\left( \partial_\tau \phi \right) }.$$ The equations of motion (EoM) in the new parametrization reads off explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_\tau \left\lbrace G_{KM}\, {\partial}_\tau X^M + \left(\beta\, G_{KM} -\alpha\,B_{KM} \right) {\partial}_\xi X^M \right\rbrace \nonumber \\
&+ {\partial}_\xi \left\lbrace -(\alpha^2 -\beta^2) \,G_{KM}\, {\partial}_\xi X^M + \left(\beta\, G_{KM} + \alpha\,B_{KM} \right) {\partial}_\tau X^M \right\rbrace \nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\partial}G_{MN}}{{\partial}X^K} \left\lbrace -\,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\tau X^N - 2\beta\,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N
+ (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{\partial}_\xi X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N \right\rbrace \nonumber \\
&+\alpha\,\frac{{\partial}B_{MN}}{{\partial}X^K} \,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N =0 .\end{aligned}$$ Although we already set up the general formulae needed for obtaining dispersion relations, it is worth to pay a little attention of how to generate Schröginger backgrounds. The procedure of TsT transformations outlined in the Introduction consists of several steps. The starting point is $AdS_5$ space times Einstein manifold with compact isometry $\chi$ [$$ds^2=ds^2_{AdS_5}+ds^2_{M^5},$$]{} where [$$ds^2_{AdS_5}=\ell^2\,\frac{2dx^+dx^-+dx^idx_i +dz^2}{z^2}, \qquad ds^2_{M^5}=ds^2_{C^4}+(d\chi+P)^2.
\label{ads-l-c}$$]{}
The procedure consists of T-duaity along $\chi$, then follows a shift $x^-\,\rightarrow\, x^-+\tilde{\mu}\tilde{\chi}$, where $\tilde{\chi}$ is T-dualized $\chi$. Finally T-dualization back on $\tilde{\chi}$ produces the metric [$$ds^2=\ell^2\left(- \frac{{\hat\mu}^2(dx^+)^2}{z^4} + \frac{2dx^+d\hat{x}^-+dx^idx_i+dz^2}{z^2} \right)+ ds^2_{\hat{M}^5} .
\label{schro-metric}$$]{} Even though the initial background does not have B-field, the TsT transformed background acquires non-zero $B$-field: [$$\alpha' B_{(2)}=\frac{\ell^2{\hat\mu}\, dx^+}{z^2}\wedge (d\hat{\chi}+ P).
\label{schro-B}$$]{} The summary of the results of these transformations is[$$\frac{ds^2_{Schr_5}}{\ell^2}=-\left(\frac{{\hat\mu}^2}{Z^4}+1 \right)dT^2+
\frac{2dT\,dV-\vec{X}^2dT^2+d\vec{X}^2+dZ^2}{Z^2},
\label{metric-schro-global-a}$$]{} [$$\alpha' B_{(2)}= \frac{\ell^2{\hat\mu}\, dT}{Z^2}\wedge (d\hat{\chi}+P), \qquad
\hat\mu=\frac{\ell^2}{\alpha'}\tilde{\mu}=\sqrt{\lambda}\tilde{\mu}=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2\pi}L.
\label{B-global-1-a}$$]{} It is easy to find the relation between original and dualized coordinates [$$\begin{aligned}
d\chi= d\hat{\chi} + \hat{\mu}\frac{dx^+}{z^2} \label{dual-psi},\qquad dx^-=d\hat{x}^- -\hat{\mu}\left(d\hat{\chi} +\hat{\mu} \frac{dx^+}{z^2} +P\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{} The dual coordinates satisfy periodic boundary conditions while the original coordinates satisfy twisted boundary conditions: $$\label{eq_boundary_condition_1}
x^-(2\pi)-x^-(0)= LJ,$$ $$\label{eq_boundary_condition_2}
\chi(2\pi)-\chi(0)=2\pi m - LP_-.$$
The Schrödinger backgrounds $Schr_5 \times S^5$ and $Schr_5 \times T^{1,1}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we provide explicit formulae for the metrics and known results.\
**The case of $Schr_5 \times S^5$ background.** Below we give a very brief summary of the results from studies of giant magnon and spiky strings on $Schr_5 \times S^5$ background [@Ahn:2017bio; @Georgiou:2017pvi]. These specific string solutions are of the form of arcs or spikes traveling along certain geodesics.
We start with the metric of Schrödinger space $Schr_5$ in global coordinates (see Appendix \[appSchro\]) $$\label{metric Schr}
ds^2_{Schr_5}=-\left(1+\frac{{\mu}^2}{Z^4} + \frac{\vec{X}^2}{Z^2}\right)dT^2 +\frac{2dTdV+d\vec{X}^2+dZ^2}{Z^2}.$$ The metric of the round $S^5$ is useful to write as a Hopf fibration over the base $\mathbb{CP}^2$ $$ds^2_{S^5}=ds_{\mathbb{CP}^2}^2+(d\chi+P)^2.$$ Here $P$ is a differential on the base $$P=\frac{1}{2}\sin^2\mu\left(d\alpha+\cos\theta\,d\phi\right).$$
To present the results in this case we stuck to the notations in [@Georgiou:2017pvi] where the considerations are restricted to $\vec{X}=0$ and $S^3\subset S^5$. In this case the relevant formulae are (in the units $\ell=\alpha'=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
& ds^2= -\left(1+\frac{\mu^2}{Z^4}\right)dT^2+\frac{2dTdV+dZ^2}{Z^2}+\frac{1}{4}\left[d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2+(d\psi-\cos\theta d\phi)^2 \right], \\
& B=\frac{\mu}{2Z^2}dT\wedge(d\psi-\cos\theta d\phi).\end{aligned}$$
The specific ansätz applied in that paper is [$$\begin{aligned}
& T=\kappa\tau + T_y(y), \qquad V=\alpha\tau +V_y(y), \qquad Z=Z_0, \\
& \theta=\theta_y(y), \qquad \psi=\omega_\psi\tau + \Psi_y(y), \qquad \phi=\omega_\phi\tau + \Phi_y(y),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $y=c\sigma-d\tau$ and $\kappa,\alpha,Z_0,\omega_\psi,\omega_\phi$ are constants.
Beside the four charges ($\mathcal{E},\mathcal{M},\mathcal{J}_\psi,\mathcal{J}_\phi$) resulting from integration of the momenta $p_t,p_V,p_\psi$ and $p_\phi$, it is useful to introduce the quantity $\Delta\varphi_1=(\Delta\psi+\Delta\phi)/2$.
After lengthy calculations, the dispersion relations for giant magnon strings are found to be [$$\left(\sqrt{\mathcal{E}^2-\mu^2\mathcal{M}^2}-\mathcal{J}_1 \right)^2-\mathcal{J}_2^2=4\sin^2\theta\frac{\Delta\varphi_1}{2},$$]{} where $\mathcal{J}_{1/2}= \mathcal{J}_\psi\pm \mathcal{J}_\phi$.
Analogous calculations for the single spike strings give the dispersion relations [$$\frac{1}{4}(\mathcal{J}_1^2-\mathcal{J}_2^2) =\sin^2\left[\frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{E}-\mu\mathcal{M}-\Delta \varphi_1) \right].$$]{}\
**The case of $Schr_5 \times T^{1,1}$ background.**
Let us set up the notation of the line element of $Schr_5 \times T^{1,1}$ background geometry ([@Guica:2017jmq], [@vanTongeren:2015uha], [@Gauntlett:2004yd], [@Cvetic:2005ft]) $$ds^2_{Schr_5\times T^{1,1}}=ds^2_{Schr_5} + ds^2_{T^{1,1}},$$ which will be written in global coordinates (see Appendix \[appSchro\]). The metric of $Schr_5$ in global coordinates is given in while that for $T^{1,1}$ reads $$\label{metric T11}
ds^2_{T^{1,1}}=\frac{b}{4}\!\left[\sum\limits_{i=1}^2\left(d\theta_i^2+\sin^2\theta_id\phi_i^2\right)
+b\!\left(d\psi - \sum\limits_{i=1}^2\cos\theta_id\phi_i\right)^{\!\!2}\,\right]\!,$$ where $0\leq\psi<4\pi,\ 0\leq\theta_i\leq\pi,\ 0\leq\phi_i<2\pi$, and $b=2/3$. We will keep the parameter $b$ because taking limit $b\to 1$ the metric of $S^5$ will be recovered and we can compare our results with those in [@Georgiou:2017pvi]. The explicit matrix form of the above metrics (with ordering $(\theta_1,\,\theta_2,\,\phi_1,\,\phi_2,\,\psi )$) is $$\left(\hat{G}_{kh}^{T^{1,1}}\right)=\dfrac{b}{4}\left(\begin{matrix}
1 & 0& 0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&0\\
0&0&b\cos^2\theta_1+\sin^2\theta_1 & b\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2 & -b\cos\theta_1\\
0&0& b\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2 & b\cos^2\theta_2+\sin^2\theta_2 & -b\cos\theta_2\\
0&0& -b\cos\theta_1 & -b\cos\theta_2 & b
\end{matrix}\right)\!.$$ Let us remind that TsT transformations used to generate Schrödinger background produce a $B$-field which in our case has the form $$B_{(2)} =
\dfrac{b\mu}{2 Z^2} \,dT\wedge \left( d\psi - \sum\limits_{i=1}^2\cos\theta_i \,d\phi_i \right) .$$ The B-field components are then $$B_{T \phi_1}=-\,\dfrac{b\mu}{2Z^2}\,\cos\theta_1\,, \qquad B_{T\phi_2}=-\,\dfrac{b\mu}{2 Z^2}\,\cos\theta_2\,, \qquad B_{T\psi}=\dfrac{b\mu}{2Z^2}.$$
Having the set up done, we are in a position to proceed with finding specific solutions.
The ansätz, Lagrangian and conserved charges
--------------------------------------------
To find solitary type string solutions we need to introduce a specific ansätz. As we mentioned above, these solutions represent solid string profiles traveling along geodesics. Thus, the ansätz we will use to find classical solutions (see for instance also [@Dimov:2007ey], [@Benvenuti:2008bd], [@Georgiou:2017pvi]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz}
&T =\kappa \tau + t(\xi),\,\,\kappa>0,\quad V=\omega_0 \tau+v(\xi),\quad\, Z=const\neq 0,\quad\, \vec{X}=\vec{0},\nonumber \\
&\theta_i=\theta_i (\xi), \qquad \phi_i=\omega_i\,\tau +\Phi_i(\xi), \quad i=1,2, \qquad
\psi=\omega_3\,\tau +\Psi(\xi).\end{aligned}$$ Given above ansätz, explicit form of the string Lagrangian ($ X^{\prime}=\partial_{\xi}X$) reads $$\begin{gathered}
L\, =-\, \frac{T}{2\alpha} \left\lbrace G_{TT} \left[ -\dot{T}^2 -2\beta\,\dot{T}T' +(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{T'}^2 \right] +2\,G_{TV} \left[ -\dot{T}\dot{V}-\beta\,(\dot{T}V'+\dot{V}T')\right. \right. \\ \left.
+(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \, T'V' \right]
+(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 G_{\theta_i \theta_i} \,{{\theta_i}'}^2 +\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2 G_{\phi_i \phi_j} \left[ -\dot{\phi_i}\dot{\phi_j} - 2\beta \,\dot{\phi_i} {\phi_j}'+(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {\phi_i}'{\phi_j}' \right] \\
+2\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 G_{\phi_i \psi} \left[ -\dot{\phi_i}\dot{\psi}-\beta\,(\dot{\phi_i}\psi'+\dot{\psi}{\phi_i}') + (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{\phi_i}'\psi' \right] +G_{\psi \psi} \left[-\dot{\psi}^2 - 2\beta \,\dot{\psi} \psi'+(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{\psi'}^2 \right] \\
\left. + 2\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 B_{T\phi_i} \left[ \dot{T}{\phi_i}'-T'\dot{\phi_i} \right] + 2\alpha B_{T\psi} \left[ \dot{T}{\psi}'-T'\dot{\psi} \right]\,\right\rbrace.\end{gathered}$$ The background space has isometries, which correspond to the shifts in $\,T,\,V,\,\phi_1,\,\phi_2$ and $\psi$. The momentum densities associated to these isometries, are defined in a standard way $$\Pi_T =-\,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{T} }\,,\qquad \Pi_{V}=\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{V} }\,,\qquad \Pi_{\phi_k}=\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{\phi_k} }\,,\qquad \Pi_{\psi}=\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{\psi} }.$$ Then, the corresponding conserved charges are given by the integrals $$\begin{aligned}
&E\,=\,-\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{T}}\,, \qquad J_V\,=\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{V}}\,, \nonumber \\
& J_{\phi_k}\,=\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{\phi_k} }\,, \qquad J_{\psi}\,=\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot{\psi} }\,.\end{aligned}$$\
Next step is to obtain the explicit form of the momentum densities for the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{2\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_T\,=\,-\,2\left( G_{TT}\,(\kappa +\beta\, t')+G_{TV}\,(\omega_0 +\beta\,v')-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 B_{T\phi_i} \Phi_i'-\alpha\,B_{T\psi} \Psi' \right) , \\
&\frac{2\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_V\,=\,2 \,G_{TV}\,(\kappa + \beta\, t')\,,\\
&\frac{2\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_{\phi_k}\,=\,2\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 G_{\phi_k \phi_i} \, (\,\omega_i +\beta\,\Phi_i')+ G_{\phi_k \psi}\,(\,\omega_3 +\beta\,\Psi') +\alpha\, B_{T\phi_k}\,t'\, \right) ,\,\, k=1,2\,,\\
&\frac{2\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_{\psi}\,=\,2 \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 G_{\phi_i\psi} \,(\,\omega_i +\beta\,\Phi_i')+ G_{\psi\psi}\,(\,\omega_3 +\beta\,\Psi') +\alpha\, B_{T\psi}\,t'\right) .\end{aligned}$$ These formulae will be used in what follows to obtain the dispersion relations.
Giant magnon and spiky string soultions in $Schr_5 \times T^{1,1}$ background
=============================================================================
In the previous Section we setup the notations and the ansätz for giant magnon or single spike string configurations. In this Section we are going to find the relevant equations of motion for dynamical degrees of freedom and implement Virasoro constraints. We will analyze under which conditions the solutions of the equations of motion would be of giant magnon or spiky type. This analysis will fix and relate some otherwise arbitrary constants. We will find eventually giant magnon and spiky string solutions[^1].
Equations of motion and Virasoro constraints
--------------------------------------------
**Equations of motion.** The nontrivial equations of motion coming from the variation of the action after imposing the ansätz are as follows.\
— for $t^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_t}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2) \,{t^{\prime}}(\xi)=A_V Z^2 +\beta \kappa.$$ — for $v^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_v}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,v^{\prime}(\xi)\,= \frac{\alpha b\mu}{2} \left( \omega_3 - \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i \right)
+ A_T Z^2 + (Z^4+\mu^2)A_V+\beta\omega_0\,.$$ — for $\Phi_k^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_Phi_k}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,{\Phi_k}^{\prime}(\xi)\, =\,\frac{4}{b}\,\frac{(A_{\phi_k} + A_{\psi}\,\cos{\theta_k})}{\sin^2 {\theta_k }} \,+\, \beta\omega_k \,, \qquad k=1,2\,,$$ — for $\Psi^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_Psi}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\Psi'(\xi)=\frac{4}{b}\sum\limits_{i=1}^2\dfrac{A_{\phi_i}\,\cos\theta_i +A_{\psi}}{\sin^2 {\theta_i}} +\dfrac{4(1-2b)}{b^2}\,A_{\psi}-\frac{2\alpha\mu\kappa}{b Z^2} +\beta\omega_3\,.$$ — for $ Z $ — $$\label{RelationZ-1}
A_V^2 \,Z^6 \,+\, A_V A_T \,Z^4 \,+\, \frac{\alpha\kappa}{b} \left(2\mu A_{\psi} - \alpha b\omega_0 \right)=0.$$ — for $\theta_k,\: k=1,2$ — $$\begin{gathered}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,{\theta_1}^{\prime\prime}(\xi) +(1-b)\cos\theta_1\sin\theta_1 \left[ \,\omega_1^2 +2\beta\omega_1 \Phi_1' -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {\Phi_1'}^2 \right] \\
-b\sin\theta_1\cos\theta_2 \left[ \,\omega_1\omega_2 +\beta \,(\omega_1\Phi_2'+\omega_2 \Phi_1') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_1' \Phi_2' \right] \\
+b\sin\theta_1 \left[ \,\omega_1\omega_3 +\beta \,(\omega_1 \Psi'+\omega_3 \Phi_1') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_1' \Psi' \right] \\
-\frac{2\alpha\mu}{Z^2} \sin\theta_1 \left[ \kappa\Phi_1'-t'\omega_1 \right] =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\theta_2}^{\prime\prime}(\xi) +(1-b)\cos\theta_2\sin\theta_2 \left[ \,\omega_2^2 + 2\beta\omega_2 \,\Phi_2' -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {\Phi_2'}^2 \right]\\
-b\sin\theta_2\cos\theta_1 \left[ \,\omega_1\omega_2 +\beta \,(\omega_1 \Phi_2'+\omega_2 \Phi_1') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_1'\Phi_2' \right] \\
+b\sin\theta_2 \left[ \,\omega_2\omega_3 +\beta \,(\omega_2 \Psi'+\omega_3 \Phi_2') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_2'\Psi' \right] \\
-\frac{2\alpha\mu}{Z^2} \sin\theta_2 \left[ \kappa{\Phi_2}^{\prime}-t^{\prime}\omega_2 \right] =0\, .\end{gathered}$$
These equations are accompanied with a relation between the constants coming from the equation for Z (see ) $$\label{RelationZ}
A_V^2 \,Z^6 \,+\, A_V A_T \,Z^4 \,+\, \frac{\alpha\kappa}{b} \left(2\mu A_{\psi} - \alpha b\omega_0 \right)=0.$$
**Satisfying Virasoro constraints.** Analysis of the equations of motion shows that the triple $\,(\,\theta_2 = \frac{\pi}{2},\,\,\omega_2 =0,\,\, A_{\phi_2}=0\,)$ is a solution to the equations of motion. Hence, the submanifold $\mathcal{M}$ defined by fixing $(\theta_2 ,\,\phi_2)=const$ and is a consistent subsector of classical string theory on $\,\,Schr_5 \times T^{1,1}\,\,$. Thus, we can consider the dynamics of our string configuration on this submanifold and use from now on the notations $ \theta_1(\xi)\equiv \theta(\xi),\Phi_1(\xi)\,\equiv\,\Phi(\xi)$ to describe it.
The requirement global time to be proportional to the worldsheet one leads to a restriction on $t^{\prime}$, namely equation has to vanish, $t^{\prime}\,=\,0$. This fixes the constant $A_V$ $$A_V= -\,\frac{\beta \kappa}{Z^2}.$$ Fixing $A_V$ modifies equations of motion for $ v(\xi),\Phi(\xi), \Psi(\xi)$ and $Z$ on the submanifold $\mathcal{M}$. They become\
— for $v'$ — $$\label{EoM_v}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,v'(\xi)=\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2} \left( \omega_3 - \omega_1 \cos\theta \right)
+ \left[ A_T - \left( 1+\frac{\mu^2}{Z^4}\right) \beta\kappa \right]\! Z^2 + \beta\omega_0 \,,$$ — for $\Phi'$ — $$\label{EoM_Phi}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,\Phi'(\xi) =\frac{4}{b}\,\frac{(A_\phi + A_\psi \cos{\theta})}{\sin^2 \theta} + \beta\omega_1 \,,$$ — for $\Psi'$ — $$\label{EoM_Psi}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,\Psi'(\xi) =\frac{4}{b} \,\dfrac{(A_\phi \cos\theta +A_\psi)}{\sin^2\theta} +\dfrac{4(1-b)}{b^2}A_\psi -\frac{2\alpha\mu\kappa}{bZ^2} +\beta\omega_3\,,$$ — for $ Z $ — $$\label{EoM_Z}
\beta \left(\beta\kappa -A_T \right) Z^2 + \frac{\alpha}{b} \left(2\mu A_\psi -\alpha b \omega_0 \right)=0.$$ We will often use the combination of and of the form $$\label{relation}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \left( \Phi'\cos\theta - \Psi'\right) + \beta \left( \omega_3 -\omega_1 \cos\theta \right) =\frac{4}{b^2} \left( \frac{\alpha b\mu\kappa}{2Z^2} -A_\psi\right).$$ Now we are in a position to analyze the Virasoro constraints. It turns out that it is more convenient instead of and to consider their linear combinations $$\begin{aligned}
& Vir\,1: \quad G_{MN}\left( {\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\tau X^N + (\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\partial}_\xi X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N\right)=0\,, \label{Vir1}\\
& Vir\,2: \quad G_{MN}\left( \beta\,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\tau X^N - (\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\partial}_\tau X^M {\partial}_\xi X^N\right) =0.\label{Vir2}\end{aligned}$$ Then, using the equations for $ v,\, \Phi ,\, \Psi$ the constraint becomes: $$\left( \kappa A_T +\omega_1 A_\phi + \omega_3 A_\psi \right)Z^2 -\beta\kappa\omega_0=0\,,$$ or $$\label{VirMix}
\omega_1 A_\phi + \omega_3 A_\psi = \left( \frac{\beta\omega_0}{Z^2} -A_T \right) \kappa \,.$$\
Substituting the expressions for equations , , and into the first Virasoro constraint , we obtain the following equation for $\theta(\xi)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq-theta}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)^2\, {\theta\,'\,}^2 = -\sin^2\theta \left\lbrace (\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\omega_1^2 +\left[ \frac{4}{b}\,\frac{(A_\phi +A_\psi \cos\theta)}{\sin^2\theta} +\beta\omega_1 \right]^2 \right\rbrace \\
-(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,b \,\left(\omega_3-\omega_1 \cos\theta \right)^2 - b\left[ \beta \left(\omega_3-\omega_1 \cos\theta \right) + \frac{4}{b^2} \left( A_\psi- \frac{\alpha b\mu\kappa}{2Z^2} \right) \right]^2 \\
-(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\frac{4}{b} \left( G_{TT}\,\kappa^2 +\frac{2\omega_0 \kappa}{Z^2} \right) .\end{gathered}$$ Note that on the submanifold $\mathcal{M}$ the $ G_{TT}$ component of target space metric is $G_{TT}= -\,|G_{TT}|=-\left( 1+ \frac{\mu^2}{Z^4} \right)$.
Concluding this subsection we remark that the only step we have to make is to determine values of the constants corresponding to giant magnon or single spike string configurations.
Turning points, boundary conditions and string solutions
--------------------------------------------------------
The semi-classical magnon/spike string solutions are described by open strings moving in a subspace of a some manifold [@Hofman:2006xt].
The ansätz converts the equations of notion into those of effective point particle. Thus, string configurations we analyze are reaching $\theta \,=\,\pi$ and it serves as turning points, namely ${\theta}^{\,\prime}\,=\,0$ and $v^{\,\prime}\,=\,0$ at $\theta\,=\,\pi\,$.
A quick look at the right hand sides of , and shows that their behavior at $\theta \,=\,\pi$ is problematic. However, requiring regularity one can use the expansion of dangerous terms around $\pi$ to fix some constants. For example, expanding the first term on the right hand side of around $\pi$, $\frac{\left(A^2_\phi +A^2_\psi +2A_\phi A_\psi \cos\theta\right) }{\sin^2\theta} $, one finds $\frac{A^2_\phi+A^2_\psi-2A_\phi A_\psi}{(\theta\,-\,\pi)^2} + \frac{1}{2}( A^2_\phi +A^2_\psi+ A_\phi A_\psi) + O( (\theta\,-\,\pi)^2 )$. Analyzing all dangerous terms in , and , we observe that the requirement for regularity of ${\Phi}^{\prime}$, ${\Psi}^{\prime}$ and ${\theta}^{\,\prime}$ at $\theta\,=\,\pi$ leads to $$\label{requirement finiteness A}
A_\psi = A_\phi \equiv A \,.$$ Let us discuss how the choice reflects on the equations we are going to solve. Setting $\theta \,=\,\pi$ as a turning point, we expand the right hand side of around $\theta \,=\,\pi$. Taking into account , we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq-theta-A}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)^2\, {\theta\,'\,}^2 = -\sin^2\theta \left\lbrace (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,\omega_1^2 + \left[ \frac{4A}{b}\,\frac{(1+\cos\theta)}{\sin^2\theta} +\beta\omega_1 \right]^2 \right\rbrace \\
-(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,b \,\left(\omega_3-\omega_1 \cos\theta \right)^2 - b \left[ \beta \left(\omega_3-\omega_1 \cos\theta \right) + \frac{4}{b^2} \left( A- \frac{\alpha b\mu\kappa}{2Z^2} \right) \right]^2 \\
-(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\frac{4}{b} \left(-|G_{TT}|\kappa^2 +\frac{2\omega_0 \kappa}{Z^2} \right) .\end{gathered}$$ Thus, the turning point condition provides to the following relations between the constants $$\label{turn-point-theta}
\left[ \beta\,(\omega_1+\omega_3) + \frac{4}{b^2} \left(A -\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) \right]^2
=(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \left[\frac{4}{b^2} \left( |G_{TT}|\kappa^2 -\frac{2\omega_0 }{Z^2} \kappa \right) - (\omega_1+\omega_3)^2 \right] .$$ The requirement $v'=0$ for equation at the turning point $\theta=\pi$ leads to fixation of $A_T$ through $Z$: $$Z^2 \left(A_T -|G_{TT}|\beta\kappa \right) +\beta\omega_0 +\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2}\, (\omega_1+\omega_3)=0\,,$$ or $$\label{turning-v}
A_T= -\,\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2Z^2} \,(\omega_1+\omega_3) +|G_{TT}|\beta\kappa - \frac{\beta\omega_0}{Z^2}\,.$$ As a result of imposing conditions , the behavior of right hand sides of , , and in the vicinity of $\theta=\pi$ become $O((\theta-\pi)^2)$ . Actually the conditions , greatly simplify the dynamical equations we have to solve. Let us summarize the simplifications of these equations\
— for $v'$ — $$\label{EoM_v A}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,v'(\xi)= -\,\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2}\, \omega_1\,(1+\cos\theta),$$ — for $\Phi'$ — $$\label{EoM_Phi A}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\Phi'(\xi) =\frac{4A}{b}\,\frac{(1 + \cos\theta)}{\sin^2\theta} + \beta\omega_1 \,,$$ — for $\Psi'$ — $$\label{EoM_Psi A}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\Psi'(\xi) =\frac{4A}{b}\,\dfrac{(\cos\theta +1)}{\sin^2\theta} +\dfrac{4(1-b)}{b^2}A -\frac{2\alpha\mu\kappa}{bZ^2} +\beta\omega_3\,.$$ Looking at the above equations one can make an immediate conclusion. It is quite clear that the first thing to do is to solve the equation for $\theta(\xi)$. Given its solution, one can integrate , and to find $v(\xi)$, $\Phi(\xi)$ and $\Psi(\xi)$ respectively.
We proceed with solving . To make this, it is convenient to introduce a new function $u(\xi)$ $$\label{u}
u(\xi) =\cos^2 \frac{\theta (\xi)}{2} \,, \qquad u(\xi) \in [0,1]\,.$$ This choice converts the equation for $\theta$ into $${u(\xi)'}^2 =a_4u^4+a_3u^3+a_2u^2+a_1u+a_0\equiv P_4(u).$$ By virtue of conditions and $a_{0}=a_{1}=0$ and the differential equation for $\theta(\xi)$ in terms of $u(\xi)$ becomes $$\label{EqU}
u'\,^2 =u^2 \left( a_4\,u^2 + a_3\,u + a_2 \right)\,\equiv\, P_4(u)\geq 0.$$ Here, the explicit expressions for coefficients of the polynomial $P_4(u)$ in terms of constants of the ansätz are $$\label{a4}
a_4 =-\, \frac{4(1-b) \,\alpha^2\,\omega_1 ^2}{\left(\alpha^2-\beta^2 \right) ^2} < 0\,,$$ $$\label{a3}
a_3 =\frac{ 4(1-b)\,\alpha^2\,\omega_1^2 +4\alpha^2\,\omega_1^2 - 4b\alpha^2\,\omega_1 (\omega_1+\omega_3) + \dfrac{8\alpha\beta\mu\kappa\omega_1}{Z^2}}{\left(\alpha^2-\beta^2 \right) ^2} \,,$$ $$\label{a2}
a_2 =\frac{-\,4\alpha^2\,\omega_1^2 + 4b\alpha^2\,\omega_1 (\omega_1+\omega_3) -\dfrac{8\alpha\beta\mu\kappa \omega_1}{Z^2}-\dfrac{16A^2}{b^2}}{\left(\alpha^2-\beta^2 \right) ^2} \,.$$ A direct inspection shows that the following equality holds $$\label{coefficient sum}
a_4 +a_3 +a_2 =-\,\frac{16\,A^2}{b^2 \left(\alpha^2-\beta^2 \right)^2}\,.$$\
The equation could be interpreted as energy conservation of the dynamics on the intersection of the submanifold $\mathcal{M}$ and $T^{1,1}$ driven by the quartic potential $U(u)\equiv -P_4(u)$. Notice that in our case $a_{4}\leq 0$ (being $0 <b\leq 1$) and $u(\xi) \in[0,1]$. Of course, the validity of equation describing the string configuration imposes the condition $P_{4}(u) \geq 0,$ where the zero of $U(u)=0$ is realized at the turning points.\
Completing the analysis of the turning point issues, we note that due to , the algebraic equation for constant $Z$ becomes $$\label{EoM_Z A}
Z^2 \left[ 2(\beta^2-\alpha^2)\,\omega_0 +\frac{4\alpha\mu}{b} A +\alpha\beta b\mu \,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] =2\beta^2\mu^2\kappa \,.$$\
Finally, substituting the conditions and into second Virasoro constraint , we obtain the following algebraic relation $$\label{Vir-turning}
(\omega_1+\omega_3) \left(A- \frac{\alpha b\mu}{2Z^2} \kappa \right) =\beta \left(\frac{2\omega_0}{Z^2}\kappa -|G_{TT}|\kappa^2 \right) \!.$$ Imposing the turning point conditions and results into a system of three algebraic equations , and for the constants $A$, $Z$ and $\kappa$.
Next step is to use the system of equations and to eliminate $\left( \frac{2\omega_0}{Z^2}\kappa -|G_{TT}|\kappa^2 \right) $ in the first equation. The result is a quadratic algebraic equation for $\frac{4}{b^2}\left( A -\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right)$ involving parameters $\omega_1,\omega_3$. The solutions of this equation determine whether the classical string configurations are of giant magnon or single spike type. The two types solutions are classified as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{4}{b^2} \left( A -\frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right)= -\,\beta\,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \qquad \text{giant magnons}\,,\label{magnon}\\
&\frac{4}{b^2} \left( A -\frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right)= -\,\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta}
\,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \qquad \text{single spike strings}\,.\label{spike}\end{aligned}$$ It should be mentioned that taking the limit of zero deformation $\mu\rightarrow 0$ we obtain corresponding expressions for $A_\phi$ in the case of $AdS_5\times T^{1,1}$ [@Benvenuti:2008bd]. The next step is to solve the two algebraic systems , and and , and for the giant magnons and the single spike respectively, concerning constants $$\begin{aligned}
&A_m =\frac{\alpha b}{2} \left[ \frac{\omega_0}{\mu} -\frac{\beta b}{2\alpha} \, (\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] \qquad \text{giant magnons}\,,\label{A magnon}\\
&A_s =\frac{\alpha b}{2}\,\frac{\omega_0}{\mu} \qquad\qquad \text{single spike strings}.
\label{A spike}\end{aligned}$$ By these choices the parameters $\kappa^2$ and $Z$ are also fixed. For $\kappa$ one finds $$\begin{aligned}
&\kappa_m^2 = \frac{\omega_0^2}{\mu^2} + \frac{b^2}{4}\, (\omega_1+\omega_3)^2 \qquad \text{giant magnons}\,,\label{kappa magnon}\\
&\kappa_s^2 = \frac{\omega_0^2}{\mu^2} \qquad\qquad \text{single spike strings}\, ,\label{kappa spike}\end{aligned}$$ and for $Z^2$ $$\begin{aligned}
&Z_m^2 = \frac{\mu^2\kappa_m}{\omega_0} \qquad\qquad \text{giant magnons}\,,\label{Z magnon}\\
&Z_s^2 = \frac{2\beta\mu^2 \kappa_s}{2\beta\omega_0 + b\mu\alpha\,(\omega_1+\omega_3)} \qquad \text{single spike strings}\,. \label{Z spike}\end{aligned}$$
The above analysis exhausts the conditions that can be imposed on the parameters to determine the giant magnon and single spike string solutions.
In order to determine the dispersion relation for the string configurations giant magnons and single spike, we need to solve . The polynomial $P_4(u)\geq 0,$ has a double zero at $u=0$ and two others for the quadratic factor. Supplemented with the requirements $\theta=\pi,\, (u=0)$ to be a turning point and the boundary conditions, one concludes that the u-equation has the following structure $$\label{eq u roots}
u'\,^2 = u^2\,(\,a_{4} \,u^2 +a_{3}\, u +a_{2}\,) = |a_{4}|\,u^2\,( r_{+} -u) \,(u +|r_{-}|)\,,$$ where the roots $r_{-}$ and $r_{+}$ have been ordered as follows $$\label{order roots}
r_{-} \leq 0 \leq u(\xi) \leq r_{+} \leq 1\,.$$ The solution of the above equation is simple and given by the expression $$\label{solution cosh^2}
u(\xi) = \frac{r_+ \,|r_-|}{(r_+ +|r_-|)\,\cosh^2 \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{|a_4|\, r_{+} \,|r_-|}}{2}\,\xi \right) -\,r_+}\,,$$ or using that $2\cosh^2x =1+\cosh(2x)$ one gets $$\label{solution cosh}
u(\xi) = \dfrac{\frac{2\,r_+ \,|r_-|}{(r_+\,+\,|r_-|)}}{\cosh\left( \sqrt{|a_4|\,r_{+} \,|r_-|} \,\,\xi \right) -\, \dfrac{r_+ -|r_-|}{r_+ +|r_-|}}\,.$$ The next issue is how to relate the roots of polynomial $P_4$ entering the solution to fixed above constants. First of all we use the Vieta’s formulas to express the roots in terms of $a_i,\:i=2,3,4$ $$\label{Viet}
r_+ - |r_-| =\frac{a_{3}}{|a_{4}|}\,,\qquad r_+ \,|r_-| =\frac{a_{2}}{|a_{4}|} >0\,,\, \,i.e. \qquad a_2 >0\,.$$ Next, we have to obtain the relation between constant $A$ and the coefficients $a_i$. It is a simple exercise using , combined with Vieta’s formulas, to obtain an explicit expression for $A$ in terms of the roots $r_-$ and $r_+$ $$\label{A^2 roots}
\frac{16 A^2}{b^2\, (\alpha^2-\beta^2)^2} = -\,a_{4} \left( \frac{a_2}{a_4} + \frac{a_3}{a_4} +1 \right) = |a_4|\,(1 - r_{+}) \,(1+ |r_{-}|) \geq 0 \,,$$ or $$\label{A roots}
\frac{2A}{b} = \pm \, |\alpha|\,|\omega_1|\,\sqrt{(1-b)\,|1- r_{+}|\,(1+ |r_{-}|) }\,.$$\
Finally, putting everything together one can rewrite the solution in the following form $$\label{solution}
u(\xi) = \frac{\dfrac{ 2a_2}{\sqrt{a_3^2 -4a_4 a_2}}}{\cosh\left( \sqrt{a_2} \,\,\xi\right) -\, \dfrac{a_3}{\sqrt{a_3^2 -4a_4 a_2}}}\,.$$ We remark that $a_2 >0$ and $\frac{|a_3|}{\sqrt{a_3^2 -4a_4 a_2}} <1$. The above formula is a well defined solitary wave solution (see for instance [@Benvenuti:2008bd]).
Dispersion relations
====================
In this Section we obtain the dispersion relations for the case of giant magnon and single pike string solutions. In the previous sections we have imposed several conditions, have obtained some relations between parameters and have found the general solutions of solitary wave type. First thing to do now is to apply all the findings so far to the momentum densities and conserved charges. After that we will find the dispersion relations for the two types string configurations. **Conserved charges, angular amplitudes and some useful finite integral.** As was discussed in the text, the background possess four isometries and string dynamics is invariant under shifts by arbitrary constants along to the directions $T,\, V,\,\psi $ and $\phi \equiv \phi_1$. Taking into account the results of our considerations so far the momentum densities associated to these isometries can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_T \,= \,-\,G_{TT}\,\kappa -G_{TV}\,(\omega_0 +\beta\,v')+\alpha\, B_{T \phi}\,\Phi' +\alpha\,B_{T\psi}\,\Psi' \,, \\
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_V\,=\,G_{TV}\,\kappa \,,\\
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_{\phi}\,=\, G_{\phi\phi} \,(\omega_1 +\beta\,\Phi')+ G_{\phi \psi} \,(\omega_3+\beta\,\Psi') \,,\\
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_{\psi}\,=\, G_{\phi\psi} \,(\omega_1+\beta\,\Phi') +G_{\psi\psi}\,(\omega_3 +\beta\,\Psi') \,.
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& v'(\xi) = -\,\frac{b\alpha\mu\omega_1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)} \,u\,,\label{eq-v u} \\
& \Phi'(\xi) = \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)} \left[\frac{2A}{b} \,\frac{1}{(1-u)} +\beta\omega_1 \right] , \label{eq-Phi u} \\
& \Psi'(\xi) = \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)} \left[ \frac{2A}{b} \,\frac{1}{(1-u)} + \frac{4(1-b)A}{b^2} - \frac{2\alpha\mu\kappa}{b Z^2}+\beta\omega_3 \right]. \label{eq-Psi u}\end{aligned}$$ Actually, in order to find the dispersion relations we will need the explicit expression of the four momenta in terms of the variable $u$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_T\,=\, |G_{TT}|\kappa -\frac{\omega_0}{Z^2} +\frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)} \frac{b\alpha\mu}{2Z^2}\left[ \frac{4}{b^2}\left( A - \frac{b\alpha\mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) +\beta(\omega_1 +\omega_3) \right] ,\label{moment T} \\
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_V\,= \,\frac{\kappa}{Z^2}\,, \label{moment V}\\
&\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_{\psi}\,= \,\frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\left\lbrace \frac{b^2}{4}\left[ \beta\frac{4}{b^2} \left( A -\frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) +\alpha^2\,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] -\frac{\alpha^2 b^2\omega_1}{2}\,u \right\rbrace, \label{moment psi}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{moment phi}
\frac{\alpha}{T}\,\Pi_{\phi}\,=\, \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\left\lbrace \frac{b^2}{4}\left[ \beta\frac{4}{b^2} \left( A -\frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) +\alpha^2\,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] \right. \\
\left. +\alpha^2 \left[ b(1-b)\omega_1 -b^2 \frac{\omega_3}{2} + \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \frac{b\mu}{Z^2}\kappa \right] u - \alpha^2(1-b)\,b\,\omega_1 \, u^2 \right\rbrace .\end{gathered}$$ These expressions have to be substituted in the corresponding charge integrals $$\label{charge-int}
E=\!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi\, \Pi_T, \quad J_V=\!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi\, \Pi_V,\quad J_\phi=\!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi\, \Pi_\phi, \quad J_\psi= \!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\Pi_\psi\,.$$
As usually happens in this kind of considerations, some of the expression in are divergent. Indeed, the first two integrals are trivially divergent $\Pi_T$ and $\Pi_V$ being constants. Nevertheless, they may enter dispersion relations in certain combinations. In order to find the dispersion relations for the giant magnon and single spike string configurations we have to construct and compute the angular amplitudes along the directions of $\phi$ and $\psi$. To do that we have to integrate equations and over $\xi\in(-\infty, +\infty)$ on the solution . Since, the integral of $1/(1-u)$ over $\xi\in (-\infty,+\infty)$ is divergent on the solution, both amplitudes $\Delta \phi$ and $\Delta \psi$ are divergent quantities and we have to take care of that. To this end it proves useful (see for instance [@Hofman:2006xt], [@Benvenuti:2008bd] and [@Georgiou:2017pvi]) to introduce the combination $$\label{delta}
\Delta\,\equiv \,\frac{\Delta \phi +\Delta \psi}{2}\,=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \left(\frac{\Phi'+\Psi'}{2} \right).$$ This amplitude $\Delta$ remains finite for the giant magnon case and it diverges for the single spike string configuration. In both cases, it has the form $$\label{delta u}
\Delta\,=\,\frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \left\lbrace \frac{1}{2}\left[ \frac{4}{b^2} \left(A - \frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) + \beta(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] +\frac{2A}{b} \left( \frac{u}{1-u}\right) \right\rbrace .$$ >From the explicit expressions for the momentum densities and amplitude $\Delta$ it is clear that the integrals we will need to calculate actually three. Since the function $u(\xi)$ decrease when $\xi$ runs from $0$ to $+\infty$ and increase for $\xi$ running from $-\infty$ to $0$ (see ), from we can split the integration measure $d\xi$ in two ways $$d\xi\,=\, -\, \frac{du}{u\,\sqrt{|a_{4}|\,(r_{+} -u)\,(u+|r_{-}|)}}\, ,$$ when $\xi\in[0,+\infty]$ and the integration over $u$ has to be taken from $r_{+}$ to $0$. The integration over the other interval goes as $$d\xi\,=\, +\, \frac{du}{u\,\sqrt{|a_{4}|\,(r_{+} -u)\,(u+|r_{-}|)}}\, ,$$ when $\xi\in[-\infty,0]$ and the integration over $u$ runs from $0$ to $r_{+}\,$. Thus, in the symbolic form, we can write $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi\,\cdots \,=\,2\int\limits_{0}^{r_{+}} \frac{du}{u\,\sqrt{|a_{4}|\,(r_{+} -u)\,(u+|r_{-}|)}}\,\cdots.$$ The three integrals we will need for coputation of the dispersion relations are $$\begin{aligned}
&Int_1\equiv\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,u\,=\,\frac{4}{\sqrt{|a_{4}|}}\,\arctan \sqrt{\frac{r_{+}}{|r_{-}|}}\,,\label{int u}\\
&Int_2\equiv\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,u^2\,=\,2\frac{(r_{+}-|r_{-}|)}{\sqrt{|a_{4}|}}\,\arctan \sqrt{\frac{r_{+}}{|r_{-}|}}+ 2\,\sqrt{\frac{r_{+}\,|r_{-}|}{|a_4|}}\,,\label{int u^2}\\
&Int_3\equiv\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,\frac{u}{1-u}\,=\,\frac{4}{\sqrt{|a_{4}|\,(1-r_{+} )\,(1+|r_{-}|)}}\,\arctan \sqrt{\frac{r_{+}(1+|r_{-}|)}{|r_{-}|(1-r_{+})}}\,.\label{int u/(1-u)}\end{aligned}$$ In what follows we will need also the relation between the constant $A$ and roots $r_{\pm}\,$
The expression for $\Delta$ needs some care. Explicitly, we have $$\label{delta A}
\Delta= \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\left\lbrace \frac{1}{2}\left[ \frac{4}{b^2}\left(A - \frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) +\beta(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] \right\rbrace \!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!\!d\xi
\,+\, 2\arctan \sqrt{\frac{r_{+}(1+|r_{-}|)}{|r_{-}|(1-r_{+})}}\,.$$
To find the dispersion relations we will need some convenient parametrizations. The clues come, for instance from [@Benvenuti:2008bd], and indeed, to avoid the cumbersome dependence on the parameter we need conveniently defined quantities. To this end we define $$\begin{aligned}
D\,\equiv\,\frac{r_+ - |r_-|}{r_+ +|r_-|}\,&\equiv\,-\cos\delta\,,\label{parametrization D}\\
C+D\,\equiv\,\frac{2\,r_+\,|r_-|}{(r_+ +|r_-|)}\,+\,\frac{r_+ -|r_-|}{r_+ +|r_-|}\,&\equiv\,-\cos\gamma\,,\,\,\,\, \delta\leq\gamma\in[0,\pi]\,,\label{parametrization C+D}\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the form of solution can be written as $$\label{solution cosh-a}
u(\xi)\,=\,\frac{C}{\cosh\left( \sqrt{a_2} \,\,\xi\right) -\, D}\,, \qquad a_2 >0\,, \qquad |C+D| <1\,.$$ It is useful also to have at hand the realations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{r_{+}}{|r_{-}|}\,=\,\frac{1+D}{1-D}\,=\,\frac{1-\cos\delta}{1+\cos\delta}\,=\,\tan^2 \frac{\delta}{2}\,, \label{tg^2 delta}\\
\frac{r_{+}(1+|r_{-}|)}{|r_{-}|(1-r_{+})}\,=\,\frac{1+(C+D)}{1-(C+D)}\,=\,\frac{1-\cos\gamma}{1+\cos\gamma}\,=\,\tan^2 \frac{\gamma}{2}\,,\label{tg^2 gamma}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{r+r-}
r_+\,|r_-|\,=\,\frac{C^2}{1-D^2}\,=\,\frac{a_2}{|a_4|}\,.$$ The important ratio $a_2/|a_4|$ can be written entirely in term of $\gamma$ and $\delta$ $$\label{cos delta -cos gamma}
\frac{\cos\delta \,-\, \cos\gamma}{\sin\delta}\,=\, \sqrt{\frac{a_2}{|a_4|}}\,.$$ The expressions for the integrals and drastically simplify $$\begin{aligned}
&Int_1\,=\,\frac{2}{\sqrt{|a_{4}|}}\,\delta\,, \label{Int_1}\\
&Int_2\,=\,\frac{a_3}{|a_4|\,\sqrt{|a_{4}|}}\,\delta + 2\frac{\sqrt{a_2}}{|a_4|}\,.\label{Int_2}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\label{Int_2_1}
Int_2\,=\,\frac{a_3}{2\,|a_4|}\,Int_1 +2\,\frac{\sqrt{a_2}}{|a_4|}\,.$$ The expression for $\Delta$ is $$\label{Delta gamma}
\Delta\,=\,\frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\left\lbrace \frac{1}{2}\left[ \frac{4}{b^2}\left(A -\frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) +\beta(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] \right\rbrace \!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi + \gamma \,.$$ After these preparations, one can compute the general form of charges $J_\psi$ and $J_\phi$ $$\label{charge psi}
\alpha\, \frac{J_\psi}{T} = \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)} \left\lbrace \frac{b^2}{4}\left[ \beta\frac{4}{b^2} \left(A - \frac{b\alpha\mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) + \alpha^2 \,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] \right\rbrace \!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!d\xi \,-\, \frac{\alpha b^2}{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}\,\delta \,,$$ $$\label{charge phi}
\alpha\, \frac{J_\phi}{T} = \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\left\lbrace \frac{b^2}{4} \left[ \beta\frac{4}{b^2} \left(A -\frac{b\alpha\mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) + \alpha^2\,(\omega_1+\omega_3) \right] \right\rbrace \!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \,-\,\alpha b\sqrt{1-b} \sqrt{\frac{a_2}{|a_4|}}\,.$$ Making use of one can rewrite the charge $J_{\phi}$ as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{charge phi delta gama}
\alpha\, \frac{J_{\phi}}{T} = \frac{1}{(\alpha^2-\beta^2)}\left\lbrace \frac{b^2}{4}\left[ \beta\frac{4}{b^2} \left(A -\frac{b\alpha \mu}{2Z^2}\kappa \right) + \alpha^2\,(\omega_1 +\omega_3) \right] \right\rbrace \!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!d\xi \\
-\,\alpha b\sqrt{1-b} \left( \frac{\cos\delta -\cos\gamma}{\sin\delta} \right).\end{gathered}$$ In subsequent considerations, it should be taken into account that the quantity $\alpha^2-\beta^2$ is positive for the magnons and negative for the spikes. For the two cases it is useful to introduce the notation $\eta^2$ with value $\eta^2 \equiv \frac{\beta^2}{\alpha^2} $ for the magnons and $\eta^2\equiv \frac{\alpha^2}{\beta^2}$ for the spikes.
Now we are ready to obtain the dispersion relations for the two string solutions - giant magnon and spiky string configurations.
Giant magnons
-------------
In this subsection we calculate the charges and obtain the dispersion relations for the case of giant magnon strings. The boundary conditions ensuring giant magnon configuration of the string have been given in , , and . What remains to do is to insert them into the integrals for charges and obtain the dispersion relations. Substituting the relations from boundary conditions into the charge integrals one finds $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha\,\frac{E}{T}\,=\, \kappa\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi\,=\, \sqrt{\frac{\omega_0^2}{\mu^2} + \frac{b^2}{4}\, (\omega_1 + \omega_3)^2}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\xi\,, \label{E mag} \\
&\alpha \, \frac{J_V}{T}\,=\,\frac{\omega_0}{\mu^2}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi\,, \label{J V mag}\\
&\alpha\, \frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\,=\, \frac{b^2}{4}\, (\omega_1 + \omega_3)\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi\, -\,\alpha\,\frac{b^2}{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}\,\delta \,, \label{J psi mag}\\
&\alpha\, \frac{J_{\phi}}{T} \,=\, \frac{b^2}{4}\, (\omega_1 + \omega_3)\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi\, -\,\alpha b\sqrt{1-b} \left( \frac{\cos\delta \,-\, \cos\gamma}{\sin\delta} \right) .\label{J phi mag}\end{aligned}$$ The expression for $\Delta$ turns out to be finite $$\label{delta mag}
\Delta\,=\, \gamma \,.$$ However, due to constant terms in the integrands all four charges are divergent. Nevertheless, one can combine them into nice dispersion relations.
First, we observe that the divergence presented in all the charges cane be cast in the form $$\label{E-JV}
\frac{b}{2}\,(\omega_1 + \omega_3)\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi \,=\,\alpha\, \sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right) ^2 -\mu^2 \, \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 }.$$ Next step is, using to identify the finite combinations of charges. These are $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{J_{\psi}}{T} - \frac{b}{2} \sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right) ^2 -\mu^2 \, \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 }\,,\qquad \frac{J_{\phi}}{T} - \frac{b}{2} \sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right) ^2 -\mu^2 \, \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 }\,, \label{comb1-finite}\\
&\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}+\frac{J_{\phi}}{T} - b\,\sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right) ^2 -\mu^2 \, \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 }\, , \qquad \frac{J_{\psi}}{T}-\frac{J_{\phi}}{T}\,,\label{comb2-finite}\end{aligned}$$ but one should emphasize that only two of them are independent. The first expression in is calculated to be $$\label{comb psi}
\frac{b}{2} \sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right) ^2 -\mu^2 \, \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 }\,-\,\frac{J_{\psi}}{T} \,=\, \frac{b^2}{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}\,\delta\,.$$ Subtracting the last expression in from the first one in gives $$\label{comb phi}
\frac{b}{2} \sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right) ^2 -\mu^2 \, \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 }\,-\frac{J_{\phi}}{T} \,=\, b\sqrt{1-b} \left( \frac{\cos\delta \,-\, \cos\gamma}{\sin\delta} \right).$$ Eliminating the parameter $\delta$ from the last two equations, and , and taking into account that $\,\Delta\,=\,\gamma\,$ we obtain the following dispersion relation for the giant magnon string configuration $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dispers magnon}
\frac{\cos\left\lbrace \sqrt{ \frac{(1-b)}{b^2} \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right\rbrace \,-\,\cos\Delta\,}{\sin \left\lbrace \sqrt{ \frac{(1-b)}{b^2} \left[\left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T}\right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right\rbrace } \,=\\
=\, \sqrt{\frac{1}{2(1-b)} \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 - \mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } \,-\, \frac{1}{b\sqrt{1-b}} \left( \frac{J_{\phi}}{T}\right) .\end{gathered}$$ In the limit $\,\mu\,\rightarrow\,0\,$ we obtain the giant magnon dispersion relation on $\,AdS_5 \times T^{1,1}\,$ in [@Benvenuti:2008bd]. On the other hand, taking the limit $b\to 1$ ($Schr_5\times T^{1,1}\to Schr_5\times S^5$ limit) we find perfect agreement with the the result of [@Georgiou:2017pvi].
Single spikes
-------------
Next issue is to obtain the dispersion relations for the single spike strings on $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ background. In the previous Section we determined the boundary conditions corresponding to spike string configurations, , , and . The charges under these conditions have the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha\,\frac{E}{T}\,=\, \kappa \,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi\,=\, \frac{\omega_0}{\mu} \,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi\,, \label{E spike} \\
&\alpha \,\mu\, \frac{J_V}{T}\,=\,\frac{\omega_0}{\mu}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi + \alpha\,\frac{b\,(\omega_1 + \omega_3)}{2\,\beta} \,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi \,, \label{J V spike}\\
& \frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\,=\, -\,\frac{b^2}{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}\,\delta \,, \label{J psi spike}\\
&\frac{J_{\phi}}{T} \,=\, -\,b\sqrt{1-b} \left( \frac{\cos\delta \,-\, \cos\gamma}{\sin\delta} \right) .\label{J phi spike}\end{aligned}$$ Beside $E$ and $J_V$, in this case $\Delta$ is also divergent $$\label{Delta spike}
\Delta\,=\, - \frac{(\omega_1+\omega_3)}{2\,\beta}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \xi + \gamma \,.$$ However, combining all divergent expressions, , and to cancel common divergences one can construct a finite combination $$\label{gamma delta}
\gamma\,=\, \frac{1}{b}\,\left[ \mu \,\left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right) - \left(\frac{E}{T} \right) \right] +\Delta\,.$$ The dispersion relations can be extracted from . We have just to use and to eliminate $\gamma$ and $\delta$ parameters. The final expression for the dispersion relation of single spike string solutions is obtained to be $$\label{disp spike}
\frac{\cos\left[ \frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \, \left( \frac{J_{\psi}}{T} \right) \right] - \cos\left\lbrace \frac{1}{b}\,\left[ \left(\frac{E}{T} \right) - \mu \,\left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right) \right] -\Delta \right\rbrace }{\sin \left[ \frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \, \left( \frac{J_{\psi}}{T} \right) \right]}\,=\, \frac{1}{b\,\sqrt{1-b}} \left( \frac{J_{\phi}}{T} \right).$$ This completes the derivation of the dispersion relations of giant magnon and single spike solutions of strings on $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ background.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this Section we summarize our results and give some future directions.
The focus of our investigation in this paper were giant magnons and single spike string solutions in $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ background. These problems are important because their field theory duals are strongly coupled non-relativistic CFTs. The later are supposed to be dipole theories which seems to be far from completely understood. Making use of finite combinations of conserved charges we were able to find the dispersion relations for these classes of string solutions in the above background. The main results are dispersion relations given in for giant magnons and for single spike strings, The natural way to go beyond these studies is to speculate what the field theory operators corresponding to the dispersion relations we obtained here would be. Certain clues come for instance, from [@Guica:2017jmq] or [@Georgiou:2017pvi].
To make link to other studies on the subject we can consider several limiting cases, which was actually the reason to keep parameter $b$ in the formulas ($b=2/3$ for conifold). First of all, we would like to compare our results with those of the case of $Schr_5\times S^4$ [@Georgiou:2017pvi; @Ahn:2017bio]. Looking at our line element it is easy to see that in the limit $b\to 1$ the spherical case is recovered. Carrying out carefully the limit in one finds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dispers magnon-limit}
\frac{\cos\left\lbrace \sqrt{ \frac{(1-b)}{b^2} \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right\rbrace \,-\,\cos\Delta\,}{\sin \left\lbrace \sqrt{ \frac{(1-b)}{b^2} \left[\left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T}\right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right\rbrace } \,=\\
=\, \sqrt{\frac{1}{2(1-b)} \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 - \mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } \,-\, \frac{1}{b\sqrt{1-b}} \left( \frac{J_{\phi}}{T}\right)
\\ \qquad
\underset{b\to 1}{\Longrightarrow} \qquad
\left(\sqrt{\left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2} -\left(\frac{J_1}{T}\right) \right)^2-\left(\frac{J_2}{T}\right)^2 =
4\sin^2\frac{\Delta}{2},\end{gathered}$$ where $J_1=J_\psi+J_\phi$ and $J_2=J_\psi-J_\phi$. As we see, the cumbersome transcendental relation greatly simplifies and we find perfect agreement with the results in [@Georgiou:2017pvi]. Analogous limit shows consistency for single spike case as well.
Another limit is the case of $\mu\to 0$ where the standard relations for conifold should be reproduced [@Benvenuti:2008bd]. This limit actually is easier and the agreement with confold case is obvious [$$\eqref{dispers magnon}\quad \underset{\mu\to 0}{\Longrightarrow} \qquad
\frac{\cos\left\lbrace \frac{\sqrt{1-b}}{b}\left[ \frac{E}{T} - \frac{2}{b}\left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right] \right\rbrace \,-\,\cos\Delta\,}{\sin \left\lbrace \frac{\sqrt{1-b}}{b}\left[ \frac{E}{T} - \frac{2}{b}\left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right] \right\rbrace }= \frac{ \frac{E}{T} - \frac{2}{b}\left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) }{2\sqrt{1-b}}$$]{}
There are two more limits which could be taken - of point-like string (BMN, [@Berenstein:2002jq]) and folded string (GKP, [@Gubser:2002tv]). Let us briefly comment on the dispersion relation in these two limits.
The MBN limit the following quantities are small [$$\begin{gathered}
\sqrt{ (1-b) \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b} \left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \: \sim \\
\: \sim \: \Delta \sim \sqrt{ (1-b) \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b} \left(\frac{J_{\phi}}{T}\right) \:\to\:0.
\end{gathered}$$]{} Expanding the arguments of trigonometric functions one finds [$$\left( \frac{E}{T} - \frac{2-b}{b}\left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right)- \frac{J_{\phi}}{T} \right)^2 = (J_\psi -J_\phi)^2 +b^2\Delta^2.$$]{} For conifold case actually we shoould set $b=2/3$ [$$\left( \frac{E}{T} - 2\left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right)- \frac{J_{\phi}}{T} \right)^2 = (J_\psi -J_\phi)^2 + \frac{4}{9}\Delta^2.$$]{} The left hand side of the above equation has been used in [@Itzhaki:2002kh; @Gomis:2002km; @PandoZayas:2002dso] to classify the states in the pp-wave limit with identification $H=E-2J_\psi-J_\phi$. To get exact agreement in the spherical limit however, one has to rescale $\Delta$. One can compare our result also with BMN strings considered in [@Guica:2017jmq] or [@Georgiou:2017pvi]. For the first case one has to identify $J_V/T$ with $M$, set $J_\phi=0$ and take $E=\sqrt{\lambda}\kappa$. For the second case we just have first to take the limit $b\to 1$ ans since this limits is consistent with the results of [@Georgiou:2017pvi] further considerations also agree.
It is interesting to mention the GKP regime which corresponds to $\eta\to0$. In this case one has to go back to the expression and carefully take the limit applied to the coefficients of the polynomial and then the value of $\Delta$ through and . Then, one finds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dispers magnon-gkp}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{2(1-b)} \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 - \mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } \,-\, \frac{1}{b\sqrt{1-b}} \left( \frac{J_{\phi}}{T}\right) \\
= \cot\left\lbrace \sqrt{ \frac{(1-b)}{b^2} \left[ \left( \frac{E}{T}\right)^2 -\mu^2 \left(\frac{J_V}{T} \right)^2 \right] } -\,\frac{2\,\sqrt{1-b}}{b^2} \left(\frac{J_{\psi}}{T}\right) \right\rbrace.\end{gathered}$$ This is our expression for GKP limit. Note that, while in the point-like string regime the dispersion relation becomes quadratic, in the folded string limit it remains transcendental. Detailed study of these issues we leave for another paper.
Let us list some future directions. Certainly the limits discussed above deserve further study especially with identifying the corresponding field operators. Actually this is the next step we intend to do.
To complete the analysis we plan to investigate also pulsating strings in $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ background. It would be interesting to study certain correlation functions and compare the results with other cases. Another issue is to study also finite correction as it has been done in relativistic cases.
It would be interesting to study problems related to quantum information metric, complexity etc and we hope to return to these issues in the near future.
#### Acknowledgements
\
R. R. is grateful to Kostya Zarembo for discussions on various issues of holography in Schrödinger backgrounds. T. V. and M. R are grateful to Prof. G. Djordjevic for the warm hospitality at the University of Niš, where some of these results have been presented. The work is partially supported by the Program “JINR– Bulgaria” at Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency. This work was supported in part by BNSF Grant DN-18/1 and H-28/5, as well as SU Grants 80-10-62/2020 and 80-10-68/2020.
\[appA\]
Lightning Review of Schrödinger spaces and general deformations
================================================================
A remark on deformations
------------------------
One of the most general deformations preserving integrability is the so-called Drinfe’ld-Reshetikhin (DR) twist, particular case of which TsT transformation appears to be. Let us briefly mention the main features of DR twists following mainly [@Guica:2017jmq].
The DR twist of the scattering matrix $\mathbb{S}$ is realized as [$$\mathbb{S}\:\rightarrow\: \tilde{\mathbb{S}}=\mathbb{F}\,\mathbb{S}\,\mathbb{F},\qquad \mathbb{F}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\sum_{i,j}\gamma_{ij}(H_i\otimes H_j-H_j\otimes H_i)},$$]{} where $H_i$ are Cartan elements of the isometry group and $\gamma_{ij}$ is a constant antisymmetric matrix. In the cases above, instead of coefficient times Cartan element, we have the corresponding charges. An important oint to stress on is that the element of the Cartan matrix can be replaced by commuting (super) charges and the twist still preserves integrability.
The construct a DR twist one can be use the R-matrix, which acts on the tensor product of two vector spaces: [$$R_{ab}(u): \quad V_a\otimes V_b\:\longrightarrow \: V_a\otimes V_b,$$]{} and satisfy the Yang-Baxter (YB) equation [$$R_{ab}(u-v)R_{ac}(u)R_{bc}(v)=R_{bc}(v)R_{ac}(u)R_{ab}(u-v).$$]{} Then the statement is that the Drinfe’ld twist is the most general linear transformation preserving integrability and has the form [$$R_{ab}(u)\:\longrightarrow\: \tilde{R}_{ab}(u)= F_{ab}R_{ab}(u)F_{ab},$$]{} The constant matrix $F_{ab}$ satisfies the following conditions:
- $F_{ab}$ is a constant solution of YB equations: [$$F_{ab}F_{ac}F_{bc}=F_{bc}F_{ac}F_{ab}.$$]{}
- Obeys associativity condition: [$$R_{ab}(u)F_{ca}F_{cb}=F_{cb}F_{ca}R_{ab}(u).$$]{}
- To preserve regularity of the R-matrix, the twist should satisfy an unitarity condition of the form: [$$F_{ab}F_{ba}=1.$$]{}
In practice the above construction work as follows. Lets have a set of commuting in $V_a$ charges $Q^i_a$, $[Q^i_a,Q^j_a]=0$. Thus, the condition [$$e^{i\omega_k Q^k_a}e^{i\omega_l Q^l_b}R_{ab}(u)= R_{ab}(u)e^{i\omega_k Q^k_a}e^{i\omega_l Q^l_b}\qquad \text{for each}\: k,l$$]{} means that $e^{i\omega_k Q^k_a}$ is a non-degenerate linear transformation on $V_a$ and is a symmetry of $R_{ab}$. Defining $K_a=e^{i\omega_i Q^i_a}$, it is a simple exercise to check that $F_{ab}=K_a K^{-1}_b$ satisfies YB equation.
In summary, one can construct the Drinfe’ld twist operator as (summation over $i,j$ is understood): [$$F_{ab}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\gamma_{ij}Q^i_aQ^j_b},$$]{} where $\gamma_{ij}=-\gamma_{ji}$.
Let us turn to TsT transformations and assume that we have a background with associated brane system. To implement TsT transformation at least two isometry directions are needed, say $(\phi_1,\phi_2)$. The transformation then consists of a T-duality along $\phi_1$, followed by a shift $\phi_2 \rightarrow \phi_2 + \gamma\phi_1$ in the T-dual background and T-duality back along $\phi_1$. Depending on where the ismetries lies, one can distinguish three cases:
1. The first case is when the two isometries involved in the TsT-transformation along along the brane. In this case the product of the fields in dual gauge theory becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
(f\ast g)(x)& =& e^{-i\pi\gamma\left(
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^2}-\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial y^1}\right)}
f(x)g(y)_{|x=y}\nonumber \\
& = & f(x)g(x) - i\pi\gamma\left(\partial_{1}f(x)\partial_2g(x)-
\partial_2f(x)\partial_1g(x)\right)+\cdots
\end{aligned}$$ Since gamma is constant, this is nothing but the Moyal product for a non-commutative two-torus. Obviously it is non-local and breaks Lorentz invariance and causality. Nevertheless, this picture, and its generalizations, offers interesting string realizations of non-commutative theories.
2. To make the second class of deformations we assume that one global $U(1)$ isometry is along the D-brane, but the other one is transversal to the brane. The deformed product of the fields in this case can be read off: $$(f\ast g)(x)=e^{\pi\gamma\left(
Q^g\frac{\partial}{\partial x}-Q^f\frac{\partial}{\partial y^1}\right)}=
f(x+\pi\gamma Q^g)g(x-\pi\gamma Q^f),$$ where $Q^i$ are the charges associated to the isometries. This is called dipole deformation. As we can see it is clearly non-local in one direction, but still living on a commutative space-time.
3. In the last case both isometries transverse to the D-brane. The product in th dual gauge theory but the two charges does not act as derivatives anymore $$(f\ast g)(x)=e^{i\pi\gamma(Q^f_1Q^g_2-Q^f_2Q^g_1)}fg. \label{2.6}$$ The product deformation yields an ordinary commutative and local theory, since the only contribution to the deformed product are some phases. The superconformal gauge theories, arising from the product , are classified by Leigh and Strassler and are called $\beta$-deformed. As we discussed above, the deformation reduces the amount of supersymmetry and TsT-transformations serves as supersymmetry breaking procedure as well.
As it is clear from above, TsT transformation can be thought of as particular case of DR twist.
$Schr_5\times S^5(T^{1,1})$ in Global coordinates {#appSchro}
-------------------------------------------------
The metric of 5D Schrödinger spacetime in local coordinates can be written as [$$ds^2=-\ell^2 \frac{{\hat\mu}^2(dx^+)^2}{z^4} + ds^2_{AdS_5},
\label{schro-metric-a}$$]{} where the second part is the $AdS_5$ metric in light-cone coordinates $$\label{A.1}
ds^2_{AdS_5}=\frac{\ell^2}{z^2}\left(2dx^+dx^-+d\vec{x}^2+dz\right).$$ To obtain the metric in global coordinates we apply the following transformations $$\label{eq_A2}
x^+=\tan T,\quad x^-=V-\frac{1}{2}\left(Z^2+\vec{X}^2\right)\tan T,\quad z=\frac{Z}{\cos T},\quad \vec{x}=\frac{\vec{X}}{\cos T}.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.3}
&dx^+=\frac{dT}{\cos^2T},\qquad dx^-=dV-\tan T\left(ZdZ+\vec{X}.d\vec{X}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\left(Z^2+\vec{X}^2\right)\frac{dT}{\cos^2T},\nonumber\\
&dz=\frac{dZ}{\cos T}+\frac{Z\sin TdT}{\cos^2T},\qquad d\vec{x}=\frac{1}{\cos T}\left(d\vec{X}+\vec{X}\tan TdT\right).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into we find the $AdS_5$ piece in global coordinates $$ds^2_{AdS_5}=\frac{\ell^2}{Z^2}\left(2dTdV-(Z^2+\vec{X}^2)dT^2+d\vec{X}^2+dZ^2\right).$$ For the rest, namely the first term in , we just need to use the relation $$\frac{\hat{\mu}^2}{z^4}{dx^+}^2=\frac{\hat{\mu}^2}{Z^4}{dT}^2.$$ Putting everything together we obtain the Schrödinger metric and the $B-$field in global coordinates $$\frac{ds^2_{Schr_5}}{\ell^2}=-\left(\frac{\hat{\mu}^2}{Z^4}+1 \right)dT^2+
\frac{2dT\,dV-\vec{X}^2dT^2+d\vec{X}^2+dZ^2}{Z^2},
\label{metric-schro-global}$$ $$\alpha' B_{(2)}= \frac{\ell^2\hat{\mu}\, dT}{Z^2}\wedge (d\hat{\chi}+P).
\label{B-global-1}$$ In the procedure outlined above the only element from transverse space $S^5$ participating the derivation is the isometry angle $\chi$. Therefore, to obtain the background $Schr_5\times T^{1,1}$ in global coordinates we need only that isometry angle from five-torus $T^{1,1}$.
Collection of some formulae and details {#calculations}
=======================================
In this appendix, we present some details of the derivation of the equations of motion.
Since the ansatz is linear in worldsheet time, the equations of motion for all non-trivial 2d fields become actually equations with respect to $\xi$ and all the constants $A_T,A_V,A_{\phi_1}, A_{\phi_2},$ and $A_{\psi}$ below are integration constants. They read off as follows\
— For T — $$\begin{gathered}
\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\xi} \left\lbrace G_{TT}\left[ -\beta\,\dot{T} +(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{T'}\right] + G_{TV}\left[ -\beta\,\dot{V}+ (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,V' \right] \right. \\
\left. - \,\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 B_{T\phi_i} \dot{\phi_i} -\alpha \,B_{T\psi} \dot{\psi} \right\rbrace =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ or $$\begin{gathered}
\label{v'-eq}
\left(1+ \frac{\mu^2}{Z^4}\right) \left[\beta\kappa -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)t' \,\right] -\frac{1}{Z^2} \left[\beta\omega_0 - (\alpha^2-\beta^2)v' \right] \\
-\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2Z^2} \left( \omega_3 -\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i \right)= \, A_T.\end{gathered}$$ — For V — $$\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\xi} \left\lbrace G_{TV}\left[ -\beta\,\dot{T} +(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{T'}\right]\right\rbrace =0\,,$$ or $$\label{t' Constant}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{t'}(\xi)=A_V Z^2 +\beta \kappa.$$ Then, substituting into we obtain the equation for $v'$ $$\label{EOM-TV}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,v'(\xi) = \frac{\alpha b\mu}{2} \left( \omega_3 -\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i (\xi)\right) + A_T Z^2 +(Z^4+\mu^2)A_V+\beta\omega_0\,.$$
— For Z —
$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{{\partial}G_{TT}}{{\partial}Z} \left[ -\dot{T}^2 -2\beta\,\dot{T}T' +(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{T'}^2 \right] \\
+2\,\frac{{\partial}G_{TV}}{{\partial}Z} \left[ -\dot{T}\dot{V}-\beta\,(\dot{T}V'+\dot{V}T')+(\alpha^2-\beta^2 ) \, T'V' \right] \\
+ 2\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \frac{{\partial}B_{T\phi_i}}{{\partial}Z} \left[\dot{T}{\phi_i}'-T'\dot{\phi_i} \right] +\, 2\alpha \,\frac{{\partial}B_{T\psi}}{{\partial}Z} \left[\dot{T}{\psi}'-T'\dot{\psi} \right]\,=\,0\,,\end{gathered}$$
or, explicitly $$\begin{gathered}
\label{EqZ}
\frac{\mu^2}{Z^2} \left[ \kappa^2 +2\beta\kappa\,t'-(\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{t'}^2\right] - \left[\kappa\omega_0 + \beta\left( \kappa\,v'+\omega_0\, t'\right) - (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,t'\,v'\, \right]
\\
-\frac{\alpha b\mu}{2} \left[\, \omega_3-\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i \right] t' - \frac{\alpha b\mu\kappa}{2} \left[ \,\sum\limits_{i=1}^2\, \Phi_i'\,\cos\theta_i -\Psi'\right] \,=0.\end{gathered}$$
— For $\phi_k\,\qquad k=1,2$ —
$$\begin{gathered}
\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\xi}\left\lbrace \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 G_{\phi_k \phi_i} \left[-\beta\,\dot{\phi_i} + (\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\phi_i}' \right] - G_{\phi_k \psi} \left[ \beta\,\dot{\psi} - (\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\psi}'\right] +\alpha \,B_{T\phi_k}\,\dot{T} \right\rbrace =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$
or, as equations in $\xi$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{EqPhi_k}
\frac{b^2}{4}\cos\theta_k \left\lbrace \beta \left( \omega_3 - \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i \right) + (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \Phi_i' \cos\theta_i - \Psi'\right) \right\rbrace \\
-\frac{b}{4} \sin^2\theta_k \left[ \,\beta \omega_k - (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,\Phi_k'\, \right] \,-\, \frac{\alpha b \mu\kappa}{2Z^2} \cos\theta_k \,=\, A_{\phi_k} \,, \qquad k=1,2\,.\end{gathered}$$ — For $\psi$ —
$$\begin{gathered}
\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\xi} \left\lbrace \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 G_{\phi_i\psi} \left[ -\beta\,\dot{\phi_i} + (\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,{\phi_i}^{\prime}\right] - G_{\psi\psi} \left[\, \beta\,\dot{\psi} - (\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\psi}'\right] +\alpha \,B_{T\psi}\,\dot{T} \right\rbrace =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$
or $$\label{EqPsi}
\beta \left( \omega_3 -\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i \right) + (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 {\Phi_i}' \cos\theta_i - \Psi'\right)
=\frac{4}{b^2} \!\left( \frac{\alpha b \mu\kappa}{2Z^2} - A_{\psi} \right) .$$ Combining the EoM for $\psi$ and EoM’s for $\phi_k$ we obtain the equations for $\Phi_k (\xi)$ $$\label{EqPhi_k Independent}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,{\Phi_k}^{\prime}(\xi)\, =\,\frac{4}{b}\,\frac{(A_{\phi_k} + A_{\psi}\,\cos{\theta_k})}{\sin^2 {\theta_k }} \,+\, \beta\,\omega_k \,, \qquad k=1,2\,,$$ while for $\Psi(\xi)$ it is $$\label{EqPsi Independent}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\Psi}' (\xi)=\frac{4}{b} \sum\limits_{i=1}^2\dfrac{A_{\phi_i}\,\cos\theta_i +A_\psi}{\sin^2 \theta_i} +\dfrac{4(1-2b)}{b^2}\,A_\psi-\frac{2\alpha\mu\kappa}{bZ^2} +\beta\omega_3\,.$$ Substituting these equations into the equation for Z we obtain a relation between the integration constants $$\label{RelationZ-app}
A_V^2 \,Z^6 \,+\, A_V A_T \,Z^4 \,+\, \frac{\alpha\kappa}{b} \left(2\mu A_{\psi} - \alpha b\omega_0 \right)=0.$$ Putting everything together, we obtain the following list of equations\
— $t^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_t-app}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2) \,{t^{\prime}}(\xi)=A_V Z^2 +\beta \kappa.$$ — $v^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_v-app}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,v^{\prime}(\xi)\,= \frac{\alpha b\mu}{2} \left( \omega_3 - \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \omega_i \,\cos\theta_i \right)
+ A_T Z^2 + (Z^4+\mu^2)A_V+\beta\omega_0\,.$$ — $\Phi_k^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_Phi_k-app}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,{\Phi_k}^{\prime}(\xi)\, =\,\frac{4}{b}\,\frac{(A_{\phi_k} + A_{\psi}\,\cos{\theta_k})}{\sin^2 {\theta_k }} \,+\, \beta\omega_k \,, \qquad k=1,2\,.$$ — $\Psi^{\prime}$ — $$\label{eq_Psi-app}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,\Psi'(\xi)=\frac{4}{b}\sum\limits_{i=1}^2\dfrac{A_{\phi_i}\,\cos\theta_i +A_{\psi}}{\sin^2 {\theta_i}} +\dfrac{4(1-2b)}{b^2}\,A_{\psi}-\frac{2\alpha\mu\kappa}{b Z^2} +\beta\omega_3\,.$$ — $ Z $ — $$\label{RelationZ}
A_V^2 \,Z^6 \,+\, A_V A_T \,Z^4 \,+\, \frac{\alpha\kappa}{b} \left(2\mu A_{\psi} - \alpha b\omega_0 \right)=0.$$
— For $\theta_k\,\qquad k=1,2$ — $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{b}{4}(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\theta_k}^{\prime\prime}(\xi) + \dfrac{{\partial}G_{\phi_k\phi_k}}{{\partial}\theta_k}\,\left[ \,\dot{\phi_k}^2 + 2\beta \,\dot{\phi_k} {\phi_k}' -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {{\phi_k}'}^2 \right]\\
+\,\dfrac{{\partial}G_{\phi_1\phi_2}}{{\partial}\theta_k} \left[ \dot{\phi_1}\dot{\phi_2} + \beta \,(\dot{\phi_1} {\phi_2}'+\dot{\phi_2} {\phi_1}') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {\phi_1}' {\phi_2}' \right] \\
+\,\dfrac{{\partial}G_{\phi_k\psi}}{{\partial}\theta_k} \left[ \dot{\phi_k}\dot{\psi} +\beta \,(\dot{\phi_k} \psi'+\dot{\psi}{\phi_k}') - (\alpha^2-\beta^2) \,{\phi_k}' \psi' \right]\\
-\alpha\,\dfrac{\partial B_{T\phi_k}}{\partial \theta_k}\, \left[ \dot{T}{\phi_k}'-T^{\prime}\dot{\phi_k} \right] =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ or $$\begin{gathered}
(\alpha^2 - \beta^2)\,{\theta_1}^{\prime\prime}(\xi) +(1-b)\cos\theta_1\sin\theta_1 \left[ \,\omega_1^2 +2\beta\omega_1 \Phi_1' -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {\Phi_1'}^2 \right] \\
-b\sin\theta_1\cos\theta_2 \left[ \,\omega_1\omega_2 +\beta \,(\omega_1\Phi_2'+\omega_2 \Phi_1') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_1' \Phi_2' \right] \\
+b\sin\theta_1 \left[ \,\omega_1\omega_3 +\beta \,(\omega_1 \Psi'+\omega_3 \Phi_1') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_1' \Psi' \right] \\
-\frac{2\alpha\mu}{Z^2} \sin\theta_1 \left[ \kappa\Phi_1'-t'\omega_1 \right] =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\,{\theta_2}^{\prime\prime}(\xi) +(1-b)\cos\theta_2\sin\theta_2 \left[ \,\omega_2^2 + 2\beta\omega_2 \,\Phi_2' -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, {\Phi_2'}^2 \right]\\
-b\sin\theta_2\cos\theta_1 \left[ \,\omega_1\omega_2 +\beta \,(\omega_1 \Phi_2'+\omega_2 \Phi_1') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_1'\Phi_2' \right] \\
+b\sin\theta_2 \left[ \,\omega_2\omega_3 +\beta \,(\omega_2 \Psi'+\omega_3 \Phi_2') -(\alpha^2-\beta^2)\, \Phi_2'\Psi' \right] \\
-\frac{2\alpha\mu}{Z^2} \sin\theta_2 \left[ \kappa{\Phi_2}^{\prime}-t^{\prime}\omega_2 \right] =0\, .\end{gathered}$$
[99]{}
R. G. Leigh and M. J. Strassler, Nucl. Phys. B [**447**]{} (1995) 95, [](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9503121).
O. Lunin and J. M. Maldacena, JHEP [**0505**]{} (2005) 033, [](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0502086).
N. Beisert [*et al.*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**99**]{} (1012) 3, [.](https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3982)
S. Frolov, JHEP [**0505**]{} (2005) 069, [](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503201). S. A. Frolov, R. Roiban and A. A. Tseytlin, JHEP [**0507**]{} (2005) 045, \[arXiv:hep-th/0503192\].
L. F. Alday, G. Arutyunov and S. Frolov, JHEP [**0606**]{}, 018 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-th/0512253\].
D. M. Hofman and J. M. Maldacena, J. Phys. A [**39**]{} (2006) 13095 \[hep-th/0604135\].
H. Dimov and R. C. Rashkov, Nucl. Phys. B [**799**]{} (2008) 255 \[arXiv:0709.4231\]
I. Klebanov and W. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**536**]{} (1998) 199, \[hep-th/9807080\].
U. Gursoy and C. Nunez, Nucl. Phys. B [**725**]{} (2005) 45, \[arXiv:hep-th/0505100\]. D. Z. Freedman and U. Gursoy, JHEP [**0511**]{} (2005) 042, \[arXiv:hep-th/0506128\]. U. Gursoy, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 014, \[arXiv:hep-th/0602215\].
C. S. Chu, G. Georgiou and V. V. Khoze, JHEP [**0611**]{}, 093 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-th/0606220\].
N. P. Bobev and R. C. Rashkov, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 046011 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-th/0607018\].
N. P. Bobev and R. C. Rashkov, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 046008, \[arXiv:0706.0442 \[hep-th\]\]. N. P. Bobev, H. Dimov and R. C. Rashkov, Bulg. J. Phys. [**35**]{} (2008) 274-285, \[arXiv:hep-th/0506063\]. D. V. Bykov and S. Frolov, JHEP [**0807**]{} (2008) 071, \[arXiv:0805.1070 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Dimov, M. Michalcik and R. C. Rashkov, JHEP [**0910**]{} (2009) 019, \[arXiv:0908.3065 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Michalcik and R. C. Rashkov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} (2013) no.3, 2312, \[arXiv:1208.0698 \[hep-th\]\] ,
D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 046003, [](https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3972).
K. Balasubramanian and J. McGreevy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} (2008) 061601, [](https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4053).
A. Adams, K. Balasubramanian and J. McGreevy, JHEP [**0811**]{} (2008) 059, [](https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1111).
V. K. Dobrev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**29**]{} (2014) 143001, \[arXiv:1312.0219\].
C. Duval, M. Hassaine and P. A. Horvathy, Annals Phys. [**324**]{} (2009) 1158 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2009.01.006 \[arXiv:0809.3128 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Akhavan, M. Alishahiha, A. Davody and A. Vahedi, JHEP [**0903**]{} (2009) 053 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/053 \[arXiv:0811.3067 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Bobev and A. Kundu, JHEP [**0907**]{} (2009) 098 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/07/098 \[arXiv:0904.2873 \[hep-th\]\].
S. J. van Tongeren, Nucl. Phys. B [**904**]{}, (2016) 148-175, \[arXiv:1506.01023 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Guica, F. Levkovich-Maslyuk and K. Zarembo, J. Phys. A [**50**]{}, 39 (2017), \[arXiv:1706.07957 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Ahn and P. Bozhilov, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{} (2018) no.10, 106005 \[arXiv:1711.09252 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Georgiou and D. Zoakos, JHEP [**1802**]{} (2018) 173 \[arXiv:1712.03091 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Ouyang, JHEP [**1712**]{} (2017) 126 \[arXiv:1709.06844 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Georgiou and D. Zoakos, JHEP [**1809**]{} (2018) 026 \[arXiv:1806.08181 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Dimov, M. Radomirov, R. C. Rashkov and T. Vetsov, JHEP [**1910**]{} (2019) 094, \[arXiv:1903.07444 \[hep-th\]\]
G. Georgiou, K. Sfetsos and D. Zoakos, JHEP [**1908**]{}(2019) 093 \[arXv:1906.08269 \[hep-th\]\]
G. Georgiou and D. Zoakos, JHEP [**2003**]{}(2020) 185 \[arXv:2002.05460 \[hep-th\]\]
J. P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli, J. Sparks and D. Waldram, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2004) 711-734, \[arXiv:hep-th/0403002\].
M. Cvetic, H. Lu, D. N. Page, C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 071101, \[arXiv:hep-th/0504225\].
S. Benvenuti and E. Tonni, JHEP [**0902**]{} (2009) 041; [](https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0145).
D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena and H. S. Nastase, JHEP [**0204**]{} (2002) 013 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/013 \[hep-th/0202021\].
S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B [**636**]{} (2002) 99 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00373-5 \[hep-th/0204051\].
N. Itzhaki, I. R. Klebanov and S. Mukhi, JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 048 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/03/048 \[hep-th/0202153\].
J. Gomis and H. Ooguri, Nucl. Phys. B [**635**]{} (2002) 106 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00396-6 \[hep-th/0202157\].
L. A. Pando Zayas and J. Sonnenschein, JHEP [**0205**]{} (2002) 010 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/010 \[hep-th/0202186\].
[^1]: For some details see Appendix \[calculations\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove that local weak solutions of the orthotropic $p-$harmonic equation are locally Lipschitz, for every $p\ge 2$ and in every dimension. More generally, the result holds true for more degenerate equations with orthotropic structure, with right-hand sides in suitable Sobolev spaces.'
address:
- 'Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, CNRS UMR 5219 Université de Toulouse F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università degli Studi di Ferrara Via Machiavelli 35, 44121 Ferrara, Italy'
- '[*and* ]{} Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS Centrale Marseille, I2M, UMR 7373, 39 Rue Frédéric Joliot Curie 13453 Marseille, France'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica “R. Caccioppoli” Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II” Via Cinthia, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, 80126 Napoli, Italy'
author:
- 'P. Bousquet'
- 'L. Brasco'
- 'C. Leone'
- 'A. Verde'
date: '29/01/2018'
title: |
On the Lipschitz character of\
orthotropic $p-$harmonic functions
---
Introduction
============
The problem
-----------
In this paper, we pursue the study of the regularity of local minimizers of degenerate [*functionals with orthotropic structure*]{}, that we already considered in [@BB; @BBJ; @BC] and [@BLPV]. More precisely, for $p\ge 2$, we consider local minimizers of the functional $$\label{puccetto}
\mathfrak{F}_0(u,\Omega')=\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{p}\,\int_{\Omega'} |u_{x_i}|^p\,dx,\qquad \Omega'\Subset\Omega,\ u\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega'),$$ and more generally of the functional $$\mathfrak{F}_\delta(u,\Omega')=\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{p}\,\int_{\Omega'} (|u_{x_i}|-\delta_i)_{+}^p\,dx +\int_{\Omega'}f\,u\,dx ,\qquad \Omega'\Subset\Omega,\ u\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega').$$ Here, $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^N$ is an open set, $N\geq 2$, and $\delta_1, \dots, \delta_N$ are nonnegative numbers.
A local minimizer $u$ of the functional $\mathfrak{F}_0$ defined in is a local weak solution of the [*orthotropic $p-$Laplace*]{} equation $$\label{puccettona}
\sum_{i=1}^N \left(|u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i}\right)_{x_i}=0.$$ For $p=2$ this is just the Laplace equation, which is uniformly elliptic. For $p>2$ this looks quite similar to the usual $p-$Laplace equation $$\sum_{i=1}^N \left(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i}\right)_{x_i}=0,$$ whose local weak solutions are local minimizers of the functional $$\label{silvani}
\mathfrak{I}(u,\Omega')=\frac{1}{p}\,\int_{\Omega'} |\nabla u|^p\,dx,\qquad \Omega'\Subset\Omega,\ u\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega').$$ However, as explained in [@BB] and [@BBJ], equation is much more degenerate. Consequently, as for the regularity of $\nabla u$ (i.e. boundedness and continuity), the two equations are dramatically different.
In order to understand this discrepancy between the $p-$Laplacian and its orthotropic version, let us observe that the map $\xi \mapsto |\xi|^p$ occuring in the definition of $\mathfrak{I}$ degenerates only at the origin, in the sense that its Hessian is positive definite on $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus \{0\}$. On the contrary, the definition of the orthotropic functional $\mathfrak{F}_0$ in is related to the map $\xi\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^N |\xi_i|^p$, which [*degenerates on an unbounded*]{} set, namely the $N$ hyperplanes orthogonal to the coordinate axes of $\mathbb{R}^N$.
The situation is even worse when $$\label{deltai}
\max \{\delta_i\, :\, i=1,\dots,N\}>0,$$ for the lack of ellipticity of the *degenerate* $p-$orthotropic functional arises on the larger set $$\bigcup_{i=1}^N \{\xi \in \mathbb{R}^N : |\xi_i|\leq \delta_i\}.$$ As a matter of fact, the regularity theory for these very degenerate functionals is far less understood than the corresponding theory for the standard case and its variants.
Under suitable integrability conditions on the function $f$, we can use the classical theory for functionals with $p-$growth and ensure that the local minimizers of $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$ are locally bounded and Hölder continuous, see for example [@Gi Theorems 7.5 & 7.6]. This theory also assures that the gradients of local minimizers lie in $L^r_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ for some $r>p$, see [@Gi Theorem 6.7].
We also point out that for $f\in L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, local minimizers of $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$ are contained in $W^{1,q}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, for every $q<+\infty$ (see [@BC Main Theorem]).
Main result
-----------
In this paper, we establish the optimal regularity expected for the minimizers of $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$, namely the *Lipschitz regularity*[^1]. More precisely, we establish the following result.
\[teo:lipschitz\] Let $p\ge 2$, $f\in W^{1,h}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ for some $h>N/2$ and let $U\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ be a local minimizer of the functional $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$. Then $U$ is locally Lipschitz in $\Omega$.
Moreover, in the case $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$, we have the following local scaling invariant estimate: for every ball $B_{2R_0}\Subset \Omega$, it holds $$\label{stimayeah}
\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{R_0/2})}\le C\, \left(\fint_{B_{R_0}} |\nabla U|^{p}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p}+C\,\left[R_0^2\,\left(\fint_{B_{R_0}} |\nabla f|^h\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{h}\right]^\frac{1}{p-1},$$ for some $C=C(N,p,h)>1$.
This result unifies and substantially extends the results on the orthotropic functional $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$ contained in [@BBJ], where it has been established that the local minimizers of $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$ are locally Lipschitz, provided that:
- $p\ge 2$, $N=2$ and $f\in W^{1,p'}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, see [@BBJ Theorem A]; .2cm
- $p\ge 4$, $N\ge 2$ and $f\in W^{1,\infty}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, see [@BBJ Theorem B].
The second result was based on the so-called [*Bernstein’s technique*]{}, see for example [@HL Proposition 2.19]. This technique had already been exploited in the pioneering paper [@UU] by Uralt’seva and Urdaletova, for a class of functionals which contains the orthotropic functional $\mathfrak{F}_0$ defined in , but not its more degenerate version $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$. Namely, the result of [@UU] does not cover the case when condition is in force.
Still for the case $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$, an entirely different approach relying on viscosity methods has been developped in [@D]. To our knowledge, both methods are limited to (at least) *bounded* lower order terms $f$.
On the contrary, [@BBJ Theorem A] can be considered as the true ancestor to Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\] above. Indeed, they both follow the [*Moser’s iteration technique*]{}, originally introduced in [@Mo] to establish regularity for uniformly elliptic problems. However, going beyond the two-dimensional setting requires new ideas, that we will explain in Subsection \[ssec:abel\] below.
In contrast to the partial results of [@BBJ Theorems A & B], the proof of Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\] does not depend on the dimension and does not need any additional restriction on $p$, apart from $p\ge 2$. It allows unbounded lower order terms, even if the condition $f\in W^{1,h}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ for some $h>N/2$ is certainly not sharp. On this point, it is useful to observe that by Sobolev’s embedding we have[^2] $$W^{1,h}\hookrightarrow L^{h^*},$$ with $h^*$ larger than $N$ and as close to $N$ as desired, provided $h$ is close to $N/2$. This means that, in terms of summability, our assumption on $f$ amounts to $f\in L^q_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ for some $q>N$. This is exactly the sharp expected condition on $f$ for the local minimizers to be locally Lipschitz, at least if one nurtures the (optimistic) hope that the regularity for the orthotropic $p-$Laplacian agrees with that for the standard $p-$Laplacian[^3].
Our strategy to prove Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\] relies on energy methods and integral estimates, and more precisely on [*ad hoc*]{} Caccioppoli-type inequalities. This only requires growth assumptions on the Lagrangian and its derivatives and can be adapted to a large class of functionals. For instance, we briefly explain in Appendix \[sec:nllot\] how to adapt our poof to the case of *nonlinear* lower order terms, i.e. when $f\, u$ is replaced by a term of the form $G(x,u)$.
We collect in this remark some interesting open issues:
1. one word about the assumption $p\geq 2$: as explained in [@BB] and [@BBJ], when $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$ the subquadratic case $1<p<2$ is simpler in a sense. In this case, the desired Lipschitz regularity can be inferred from [@FF Theorem 2.2] (see also [@FFM Theorem 2.7]). However, the more degenerate case is open; .2cm
2. in [@BB Main Theorem], local minimizers were proven to be $C^1$, in the two-dimensional case, for $1<p<\infty$ and when $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$. We also refer to the very recent paper [@LR], where a modulus of continuity for the gradient of local mimizers is exhibited. We do not know whether such a result still holds in higher dimensions; .2cm
3. in [@BLPV Theorem 1.4], local Lipschitz regularity is established in the two-dimensional case for an orthotropic functional, with anisotropic growth conditions; that is, for the functional $$\sum_{i=1}^2 \frac{1}{p_i}\,\int (|u_{x_i}|-\delta_i)_{+}^{p_i}\,dx +\int f\,u\,dx,\qquad \mbox{ with }2\le p_1\le p_2.$$ For such a functional, Lipschitz regularity is open in higher dimensions, even for the case $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$, i.e. for the functional $$\sum_{i=1}^2 \frac{1}{p_i}\,\int |u_{x_i}|^{p_i}\,dx +\int f\,u\,dx,\qquad \mbox{ with }2\le p_1\le p_2\le\dots\le p_N.$$ We point out that in this case, Lipschitz regularity in every dimension has been obtained in [@UU Theorem 1] for [*bounded*]{} local minimizers, under the additional restrictions $$p_1\ge 4\qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad p_N<2\,p_1.$$ Though these restrictions are not optimal, we recall that regularity can not be expected when $p_N$ and $p_1$ are too far part, due to the well-known counterexamples of Giaquinta [@Gi] and Marcellini [@Ma].
Technical novelties of the proof {#ssec:abel}
--------------------------------
Our main result is obtained by considering a regularized problem having a unique smooth solution converging to our local minimizer, and proving a local Lipschitz estimate independent of the regularization parameter.
At first sight, the strategy to prove such an estimate may seem quite standard:
- differentiate equation ; .2cm
- obtain Caccioppoli-type inequalities for convex powers of the components $u_{x_k}$ of the gradient; .2cm
- derive an iterative scheme of reverse Hölder’s inequalities; .2cm
- iterate and obtain the desired local $L^\infty$ estimate on $\nabla u$.
However, steps [**b)**]{} and [**c)**]{} are quite involved, due to the degeneracy of our equation. This makes their concrete realization fairly intricate. Thus in order to smoothly introduce the reader to the proof, we prefer to spend some words.
We point out that our proof is not just a mere adaption of techniques used for the $p-$Laplace equation. Moreover, it does not even rely on the ideas developed in [@BBJ] for the two-dimensional case. In a nutshell, we need new ideas to deal with our functional in full generality. .2cmIn order to obtain “good” Caccioppoli-type inequalities for the gradient, we exploit an idea introduced in nuce in [@BB]. This consists in differentiating in the direction $x_j$ and then testing the resulting equation with a test function of the form[^4] $$u_{x_j}|u_{x_j}|^{2s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2m},$$ with $1\le s\le m$. This leads to an estimate of the type (see Proposition \[stair\]) $$\label{powerchiaraintro}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,\,dx&\le C\, \sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,\left(|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s+2\,m}+|u_{x_k}|^{2\,s+2\,m}\right)\,dx\\
& + \sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{4\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m-2\,s}\,dx.
\end{split}$$ Then the idea is the following: let us suppose that we are interested in improving the summability of the component $u_{x_k}$. Ideally, we would like to take $s=1$ in , since in this case the left-hand side boils down to $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,u_{x_k}^{2\,m}\,dx&\ge \int |u_{x_k}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_k x_j}^2\,u_{x_k}^{2\,m}\,dx\\
&\simeq \int \left|\left(|u_{x_k}|^{\frac{p}{2}+m}\right)_{x_j}\right|^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$ If we now sum over $j=1,\dots,N$, this would give a control on the $W^{1,2}$ norms of convex powers of $u_{x_k}$. [*But there is a drawback here*]{}: indeed, this $W^{1,2}$ norm is estimated still in terms of the Hessian of $u$, which is contained in the right-hand side of . Observe that has the following form $$\label{powerchiaraintroI}
\mathcal{I}(s-1,m)\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,\left(|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s+2\,m}+|u_{x_k}|^{2\,s+2\,m}\right)\,dx+\mathcal{I}(2\,s-1,m-s),$$ where $$\mathcal{I}(s,m)=\sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,\,dx.$$ This suggests to perform a finite iteration of for $s=s_i$ and $m=m_i$ such that $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
2\,s_i-1&=&s_{i+1}-1\\
s_0&=&1
\end{array}\right.\qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad m_i-s_i=m_{i+1},\qquad \mbox{ for } i=0,\dots,\ell.$$ The number $\ell$ is chosen so that we stop the iteration when we reach $m_\ell=0$. The above conditions imply that for every $i=0,\dots,\ell$, we have $$m_i+s_i=m_0+s_0=2^\ell.$$ In this way, after a finite number of steps (comparable to $\ell$), the coupling between $u_{x_k}$ and the Hessian of $u$ contained in the term $\mathcal{I}$ will disappear from the right-hand side. In other words, we will end up with an estimate of the type $$\label{marò}
\begin{split}
\int \left|\nabla |u_{x_k}|^{2^\ell+\frac{p-2}{2}}\right|^2\,dx
&\le C\,\sum_{i,j=1}^N\int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,\left(|u_{x_j}|^{2^{\ell+1}}+|u_{x_k}|^{2^{\ell+1}}\right)\,dx\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,u_{x_j}^{2\,(2^{\ell}-1)}\,dx.
\end{split}$$ Observe that we still have the Hessian of $u$ in the right-hand side (this is the second term), but this time it is harmless. It is sufficient to use the standard Caccioppoli inequality for the gradient, which reads $$\sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,u_{x_j}^{2\,(2^{\ell}-1)}\,dx\lesssim \sum_{i=1}^N \int |u_{x_i}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_j}^{2^{\ell+1}}\,dx,$$ and the last term is already contained in the right-hand side of . All in all, by applying Sobolev inequality in the left-hand side of , we get the following type of self-improving information $$\nabla u\in L^{2\,\gamma}(B_R)\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad \nabla u\in L^{2^*\gamma}(B_r),\qquad \mbox{ where we set } \gamma=\frac{p-2}{2}+2^\ell.$$ In this way, we obtain an iterative scheme of reverse Holder’s inequalities. This is [**Step 1**]{} in the proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\] below. Thus, apparently, we safely landed in step [**c)**]{} of the strategy described above. .2cm We now want to pass to step [**d)**]{} and iterate infinitely many times the previous information. The goal would be to define the diverging sequence of exponents $\gamma_\ell$ by $$\gamma_{\ell}=\frac{p-2}{2}+2^\ell,\qquad \ell\ge 1,$$ and conclude by iterating $$\label{groviera}
\nabla u\in L^{2\,\gamma_\ell}(B_R) \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \nabla u \in L^{2^*\gamma_\ell}(B_r).$$ Once again, [*there is a drawback*]{}. Indeed, observe that by definition $$\frac{2^*}{2}\,\gamma_\ell\not= \gamma_{\ell+1}.$$ One may think that this is not a big issue: indeed, it would be sufficient to have $$\label{condizione0}
\gamma_{\ell+1}\le \frac{2^*}{2}\,\gamma_\ell,$$ then an application of Hölder’s inequality in would lead us to $$\nabla u\in L^{2\,\gamma_\ell}(B_R) \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \nabla u \in L^{2\,\gamma_{\ell+1}}(B_r),$$ and we could enchain all the estimates. However, since the ratio $2^*/2$ tends to $1$ as the dimension $N$ goes to $\infty$, it is easy to see that cannot be true in general. More precisely, such a condition holds only up to dimension $N=4$.
The idea is then to go back to and use interpolation in Lebesgue spaces in order to construct a Moser’s scheme “[*without holes*]{}”. In a nutshell, we control the term $$\int_{B_R} |\nabla u|^{2\,\gamma_\ell}\,dx,$$ with $$\int_{B_R} |\nabla u|^{2\,\gamma_{\ell-1}}\,dx\qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad \int_{B_R} |\nabla u|^{2^*\,\gamma_\ell}\,dx,$$ and use an iteration over shrinking radii in order to absorb the last term, see [**Step 2**]{} of the proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\]. Once this is done, we end up with the updated self-improving information $$\nabla u\in L^{2\,\gamma_{\ell-1}}(B_R) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \nabla u \in L^{2^*\gamma_\ell}(B_r).$$ What we gain is that now $2^*\,\gamma_\ell> 2\,\gamma_\ell>2\,\gamma_{\ell-1}$, thus by using Hölder’s inequality we obtain $$\nabla u\in L^{2\,\gamma_{\ell-1}}(B_R) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \nabla u \in L^{2\,\gamma_\ell}(B_r).$$ The information comes with a precise iterative estimate and a good control on the relevant constants. We can thus launch the Moser’s iteration procedure and obtain the desired $L^\infty$ estimate, see [**Step 3**]{} of the proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\].
There is still a small detail that needs some care: the first exponent of the iteration is $$2\,\gamma_0=p+2,$$ which means that on $\nabla u$ we obtain a $L^\infty-L^{p+2}$ local estimate. Finally, in order to obtain the desired $L^\infty-L^p$ estimate, one can simply use an interpolation argument (this is [**Step 4**]{} of the proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\]).
Plan of the paper
-----------------
In Section \[sec:preliminaries\], we define the approximation scheme and settle all the needed machinery. We have dedicated Section \[sec:caccioppoli\] to the new Caccioppoli inequalities which mix together the derivatives of the gradient with respect to $2$ orthogonal directions. In Section \[sec:leerp\], we exploit these Caccioppoli inequalities to establish integrability estimates on power functions of the gradient. In the subsequent section, we rely on these estimates to construct a Moser’s iteration scheme which finally leads to the uniform a priori estimate of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\].
For ease of readability, both in Sections \[sec:leerp\] and \[sec:5\], we first consider the case $f=0$ and $\delta=0$, in order to emphasize the main ideas and novelties of our approach. We explain subsequently in Subsections \[sec:leerp2\] and \[subsec:ule2\] respectively the technicalities to cover the general case $f\in W^{1,h}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $\max\{\delta_i\, : \, i=1,\dots,N\} >0$.
Finally, in Appendix \[sec:nllot\], we generalize Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\] to nonlinear lower order terms.
The paper has been partially written during a visit of P. B. & L. B. to Napoli and of C. L. to Ferrara. Both visits have been funded by the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) through the project “[*Regolarità per operatori degeneri con crescite generali*]{}”. A further visit of P. B. to Ferrara in April 2017 has been the occasion to finalize the work. Hosting institutions are gratefully acknowledged.
The last three authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
We will use the same approximation scheme as in [@BBJ Section 2]. We introduce the notation $$g_i(t)=\frac{1}{p}\, (|t|-\delta_i)^p_+,\qquad t\in\mathbb{R},\ i=1,\dots,N,$$ where $0\le \delta_1,\dots,\delta_N$ are given real numbers and we also set $$\label{delta}
\delta=1+\max\{\delta_i\, :\, i=1,\dots,N\}.$$
We are interested in local minimizers of the following variational integral $$\mathfrak{F}_\delta(u;\Omega')=\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega'} g_i(u_{x_i})\, dx+\int_{\Omega'} f\, u\, dx,\qquad u\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega),$$ where $\Omega'\Subset\Omega$ and $f\in W^{1,h}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ for some $h>N/2$. The latter implies that $$f\in L^{h^*}_{\rm loc}(\Omega) \subset L^{N}_{\rm loc}(\Omega) \subset L^{p'}_{\rm loc}(\Omega).$$ The last inclusion is a consequence of the fact that $p\geq 2$ and $N\geq 2$. The condition $f\in L^{p'}_{\rm loc}$ is exactly the one required in [@BBJ Section 2] to justify the approximation scheme that we now describe.
We set $$\label{gepsilon}
g_{i,\varepsilon}(t)=g_i(t)+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\, t^2=\frac{1}{p}\, (|t|-\delta_i)_+^{p}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\, t^2,\qquad t\in\mathbb{R}.$$
For $p=2$ and $\delta_i>0$, we have $g_i\in C^{1,1}(\mathbb{R})\cap C^\infty(\mathbb{R}\setminus\{\delta_i,-\delta_i\})$, but $g_i$ is not $C^2$. In this case, like in [@BC Section 2] one would need to replace $g_i$ by a regularized version, in particular for the $C^2$ regularity result of Lemma \[lm:below\] below. In order not to overburden the presentation, we prefer to avoid to explicitely write down this regularization and keep on using the same symbol $g_i$.
From now on, [*we fix $U$ a local minimizer of*]{} $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$. We also fix a ball $$B \Subset \Omega\quad \mbox{ such that }\quad 2\,B\Subset\Omega \mbox{ as well}.$$ Here $\lambda\,B$ denotes the ball having the same center as $B$, scaled by a factor $\lambda>0$.
For every $0<\varepsilon\ll 1$ and every $x\in \overline{B}$, we set $U_\varepsilon(x)=U\ast \varrho_\varepsilon(x)$, where $\varrho_\varepsilon$ is a smooth convolution kernel, supported in a ball of radius $\varepsilon$ centered at the origin.
Finally, we define $$\mathfrak{F}_{\delta,\varepsilon}(v;B)=\sum_{i=1}^N \int_B g_{i,\varepsilon}(v_{x_i})\, dx+\int_B f_{\varepsilon}\, v\, dx,$$ where $f_{\varepsilon}=f\ast\varrho_{\varepsilon}$. The following preliminary result is standard, see [@BBJ Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.8].
\[lm:below\] There exists $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that for every $0<\varepsilon\le \varepsilon_0<1$, the problem $$\label{approximated}
\min\left\{\mathfrak{F}_\varepsilon(v;B)\, :\, v-U_\varepsilon\in W^{1,p}_0(B)\right\},$$ admits a unique solution $u_\varepsilon$. Moreover, there exists a constant $C=C(N,p)>0$ such that the following uniform estimate holds $$\int_B |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^p\, dx\le C\,\left[\int_{2\,B} |\nabla U|^p\,dx+|B|^\frac{p'}{N}\,\int_{2\,B} |f|^{p'}\,dx+(\varepsilon_0+(\delta-1)^p)|B|\,\right].$$ Finally, $u_\varepsilon\in C^{2}(B)$.
We also rely on the following stability result, which is slightly more precise than [@BBJ Lemma 2.9].
\[lm:convergence\] With the same notation as before, there exists a sequence $\{\varepsilon_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\subset(0,\varepsilon_0)$ converging to $0$, such that $$\lim_{k\to \infty} \|u_{\varepsilon_k}-\widetilde u\|_{L^p(B)}=0,$$ where $\widetilde u$ is a solution of $$\min\left\{\mathfrak{F}_\delta(v;B)\, :\, v-U\in W^{1,p}_0(B)\right\}.$$ We also have $$\label{propagation}
\Big|\widetilde u_{x_i} -U_{x_i}\Big| \leq 2\,\delta_i,\qquad \mbox{ for a.\,e. }x\in B,\quad i=1,\dots,N.$$ In the case $\delta=1$, i.e. when $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$, then $\widetilde u=U$ and we have the stronger convergence $$\label{troppoforte!}
\lim_{k\to \infty} \|u_{\varepsilon_k}-U\|_{W^{1,p}(B)}=0.$$
The first part is proven in [@BBJ Lemma 2.9], while is proven in [@BBJ Lemma 2.3]. For the case $\delta=1$, we observe that $\widetilde u=U$ follows from the strict convexity of the functional, together with the local minimality of $U$. In order to prove , we observe that $$\begin{split}
\left|\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{p}\,\int_B \left|(u_{\varepsilon_k})_{x_i}\right|^p\,dx-\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{p}\int_B \left|U_{x_i}\right|^p\,dx\right|&\le \left|\mathfrak{F}_{\delta,\varepsilon_k}(u_{\varepsilon_k};B)-\mathfrak{F}_\delta (U;B)\right|+\frac{\varepsilon_k}{2}\,\int_B |\nabla u_{\varepsilon_k}|^2\,dx\\
&+\left|\int_B f_{\varepsilon_k}\,u_{\varepsilon_k}\,dx-\int_B f\,U\,dx\right|.
\end{split}$$ We now use that $\{u_{\varepsilon_k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ strongly converges in $L^p(B)$, is bounded in $W^{1,p}(B)$ and that $\{f_{\varepsilon_k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ strongly converges in $L^{p'}(B)$ to $f$. By further using that (see the proof of [@BBJ Lemma 2.9]) $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\left|\mathfrak{F}_{\delta,\varepsilon_k}(u_{\varepsilon_k};B)-\mathfrak{F}_\delta (U;B)\right|=0,$$ we finally get $$\label{norms}
\lim_{k\to\infty} \sum_{i=1}^N\int_B \left|(u_{\varepsilon_k})_{x_i}\right|^p\,dx=\sum_{i=1}^N\int_B \left|U_{x_i}\right|^p\,dx,\qquad i=1,\dots,N.$$ Observe that by Clarkson’s inequality for $p\ge 2$, we obtain $$\sum_{i=1}^N\left\|\frac{(u_{\varepsilon_k})_{x_i}+U_{x_i}}{2}\right\|^p_{L^p(B)}+\sum_{i=1}^N\left\|\frac{(u_{\varepsilon_k})_{x_i}-U_{x_i}}{2}\right\|^p_{L^p(B)}\le \frac{1}{2}\,\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \|(u_{\varepsilon_k})_{x_i}\|^p_{L^p(B)}+\sum_{i=1}^N \|U_{x_i}\|^p_{L^p(B)}\right).$$ By using this and , we eventually get .
Observe that the functional $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$ is not strictly convex when $\delta>1$. Thus property is useful in order to transfer a Lipschitz estimate for the minimizer $\widetilde u$ selected in the limit, to the chosen one $U$.
Finally, we will repeatedly use the following classical result, see [@Gi Lemma 6.1] for a proof.
\[lm:giusti\] Let $0<r<R$ and let $Z(t):[r,R]\to [0,\infty)$ be a bounded function. Assume that for $r\le t<s\le R$ we have $$Z(t)\le \frac{\mathcal{A}}{(s-t)^{\alpha_0}}+\frac{\mathcal{B}}{(s-t)^{\beta_0}}+\mathcal{C}+\vartheta\,Z(s),$$ with $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}\ge 0$, $\alpha_0\ge \beta_0>0$ and $0\le \vartheta<1$. Then we have $$Z(r)\le \left(\frac{1}{(1-\lambda)^{\alpha_0}}\,\frac{\lambda^{\alpha_0}}{\lambda^{\alpha_0}-\vartheta}\right)\,\left[\frac{\mathcal{A}}{(R-r)^{\alpha_0}}+\frac{\mathcal{B}}{(R-r)^{\beta_0}}+\mathcal{C}\right],$$ where $\lambda$ is any number such that $$\vartheta^\frac{1}{\alpha_0}<\lambda<1.$$
Caccioppoli-type inequalities {#sec:caccioppoli}
=============================
The solution $u_\varepsilon$ of the regularized problem satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\label{regolareg}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g'_{i,\varepsilon}((u_\varepsilon)_{x_i})\, \varphi_{x_i}\, dx+\int f_\varepsilon\, \varphi\, dx=0,\qquad \varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(B).$$ From now on, in order to simplify the notation, we will systematically forget the subscript $\varepsilon$ on $u_\varepsilon$ and $f_\varepsilon$ and [*simply write $u$ and $f$ respectively*]{}.
We now insert a test function of the form $\varphi=\psi_{x_j}\in W^{1,p}_0(B)$ in , compactly supported in $B$. Then an integration by parts yields $$\label{derivatag}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\, u_{x_i\,x_j}\, \psi_{x_i}\, dx+\int f_{x_j}\,\psi\,dx=0,$$ for $j=1,\dots,N$. This is the equation solved by $u_{x_j}$. .2cmWe refer to [@BBJ Lemma 3.2] for a proof of the following Caccioppoli inequality:
Let $\Phi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^+$ be a $C^1$ convex function. Then there exists a constant $C=C(p)>0$ such that for every function $\eta\in C^\infty_0(B)$ and every $j=1,\dots,N$, we have $$\label{mothergsob}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N &\int g''_{i,\varepsilon}(u_{x_i})\,\left|\left(\Phi(u_{x_j})\right)_{x_i}\right|^2\, \eta^2\, dx\\
&\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g''_{i,\varepsilon}(u_{x_i})\,|\Phi(u_{x_j})|^2\, \eta_{x_i}^2\, dx+C\,\int |f_{x_j}|\, |\Phi'(u_{x_j})|\, |\Phi(u_{x_j})|\,\eta^2\, dx.\\
\end{split}$$
We need a more elaborate Caccioppoli-type inequality for the gradient, which is reminiscent of [@BB Proposition 3.1].
\[prop:weird\] Let $\Phi, \Psi :[0,+\infty)\to [0,+\infty)$ be two non-decreasing continuous functions. We further assume that $\Psi$ is convex and $C^1$. Let $\eta\in C^{\infty}_0(B)$ and $0\le \theta\le 2$, then for every $k,j=1, \dots, N$, $$\label{chiaraf}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})&\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^\theta \,\eta^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&\times\left[\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\theta}\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx \right)^\frac{1}{2}+ \mathcal{E}_1(f)^\frac{1}{2}\right] + C\,\mathcal{E}_2(f)
\end{split}$$ where $$\mathcal{E}_1(f):=\int |f_{x_k}|\, |u_{x_k}|^{\theta+1}\,\Big|\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)\Big|^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\eta^2\,dx,$$ $$\mathcal{E}_2(f):=\int |f_{x_j}|\,|u_{x_j}|\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta^2\,dx.$$
By a standard approximation argument, one can assume that $\Phi$ is $C^1$ as well. We take in $$\varphi=u_{x_j}\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta^2.$$ This gives $$\label{carnevalif}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int &g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,\Big(\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)+ 2u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi'(u_{x_j}^2)\Big)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&=-2\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}\,u_{x_j}\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\,\eta\,\eta_{x_i}\,dx\\
&-2\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}\,u_{x_j}\,u_{x_i x_k}\,u_{x_k}\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&-\int f_{x_j}\,u_{x_j}\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta^2\,dx=:\mathcal{A}_1 +\mathcal{A}_2+\mathcal{A}_3.
\end{split}$$ We now proceed to estimating the three terms $\mathcal{A}_\ell$. We have $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}_1&\le \frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&+2\, \sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta_{x_i}^2\,dx
\end{split}$$ and the integral containing the Hessian of $u$ can be absorbed in the left-hand side of . Using also that $2\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi'(u_{x_j}^2) \geq 0$, this yields $$\label{carnevali2f}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} &g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le 2\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta_{x_i}^2\,dx+\mathcal{A}_2+\mathcal{A}_3.
\end{split}$$ We now estimate $\mathcal{A}_2$, which is the most delicate term: writing $\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)=\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}$ and using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we get $$\label{eqferialif}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}_2&\le 2\,\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{\theta}\,\eta^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&\times\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_k}^2\,u_{x_k}^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,\eta^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}$$ We observe that $$\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_k}^2\,u_{x_k}^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,\eta^2\,dx=\frac{1}{4}\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,\left|\left(G(u_{x_k})\right)_{x_i}\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx,$$ where $G$ is the convex nonnegative $C^1$ function defined by $$G(t)=\int_0^{t^2} \Psi'(\tau)^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}\,d\tau.$$ Thus by Caccioppoli inequality with $x_k$ in place of $x_j$ and $$\Phi(t)=G(t),\qquad t\in\mathbb{R},$$ we get $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_k}^2\,u_{x_k}^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,\eta^2
&\le C\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,G(u_{x_k})^2\,\eta_{x_i}^2\,dx\\
& + C\,\int |f_{x_k}|\,\Big|G(u_{x_k})\, G'(u_{x_k})\Big|\,\eta^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$ By Jensen’s inequality $$0\le G(u_{x_k})\le |u_{x_k}|^{\theta}\left(\int_{0}^{u_{x_k}^2} \Psi'(\tau)\,d\tau \right)^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}\le |u_{x_k}|^{\theta}\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}.$$ Together with the fact that $G'(u_{x_k})=2\,u_{x_k}\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}$, this implies $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})&\,u_{x_i x_k}^2\,u_{x_k}^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,\eta^2
\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\theta}\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,\eta_{x_i}^2\,dx\\
&+ C\,\int |f_{x_k}|\,|u_{x_k}|^{\theta+1}\,\Big|\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)\Big|^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\eta^2\,dx,
\end{split}$$ which in turn yields by and , $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} &g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le 2\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta_{x_i}^2\,dx\\
&+ C\,\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,u_{x_j}^2\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)^2\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)^{\theta}\,\eta^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&\times \left[\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\theta}\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)^{2-\theta}\,\eta_{x_i}^2\,dx \right)^\frac{1}{2}\right.\\
&\qquad \left.+ \left(\int |f_{x_k}|\,|u_{x_k}|^{\theta+1}\,\Big|\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\Psi'(u_{x_k}^2)\Big|^{1-\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\eta^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}\right]+\mathcal{A}_3.
\end{split}$$ Here, we have also used the inequality $(A+B)^{1/2} \leq A^{1/2} + B^{1/2}.$
Finally, $$\mathcal{A}_3 \leq C\,\int_{\Omega} |f_{x_j}|\,|u_{x_j}|\,\Phi(u_{x_j}^2)\,\Psi(u_{x_k}^2)\,\eta^2\,dx.$$ This completes the proof.
Local energy estimates for the regularized problem {#sec:leerp}
==================================================
In order to emphasize the main ideas of the proof, we have divided this section in two parts. In the first one, we explain how leads to higher integrability estimates for the gradient when $f=0$ and $\delta=1$. This allows to ignore a certain amount of technicalities. In the second part, we then detail the modifications of the proof to obtain the corresponding estimates in the general case.
The homogeneous case
--------------------
In this subsection, we assume that $f=0$ and $\delta=1$. Then the two terms $\mathcal{E}_1(f)$ and $\mathcal{E}_2(f)$ in vanish. Also observe that in this case from we have $$g_{i,\varepsilon}''(t)=(p-1)\,|t|^{p-2}+\varepsilon.$$ Let us single out a particular case of Proposition \[prop:weird\] by taking $$\label{sceltechiare}
\Phi(t)=t^{s-1}\qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad \Psi(t)=t^m,\qquad \mbox{ for }t\ge 0,$$ with $1\le s \le m$.
\[stair\] Let $p\ge 2$ and let $\eta\in C^{\infty}_0(B)$, then for every $k,j=1, \dots, N$ and $1\le s\le m$ $$\label{powerchiara}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,\,\eta^2\,dx&\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s+2\,m}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
& + C\,(m+1)\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,s+2\,m}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
& + \sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{4\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m-2\,s}\,\eta^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$
We use with the choices above and $$\theta =
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{m-s}{m-1} \in [0,1] & \textrm{ if } m>1,\\
&\\
1 & \textrm{ if } m=1.
\end{cases}$$ This gives $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} &g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,\left( m^{\theta}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{4\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m-2\,s}\,\eta^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&\times\left(\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int_\Omega g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m+2\,s}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}$$ We use Young’s inequality in the form $C\,\sqrt{a\,b}\leq C^2\, b/4 +a$ for the product in the right-hand side to get $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} &g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,m^{\theta}\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int_\Omega g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m+2\,s}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{4\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m-2\,s}\,\eta^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$ In the first term of the right-hand side, we use Young’s inequality with the exponents $$\frac{2\,m+2\,s}{2\,s} \quad , \quad \frac{2\,m+2\,s}{2\,m}.$$ We also observe for the second term that $m^\theta\leq m$. This gives the desired estimate.
\[prop-russian\] We fix an exponent $$q=2^{\ell_0}-1,\qquad \mbox{ for a given } \ell_0\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}.$$ Let $\eta\in C^{\infty}_0(B)$, then for every $k=1, \dots, N$ we have $$\label{russiancircles}
\begin{split}
\int \left|\nabla \left(|u_{x_k}|^{q+\frac{p-2}{2}}\,u_{x_k}\right)\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx
&\le C\,q^5\,\sum_{i,j=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
& + C\,q^5\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx,
\end{split}$$ for some $C=C(N,p)>0$.
We define the two finite families of indices $\{s_\ell\}$ and $\{m_\ell\}$ such that $$s_\ell=2^\ell,\qquad m_{\ell}=q+1-2^{\ell},\qquad \ell\in\{0,\dots,\ell_0\}.$$ Observe that $$1\le s_\ell\le m_\ell,\qquad \ell\in\{0,\dots,\ell_0-1\},$$ $$s_\ell+m_\ell=q+1,\qquad \ell\in\{0,\dots,\ell_0\},$$ $$4\,s_\ell-2=2\,s_{\ell+1}-2,\qquad 2\,m_\ell-2\,s_\ell=2\,m_{\ell+1},$$ and $$s_0=1,\qquad m_0=q,\qquad s_{\ell_0}=2^{\ell_0},\qquad m_{\ell_0}=0.$$ In terms of these families, inequality implies for every $\ell\in\{0,\dots,\ell_0-1\}$ $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int &g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s_\ell-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m_\ell}\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le C\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+ C\,(m_\ell+1)\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,| u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s_{\ell+1}-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m_{\ell+1}}\,\eta^2\,dx,
\end{split}$$ for some $C>0$ universal. By starting from $\ell=0$ and iterating the previous estimate up to $\ell=\ell_0-1$, we then get $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx&\le C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+ C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx,
\end{split}$$ for a universal constant $C>0$. For the last term, we apply the Caccioppoli inequality with $$\Phi(t)=\frac{|t|^{q+1}}{q+1},\qquad t\in\mathbb{R},$$ thus we get $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx
&\le C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
& + C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+\frac{C}{(q+1)^2}\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx;
\end{split}$$ that is, $$\label{eq_yoyo}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx
&\le C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
& + C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx,
\end{split}$$ possibly for a different universal constant $C>0$.
We now observe that $g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})=\Big((p-1)\,|u_{x_i}|^{p-2}+\varepsilon\Big)$ and thus $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx&\ge \int |u_{x_k}|^{p-2}\,u_{x_k x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&=\left(\frac{2}{2\,q+p}\right)^2\,\int \left|\left(|u_{x_k}|^{q+\frac{p-2}{2}}\,u_{x_k}\right)_{x_j}\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$ When we sum over $j=1,\dots,N$, we get $$\sum_{i,j=1}^N \int {g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})}\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx\ge \left(\frac{2}{2\,q+p}\right)^2\,\int \left|\nabla \left(|u_{x_k}|^{q+\frac{p-2}{2}}\,u_{x_k}\right)\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx.$$ This proves the desired inequality.
The non-homogeneous case {#sec:leerp2}
------------------------
In the general case where $f\not=0$ and/or $\delta>1$, we can prove the following analogue of , in a similar way:
$$\label{powerchiaraf}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega} g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})&\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m}\,\,\eta^2\,dx\\
\le & \sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_j}|^{4\,s-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,m-2\,s}\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&+ C\,{(m+1)}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,\left(|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s+2\,m}+|u_{x_k}|^{2\,s+2\,m}\right)\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\, m^2\, \int |\nabla f|\,\left(|u_{x_k}|^{2\,s+2\,m-1}+|u_{x_j}|^{2\,s+2\,m-1}\right)\,\eta^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$
We then deduce the following analogue of Proposition \[prop-russian\]:
We fix an exponent $$q=2^{\ell_0}-1,\qquad \mbox{ for a given } \ell_0\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}.$$ Let $\eta\in C^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$, then for every $k=1, \dots, N$ we have $$\label{russiancirclesf}
\begin{split}
\int \left|\nabla \left((|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{p}{2}}\,|u_{x_k}|^q\right)\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx
&\le C\,q^5\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,\left(|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}+\sum_{j=1}^N|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\right)\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,q^5\, \int |\nabla f|\, \left(|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+1} + \sum_{j=1}^{N}|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+1}\right)\,\eta^2\,dx,
\end{split}$$ for some $C=C(N,p)>0$.
Using the same notation and the same strategy as in the proof of , except that we start from instead of , we get the following analogue of : $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int& g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&\le C\,q^2\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,(|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}+|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2})\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,q^3\, \int |\nabla f|\, (|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+1}+ |u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+1})\,\eta^2\,dx.
\end{split}$$ We now observe that $$\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx\ge (p-1)\,\int (|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{p-2}\,u_{x_k x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx.$$ Noting that $$(|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_+^{p}\leq (|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_+^{p-2}|u_{x_k}|^2,$$ we have $$\begin{split}
\left|\left((|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{p}{2}}\,|u_{x_k}|^q\right)_{x_j}\right|^2
&\leq 2\,\left|\left((|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{p}{2}}\right)_{x_j}\right|^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q} + 2\,(|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{p}\,\left|\left(|u_{x_k}|^q\right)_{x_j}\right|^2\\
&\leq C\,q^2\,(|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{p-2}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,u_{x_k x_j}^2.
\end{split}$$ We deduce therefrom $$\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx
\geq \frac{C}{q^2}\,\int \left|\left((|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{p}{2}}\,|u_{x_k}|^q\right)_{x_j}\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx,$$ thus when we sum over $j=1,\dots,N,$ we get $$\sum_{i,j=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i}) \,u_{x_i x_j}^2\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,\eta^2\,dx\ge \frac{C}{q^2}\,\int \left|\nabla \left((|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{p}{2}}\,|u_{x_k}|^q\right)\right|^2\,\eta^2\,dx.$$ This proves the desired inequality .
Proof of Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\] {#sec:5}
==================================
The core of the proof of Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\] is the uniform Lipschitz estimate of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\] below. Its proof, which is postponed for ease of readability, uses the integrability estimates of Section \[sec:leerp\]. Once we have this uniform estimate, we can reproduce the proof of [@BBJ Theorem A] and prove that $\nabla U\in L^\infty(\Omega')$, for every $\Omega'\Subset\Omega$.
We now detail how to obtain the scaling invariant local estimate in the case $\delta_1=\dots=\delta_N=0$. We take $0<r_0<R_0\le 1$ and a ball $B_{2R_0}\Subset \Omega$. We then consider the sequence of miminizers $\{u_{\varepsilon_k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ of obtained in Lemma \[lm:convergence\], with $B$ a ball slightly larger than $B_{R_0}$ so that $2\,B\Subset \Omega$. By using the uniform Lipschitz estimate below, taking the limit as $k$ goes to $\infty$ and using the strong convergence of Lemma \[lm:convergence\], we obtain $$\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le \frac{C}{(R_0-r_0)^{\sigma_2}}\,\left(1+\|\nabla f\|^{\sigma_2}_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}\right)\,\left(\|\nabla U\|^{\sigma_1}_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}+1\right).$$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}>0$. Hence, by Young’s inequality, $$\label{intermedia}
\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le \frac{C}{(R_0-r_0)^{\sigma_2}}\,\left(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_2}+\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_1}\right),$$ possibly for a different $C=C(N,p,h)>0$. We now observe that for every $\lambda>0$, $\lambda\,U$ is still a solution of the orthotropic $p-$Laplace equation, with the right hand side $f$ replaced by $\lambda^{p-1}\,f$. We can use for $\lambda\, U$ and get $$\lambda\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le \frac{C}{(R_0-r_0)^{\sigma_2}}\,\left(1+\lambda^{2\,\sigma_2\,(p-1)}\,\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_2}+\lambda^{2\,\sigma_1}\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_1}\right).$$ Dividing by $\lambda$, we obtain $$\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le \frac{C}{(R_0-r_0)^{\sigma_2}}\,\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}+\lambda^{2\,\sigma_2\,(p-1)-1}\,\|\nabla f\|^{2\sigma_2}_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}+\lambda^{2\,\sigma_1-1}\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_1}\right).$$ We take $$\lambda:=\frac{1}{\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})} + \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{\frac{1}{p-1}}},$$ and observe that if $\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}>0$, then $$\lambda^{2\,\sigma_2\,(p-1)-1}\,\|\nabla f\|^{2\sigma_2}_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}\leq \frac{1}{ \left(\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\right)^{2\,\sigma_2\,(p-1)-1}}\,\|\nabla f\|^{2\sigma_2}_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}=\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{\frac{1}{p-1}}$$ while the inequality is obvious when $\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}=0$. Similarly, $$\lambda^{2\,\sigma_1-1}\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_1}\leq \frac{1}{\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_1-1}}\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{2\,\sigma_1}=\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}.$$ It thus follows that $$\label{altezzec}
\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le \frac{C}{(R_0-r_0)^{\sigma_2}}\,\left(\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{\frac{1}{p-1}} + \|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}\right).$$ We now make this estimate dimensionally correct. Given $R_0>0$, we consider a ball $B_{2R_0}\Subset\Omega$. Then the rescaled function $$U_{R_0}(x)=U(R_0\,x),\qquad \mbox{ for }x\in R_0^{-1}\,\Omega,$$ is a solution of the orthotropic $p-$Laplace equation, with right-hand side $f_{R_0}(x):=R_{0}^p\,f(R_0\,x)$. We can use for it the estimate with radii $1$ and $1/2$. By scaling back, we thus obtain $$R_0\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{R_0/2})}\le C\,\left( R_0^{-\frac{N}{p}+1}\,\|\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}+ R_{0}^{\frac{h\,(p+1)-N}{h\,(p-1)}}\,\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}^{\frac{1}{p-1}} \right),$$ for some constant $C=C(N,p,h)>1$. Dividing by $R_0$, we get $$\|\nabla U\|_{L^\infty(B_{R_0/2})}\le C\,\left(\fint_{B_{R_0}}|\nabla U|^{p}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p}+ C\,R_{0}^{\frac{2}{p-1}-\frac{N}{h\,(p-1)}}\left( \int_{B_{R_0}}|\nabla f|^{h}\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{h\,(p-1)}}.$$ This concludes the proof.
\[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\] Let $p\ge 2$, $h>N/2$ and $0<\varepsilon\le \varepsilon_0$. For every $B_{r_0}\subset B_{R_0}\Subset B$ with $0<r_0<R_0\le 1$, we have $$\label{lipschitzf}
\|\nabla u_\varepsilon\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le C\,\left(\frac{1+\|\nabla f_\varepsilon\|^{\sigma_2}_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}}{(R_0-r_0)^{\sigma_2}}\right)\, \Big(\|\nabla u_\varepsilon\|^{\sigma_1}_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}+1\Big),$$ where $C=C(N,p,h, \delta)>1$ and $\sigma_i=\sigma_i(N,p,h)>0$, for $i=1,2$.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\]: the homogeneous case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume that $f=0$ and $\delta=1$.
For simplicity, we assume throughout the proof that $N\ge 3$, so in this case the Sobolev exponent $2^*$ is [ finite]{}. The case $N=2$ can be treated with minor modifications [ and is left to the reader]{}. For ease of readability, we divide the proof into four steps. .2cm[**Step 1: a first iterative scheme**]{}. We add on both sides of inequality the term $$\int |\nabla \eta|^2\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p}\,dx.$$ We thus obtain $$\begin{split}
\int \left|\nabla \left(\left(|u_{x_k}|^{q+\frac{p-2}{2}}\,u_{x_k}\right)\,\eta\right)\right|^2\,dx
&\le C\,q^5\,\sum_{i,j=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,q^5\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\, \int |\nabla \eta|^2\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p}\,dx.
\end{split}$$ An application of Sobolev inequality leads to $$\begin{split}
\left(\int |u_{x_k}|^{\frac{2^*}{2}(2\,q+p)}\,\eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^\frac{2}{2^*} &\le C\,q^5\,\sum_{i,j=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_j}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,q^5\,\sum_{i=1}^N\int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\, \int |\nabla \eta|^2\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p}\,dx.
\end{split}$$ We now sum over $k=1,\dots,N$ and use that by Minkowski inequality, $$\sum_{k=1}^N\left(\int |u_{x_k}|^{\frac{2^*}{2}(2\,q+p)}\,\eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^\frac{2}{2^*} = \sum_{k=1}^N \left\||u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p}\eta^2\right\|_{L^{\frac{2^*}{2}}} \geq \left\|\sum_{k=1}^N|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p}\eta^2\right\|_{L^{\frac{2^*}{2}}}.$$ This implies $$\label{pronti??}
\begin{split}
\left( \int \left|\sum_{k=1}^N |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p}\right|^{\frac{2^*}{2}}\,\eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}}
&\leq C\,q^5 \sum_{i, k=1}^{N} \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\, |\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+ C\, \int |\nabla \eta|^2\, \sum_{k=1}^{N}|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p} \,dx.
\end{split}$$ We now introduce the function $$\mathcal{U}(x):= \max_{k=1, \dots, N}|u_{x_k}(x)|.$$ We use that $$\mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}\leq \sum_{k=1}^{N}|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+p} \leq N\, \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p},$$ and also that $g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+2}\leq C\,\mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}+\varepsilon\,\mathcal{U}^{2\,q+2}$ for every $1\leq i, k \leq N$. This yields $$\left( \int \mathcal{U}^{\frac{2^*}{2}(2\,q+p)}\, \eta^{2^*}\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} \leq C\,q^5 \int \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx + Cq^5\varepsilon \int \mathcal{U}^{2q+2}\, |\nabla \eta|^2 \, dx$$ for a possibly different $C=C(N,p)>1$. By using that $\mathcal{U}^{2\,q+2}\leq 1 +\mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}$, we obtain (for $\varepsilon <1$) $$\label{bo}
\left(\int \mathcal{U}^{\frac{2^*}{2}(2\,q+p)}\,\eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^\frac{2}{2^*}
\le C\, q^5 \,\int |\nabla \eta|^2\,\Big(\mathcal{U}^{2q+p}+1\Big)\,dx.$$ We fix two concentric balls $B_r\subset B_R \Subset B$ and $0<r<R\le 1$. Let us assume for simplicity that all the balls are centered at the origin. Then for every pair of radius $r\le t<s\le R$ we take in This yields $$\label{pronti!}
\left(\int_{B_t} \mathcal{U}^{\frac{2^*}{2}(2\,q+p)}\,dx\right)^\frac{2}{2^*}
\le C\, \frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2} \,\int_{B_s} \Big(\mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}+1\Big)\,dx.$$
We define the sequence of exponents $$\gamma_j=p+2^{j+2}-2,\qquad j\in\mathbb{N},$$ and take in $q=2^{j+1}-1$. This gives $$\label{pronti!!}
\begin{split}
\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\gamma_j}\,dx\right)^\frac{2}{2^*}\le C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\,\int_{B_{s}}\Big(\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}+1\Big)\,dx ,
\end{split}$$ for a possibly different constant $C=C(N,p)>1$. .2cm[**Step 2: filling the gaps.**]{} We now observe that $$\gamma_{j-1}<\gamma_j<\frac{2^*}{2}\,\gamma_j,\qquad \mbox{ for every } j\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}.$$ By interpolation in Lebesgue spaces, we obtain $$\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx\le \left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{\tau_j\,\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,\gamma_{j}}\,dx\right)^\frac{(1-\tau_j)\,2}{2^*}$$ where $0<\tau_j<1$ is given by $$\tau_j=\frac{\frac{2^*}{2}-1}{\frac{2^*}{2}\,\dfrac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}-1}.$$ We now rely on to get $$\begin{split}
\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx&\le \left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{\tau_j\,\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\, \left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\,\int_{B_{s}}\Big(\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}+1\Big)\,dx\right)^{1-\tau_j}\\
&=\left[\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\right)^{\frac{1-\tau_j}{\tau_j}}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\right]^{\tau_j}\, \left(\int_{B_{s}}\Big(\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}+1\Big)\,dx\right)^{1-\tau_j}.
\end{split}$$ The sequence $(\tau_j)_{j\geq 1}$ is decreasing, which implies $$\tau_j> \lim_{n\to\infty} \tau_n =\frac{1}{2}\frac{2^*-2}{2^*-1}=:\underline{\tau}\qquad \mbox{ for every } j\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}.$$ Hence, $$\frac{1-\tau_j}{\tau_j} \leq \frac{1-\underline{\tau}}{\underline{\tau}}=:\beta.$$ Using that $s\leq R\le 1$ and $C>1$, this implies that $$\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\right)^{\frac{1-\tau_j}{\tau_j}} \leq \left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\right)^{\beta}.$$ By Young’s inequality, $$\begin{split}
\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx&\le (1-\tau_j)\,\int_{B_{s}}\Big( \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}+1\Big)\,dx + \tau_j\,\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\right)^{\beta}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\\
&\le (1-\underline{\tau})\,\int_{B_{s}}\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx + C\,\frac{2^{5\,j\,\beta}}{(s-t)^{2\,\beta}}\,\left(\int_{{B_R}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}} + |B_R|.
\end{split}$$ By applying Lemma \[lm:giusti\] with $$Z(t)= \int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx ,\qquad \alpha_0=2\, \beta, \qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad \vartheta=1-\underline{\tau},$$ we finally obtain $$\label{conj}
\int_{B_r} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx\le C\,\left( 2^{5\,j\,\beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\,\beta}\,\left(\int_{B_R} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}+ 1\right),$$ for some $C=C(N,p)>1$. .2cm[**Step 3: Moser’s iteration.**]{} We now want to iterate the previous estimate on a sequence of shrinking balls. We fix two radii $0<r<R\le 1$, then we consider the sequence $$R_j=r+\frac{R-r}{2^{j-1}},\qquad j\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\},$$ and we apply with $R_{j+1}<R_j$ instead of $r<R$. Thus we get $$\label{scamone}
\int_{B_{R_{j+1}}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,dx
\le \,C\,\left(2^{7\,j\,\beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\,\beta}\left( \int_{B_{R_j}}\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx \right)^{\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}}+ 1\right)$$ where the constant $C>1$ depends on $N$ and $p$ only.
We introduce the notation $$Y_j=\int_{B_{R_{j}}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,dx,$$ thus rewrites as $$Y_{j+1} \le \,C\,\left(2^{7\,j\,\beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\,\beta}\,Y_{j}^{\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}}+ 1\right)
\le {2}\,C\,2^{7\,j\,\beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\,\beta}\,(Y_{j}+1)^{\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}}.$$ Here, we have used again that $R\le 1$, [ so that the term multiplying $Y_j$ is larger than $1$.]{} By iterating the previous estimate starting from $j=1$ [ and using some standard manipulations]{}, we obtain $$\begin{split}
Y_{n+1}&\le \Big(C\,2^{7\,\beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\,\beta}\Big)^{\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}(n-j)\frac{\gamma_n}{\gamma_{n-j}}}\,\Big[Y_1+1\Big]^\frac{\gamma_n}{\gamma_0},
\end{split}$$ [ possibly for a different constant $C=C(N,p)>1$.]{} We now take the power $1/\gamma_n$ on both sides: $$Y_{n+1}^\frac{1}{\gamma_n}\le \Big(C\,2^{7\,\beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\,\beta}\Big)^{\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}\frac{n-j}{\gamma_{n-j}}}
\,\Big[Y_1+1\Big]^\frac{1}{\gamma_0}=\Big(C\,2^{7\, \beta}\,(R-r)^{-2\, \beta}\Big)^{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\frac{j}{\gamma_{j}}}
\,\Big[Y_1+1\Big]^\frac{1}{\gamma_0}.$$ We observe that $\gamma_{j}\sim 2^{j+2} $ as $j$ goes to $\infty$. This implies the convergence of the series above and we thus get $$\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r})} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\int_{B_{R_{n+1}}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{n+1}}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{\gamma_{n+1}} \leq C\, (R-r)^{-\beta'}\,\left(\int_{B_{R}} \mathcal{U}^{p+2}\,dx+1\right)^\frac{1}{p+2},$$ for some $C=C(N,p)>{ 1}$ and $\beta'=\beta'(N,p)>0$. We also used that $\gamma_0=p+2$. By recalling the definition of $\mathcal{U}$, we finally obtain $$\label{lipschitz2}
\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r})} \leq C\,(R-r)^{-\beta'}\, \left(\int_{B_{R}} |\nabla u|^{p+2}\,dx+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p+2}}.$$ .2cm[**Step 4: $L^\infty-L^p$ estimate**]{} We fix two concentric balls $B_{r_0}\subset B_{R_0}\Subset B$ with $R_0\le 1$. Then for every $r_0\le t<s\le R_0$ from we have $$\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_{t})}\le \frac{C}{(s-t)^{\beta'}}\, \left(\int_{B_{s}}|\nabla u|^{p+2}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p+2}+\frac{C}{(s-t)^{\beta'}},$$ where we also used the subadditivity of $\tau\mapsto \tau^{1/(p+2)}$. We now observe that $$\begin{split}
\frac{C}{(s-t)^{\beta'}}\, \left(\int_{B_{s}}|\nabla u|^{p+2}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p+2}&\le \frac{C}{(s-t)^{\beta'}}\, \left( \int_{B_{s}}|\nabla u|^{p}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p+2}\,\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_{s})}^\frac{2}{p+2}\\
&\le \frac{2}{p+2}\,\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_{s})}\\
&+\frac{p}{p+2}\,\left(\frac{C}{(s-t)^{\beta'}}\right)^\frac{p+2}{p}\, \left( \int_{B_{s}}|\nabla u|^{p}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p}.
\end{split}$$ We can apply again Lemma \[lm:giusti\], this time with the choices $$Z(t)=\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_{t})},\quad \mathcal{A}=\frac{p}{p+2}\,C^\frac{p+2}{p}\, \left(\int_{B_{R_0}}|\nabla u|^{p}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p},\quad \alpha_0=\frac{p+2}{p\,\beta'}{,\quad \beta_0=\beta'}.$$ This yields $$\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_0})}\le C\,\left[\frac{1}{(R_0-r_0)^{\beta'\,\frac{p+2}{p}}}\, \left(\int_{B_{R_0}}|\nabla u|^{p}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{(R_0-r_0)^{\beta'}}\right],$$ for every $R_0\le 1$. This readily implies the desired estimate in the homogeneous case.$\square$
Proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\]: the non-homogeneous case {#subsec:ule2}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We follow step by step the proof of the homogeneous case and we only indicate the main changes, which essentially occur in [**Step 1**]{} and [**Step 2**]{}. .2cm[**Step 1: a first iterative scheme**]{}. This times, we add on both sides of inequality the term $$\int |\nabla \eta|^2\,(|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^p\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,dx.$$ Then the left-hand side [ is greater, up to a constant, than]{} $$\int \left|\nabla \left( (|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{p}{2}}\,|u_{x_k}|^q\,\eta\right)\right|^2\,dx.$$ [ The latter in turn]{}, by Sobolev inequality is greater, up to a constant, than $$\left(\int (|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{\frac{2^*\,p}{2}}\, |u_{x_k}|^{2^*q}\,\eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^\frac{2}{2^*}.$$ By summing over $k=1,\dots,N$ and using Minkowski inequality, we obtain the analogue of , namely $$\begin{split}
\left( \int \Big|\sum_{k=1}^N(|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{p}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\Big|^{\frac{2^*}{2}}\eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}}
&\leq Cq^5 \sum_{i, k=1}^{N} \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\,|u_{x_k}|^{2q+2}\, |\nabla \eta|^2\,dx\\
&+C\,q^5\, \sum_{k=1}^{N}\int |\nabla f|\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q+1}\,\eta^2\,dx\\
&+ C \int |\nabla \eta|^2 \sum_{k=1}^{N} (|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^p\, |u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\,dx.
\end{split}$$ We now introduce the function $$\mathcal{U}(x):= \frac{1}{2\,\delta}\max_{k=1, \dots, N}|u_{x_k}(x)|,$$ where the parameter $\delta$ is defined in . We use that $$\sum_{k=1}^N(|u_{x_k}|-\delta_k)_{+}^{p}\,|u_{x_k}|^{2\,q}\geq (2\,\delta\,\mathcal{U}-\delta)_{+}^{p}\,|2\,\delta\,\mathcal{U}|^{2\,q}
\geq (2\,\delta)^{2\,q+p}\, \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^p\,\mathcal{U}^{2\,q},$$ and also that for every $1\leq i \leq N$, $$g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})=(p-1)\,(|u_{x_i}|-\delta_i)_{+}^{p-2}+\varepsilon\le C\,\delta^{p-2}\,\mathcal{U}^{p-2}+\varepsilon.$$ This yields $$\begin{split}
\left( \int \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{2^* q}\, \eta^{2^*}\,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} &\leq C\,q^5 \int \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}\,|\nabla \eta|^2\,dx + C\,q^5\varepsilon \int \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+2}\, |\nabla \eta|^2 \, dx \\
&\qquad +C\,q^5\, \int |\nabla f|\, \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+1}\,\eta^2\,dx
\end{split}$$ for a possibly different $C=C(N,p, \delta)>1$.
With the [concentric]{} balls $B_r\subset B_t \subset B_s \subset B_R$ and the function $\eta$ as defined in , an application of Hölder’s inequality leads to $$\label{pronti!!;f}
\begin{split}
\left( \int_{B_t} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{2^*\,q} \,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} &\leq C\,\frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2} \int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}\,dx + C\,\frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2}\,\varepsilon\, \int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+2}\, dx \\
& +C\,q^5\, \|\nabla f\|_{L^h(B_R)}\,\left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+1)\,h'}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{h'}.
\end{split}$$ From now on, we assume that $$\label{limit_q}
q\ge \max\left\{\frac{p-2\,h'}{2\,(h'-1)},\, \frac{2^*\,p}{{2}\,h'}-1\right\}.$$ This in particular implies that $$2\,q+2\le 2\,q+p\le (2\,q+2)\,h',$$ then by using Hölder’s inequality and taking into account that $s\le 1$, we get $$\begin{split}
\left( \int_{B_t} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{2^*\,q} \,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} &\leq C\,\frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2} \left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx\right)^\frac{2\,q+p}{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\\
&+ C\,\frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2}\,\varepsilon\, \left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\, dx\right)^\frac{1}{h'} \\
& +C\,q^5\, \|\nabla f\|_{L^h(B_R)}\,\left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx\right)^\frac{2\,q+1}{(2\,q+2)\,h'}.
\end{split}$$ Thanks to the relation on the exponents, this gives (recall that $\varepsilon<1$ and $s\le 1$) $$\label{pronti_bis_bis!}
\begin{split}
\left( \int_{B_t} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{2^*\,q} \,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}}&\leq \frac{C\,q^5}{(s-t)^2}\left(1 + \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)\\
&\times \left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx+1\right)^{\frac{2\,q+p}{(2\,q+2)\,h'}}.
\end{split}$$ We now estimate $$\begin{split}
\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx &= \int_{B_s\cap \{\mathcal{U}\geq 1\}} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx + \int_{B_s\cap \{\mathcal{U}\leq 1\}}\mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx\\
& \leq
\int_{B_s\cap \{\mathcal{U}\geq 1\}} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx +C.
\end{split}$$ Observe that on the set $\{\mathcal{U}\geq 1\}$, we have $\mathcal{U}\leq 2\,\left(\mathcal{U}-1/2\right)_+$. Hence, $$\label{anna}
\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx \leq C\,\int_{B_s} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2} \right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'-\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}\,dx +C,$$ [ where the exponent $(2\,q+2)\,h'-(2^*p)/2$ is positive, thanks to the choice of $q$.]{} We deduce from that $$\label{pronti_bis_bis!!}
\begin{split}
\left(\int_{B_t} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{2^*\,q} \,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} &\leq \frac{C\,q^5}{(s-t)^2}\left(1 + \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)\\
&\times \left(\int_{B_s} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2} \right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}\,\mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'-\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}\,dx+1\right)^{\frac{2\,q+p}{(2\,q+2)\,h'}},
\end{split}$$ for a constant $C=C(N,p,h,\delta)>1$. We now take $q=2^{j+1}-1$ for $j\ge j_0-1$, where $j_0\in\mathbb{N}$ is chosen so as to ensure condition . Then we define the sequence of positive exponents $$\gamma_j=(2\,q+2)\,h'-\frac{2^*}{2}\,p=2^{j+2}\,h'-\frac{2^*}{2}\,p,\qquad j\ge j_0,$$ and $$\widehat{\gamma}_j=2^*\,q=2^*\,(2^{j+1}-1),\qquad j\ge j_0.$$ In order to simplify the notation, we also introduce the [ absolutely continuous]{} measure $$d\,\mu:=\left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}\,dx.$$ From , we get $$%\begin{split}
\left( \int_{B_t} \mathcal{U}^{\widehat{\gamma}_j} \,d\mu\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} \leq \frac{C\,2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\left(1 + \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)
\, \left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu+1\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}\,\frac{\widehat \gamma_j+\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}{\gamma_j+\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}}.
%\end{split}$$ We now observe that [ $h>N/2$ implies $h'<2^*/2$. By recalling that $p\ge 2$, we thus have]{} $2\,h'<(2^*\,p)/2$, which in turn implies $$\label{eq_ratio1}
\frac{\widehat{\gamma}_j}{\gamma_j}\ge \frac{2^*}{2\,h'}> 1, \qquad j\ge j_0.$$ It follows that $$\frac{\widehat \gamma_j+\dfrac{2^*}{2}\,p}{\gamma_j+\dfrac{2^*}{2}\,p} \leq \frac{\widehat \gamma_j}{\gamma_j}.$$ Hence, we obtain $$\label{pronti!!f}
\left( \int_{B_t} \mathcal{U}^{\widehat{\gamma}_j} \,d\mu\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} \leq \frac{C\,2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\left(1 + \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)\,\left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu+1\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}\,\frac{\widehat \gamma_j}{\gamma_j}}.$$ [**Step 2: filling the gaps.**]{} Since $$\gamma_{j-1}<\gamma_j<\widehat \gamma_j,\qquad \mbox{ for every }j\ge {j_0+1},$$ we obtain by interpolation in Lebesgue spaces, $$\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu \le \left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\tau_j\,\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\widehat\gamma_j}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{(1-\tau_j)\,\gamma_j}{\widehat \gamma_j},$$ where $0<\tau_j<1$ is given by $$\label{taujf}
\tau_j=\frac{\dfrac{\widehat{\gamma}_j}{\gamma_j}-1}{\dfrac{\widehat{\gamma}_j}{\gamma_j}\,\dfrac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}-1}.$$ We now rely on to get $$\label{eq_ready}
\begin{split}
\int_{B_{t}} &\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu \le \left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\tau_j\,\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\\
&\qquad \times \left[\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}(1+ \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\frac{2^*\,\gamma_j}{2\,\widehat{\gamma}_j}}\,\left(\int_{B_{s}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu+1\right)\right]^{1-\tau_j}\\
&=\left[\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\frac{2^*\,\gamma_j\,(1-\tau_j)}{2\,\widehat{\gamma}_j\,\tau_j}}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\right]^{\tau_j}\\
&\qquad\times \left(\int_{B_{s}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu+1\right)^{1-\tau_j}.
\end{split}$$ We claim that $$\label{eq_def_tau}
\tau_j\geq \underline{\tau}:=\frac{2^*-2\,h'}{4\cdot 2^*-2\,h'}\qquad \mbox{ for every } j\ge {j_0+1}.$$ We already know by that $(\widehat{\gamma}_j/\gamma_j) \geq 2^*/(2h')$. Moreover, relying on the fact that $(2^*\,p)/2\leq 2^{j_0}\,h'$ (this follows from the definition of $j_0$), we also have $$2\le \frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}} \le 4,\qquad j\ge {j_0+1}.$$ By recalling the definition of $\tau_j$, we get $$\tau_j=\zeta\left(\frac{\widehat{\gamma}_j}{\gamma_j}, \frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\right),\qquad \mbox{ where } \zeta(x,y) = \frac{x-1}{x\,y-1}.$$ Observe that on $[2^*/(2\,h'),+\infty)\times [2,4]$, the function $x\mapsto \zeta(x,y)$ is increasing, while $y\mapsto \zeta(x,y)$ is decreasing. Thus we get $$\tau_j\ge \zeta\left(\frac{2^*}{2\,h'},4\right),$$ which is exactly claim . We deduce from and that $$\frac{2^*\,\gamma_j\,(1-\tau_j)}{2\,\widehat{\gamma}_j\,\tau_j}\leq \frac{1-\underline{\tau}}{\underline{\tau}}\,h'=:\beta.$$ In particular, we have $$\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\frac{2^*\,\gamma_j\,(1-\tau_j)}{2\,\widehat{\gamma}_j\,\tau_j}}\leq \left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\beta},$$ since the quantity inside the parenthesis is larger than $1$ (here, we use again that $s\leq 1$). In view of , this implies $$\begin{split}
\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu&\leq \left[\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\beta}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\right]^{\tau_j}\\
&\times \left(\int_{B_{s}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu+1\right)^{1-\tau_j}.
\end{split}$$ By Young’s inequality, $$\begin{split}
\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu &\le (1-\tau_j)\,\left(\int_{B_{s}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu+1\right)\\
&+ \tau_j\,\left(C\,\frac{2^{5\,j}}{(s-t)^2}\,(1+ \|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\beta}\,\left(\int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}\\
&\le (1-\underline{\tau})\,\int_{B_{s}}\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu \\
&+ C\,\frac{2^{5\,j\,\beta}}{(s-t)^{2\,\beta}}\,(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})^{\beta}\,\left(\int_{B_{R}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}} + 1,
\end{split}$$ where $C=C(N,p,h,\delta)>1$ as usual. By applying again Lemma \[lm:giusti\], this times with the choices $$Z(t)= \int_{B_{t}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu ,\qquad \alpha_0=2\,\beta, \qquad \mbox{ and }\qquad \vartheta=1-\underline{\tau},$$ we finally obtain $$\label{conjf}
\int_{B_r} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_j}\,d\mu \le C\,\frac{2^{5\,j\,\beta}}{(R-r)^{2\,\beta}}\,(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})^{\beta}\,\left(\int_{B_{R}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j-1}}\,d\mu\right)^\frac{\gamma_j}{\gamma_{j-1}}+C.$$
[**Step 3: Moser’s iteration.**]{} Estimate is the analogue of , except that the Lebesgue measure $dx$ is now replaced by the measure $d\mu$, and the index $j$ is assumed to be larger than some $j_0+1$, instead of $j\geq 0$ as in . Following the same iteration argument [ and starting from $j=j_0+1$]{}, we are led to $$\label{eq39}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r},\,d\mu)}\leq C\, \left(\frac{1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}}{R-r}\right)^{\beta'}\,\left(\int_{B_{R}} \mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j_0}}\,d\mu+1\right)^\frac{1}{\gamma_{j_0}},$$ for some $C=C(N,p,h, \delta)>1$, $\beta'=\beta'(N,p,h)>0$. .2cm[**Step 4: $L^{\infty}-L^{p}$ estimate.**]{} We now want to replace the norm [$L^{\gamma_{j_0}}(B_R,d\mu)$]{} of $\mathcal{U}$ in the right-hand side of by its norm [$L^p(B_R,dx)$]{}. Let $q_1:=2^{j_1+1}-1$ where $$j_1:=\min \left\{j\geq j_0 : j+1\geq \log_2\left(1+\frac{\gamma_{j_0}}{2^*}\right)\right\}.$$ Then $\gamma_{j_0}\leq 2^*\,q_1$ and thus, by using that $$\mathcal{U}^{\gamma_{j_0}}\le 2^{2^*q_1-\gamma_{j_0}}\,\mathcal{U}^{2^*q_1},\qquad \mbox{ whenever } \mathcal{U}\ge \frac{1}{2},$$ we have $$\label{eq51}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{\gamma_{j_0}}(B_R,\,d\mu)}\leq C\,\|\mathcal{U}\|^\frac{2^*q_1}{\gamma_{j_0}}_{L^{2^* q_1}(B_R,\,d\mu)}.$$ We rely on with $q=q_1$ to get for every $0<r<t<s<R$ $$\label{eq52}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^* q_1}(B_t,\,d\mu)}^{2\,q_1} \leq \frac{C}{(s-t)^2}\,\left(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)\,\left(\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2\,(q_1+1)\,h'}(B_s)}^{2\,q_1+p} +1\right),$$ for some new constant $C=C(N,p,h,\delta)>1$.
Since $j_1\geq j_0$, we have $p<(2\,q_1+2)\,h'<2^*/2\,(2\,q_1+p)$, and thus, by interpolation in Lebesgue spaces $$\label{eq56}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2\,(q_1+1)\,h'}(B_s)}\leq \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*\,q_1+\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}(B_s)}^{\theta}\, \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_s)}^{1-\theta},$$ where $\theta\in (0,1)$ is determined as usual by scale invariance. As in the proof of , we have $$\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1+\frac{2^*}{2}\,p}(B_s)}\leq C\,\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1}(B_s,\,d\mu)}^{\frac{2\,q_1}{2\,q_1+p}} + C.$$ Inserting this last estimate into , we obtain $$\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2\,(q_1+1)\,h'}(B_s)}^{2\,q_1+p}\leq C\, \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1}(B_s,\, d\mu)}^{2\,q_1\,\theta} \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_s)}^{(1-\theta)\,(2\,q_1+p)} + C\,\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_s)}^{(1-\theta)\,(2\,q_1+p)},$$ up to changing the constant $C=C(N,p,h,\delta)>1$. In view of , this gives $$\begin{split}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1}(B_t,\,d\mu)}^{2\,q_1}& \leq \frac{C}{(s-t)^2}\,\left(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)\\
&\times\left(\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1}(B_s,\,d\mu)}^{2\,q_1\,\theta}\, \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_s)}^{(1-\theta)\,(2\,q_1+p)} + \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_s)}^{(1-\theta)\,(2\,q_1+p)}+1
\right).
\end{split}$$ By Young’s inequality, we get $$\begin{split}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1}(B_t,\,d\mu)}^{2\,q_1} &\leq \theta\,\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*q_1}(B_s,\,d\mu)}^{2\,q_1} + (1-\theta)\,\left(\frac{C}{(s-t)^2}(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})})\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\theta}}
\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_{R})}^{\,(2\,q_1+p)}\\
&\qquad + \frac{C}{(s-t)^2}\,\left(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R})}\right)\, \left(\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_{R})}^{(1-\theta)\,(2\,q_1+p)}+1\right).
\end{split}$$ By Lemma \[lm:giusti\], this implies $$\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{2^*\,q_1}(B_r,\,d\mu)}^{2\,q_1} \leq C\,\left(\frac{1}{(R-r)^2}(1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})})\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\theta}} \left(\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_R)}^{\,(2\,q_1+p)} + 1\right),$$ [ after some standard manipulations.]{} Coming back to and taking into account , we obtain $$\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r_0},\,d\mu)}\leq C\, \left(\frac{1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}}{R_0-r_0}\right)^{\sigma_2}\,\left(\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{\sigma_1}+1\right),$$ where $C=C(N,p,h,\delta)>1$ and $\sigma_i=\sigma_i(N,p,h)>0$, for $i=1,2$. By definition of $\mathcal{U}$, we have $$|\nabla u|\leq 2\,\delta\,\sqrt{N}\,\mathcal{U}\le \sqrt{N}\, |\nabla u|.$$ Since $\|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r_0},\,d\mu)}+1\geq \|\mathcal{U}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r_0})}$, it follows that $$\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r_0})} \leq C \, \left(\frac{1+\|\nabla f\|_{L^{h}(B_{R_0})}}{R_0-r_0}\right)^{\sigma_2}\,\left(\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(B_{R_0})}^{\sigma_1}+1\right),$$ [ possibly for a different constant $C=C(N,p,h,\delta)>1$.]{} This completes the proof.$\square$
Lipschitz regularity with a nonlinear lower order term {#sec:nllot}
======================================================
In this section, we consider the functional $$\mathfrak{G}_\delta(u,\Omega')=\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega'} \Big[g_i(u_{x_i}) + G(x,u)\Big]\,dx ,\qquad \Omega'\Subset\Omega,\ u\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega').$$ The lower order term $f\,u$ of the functional $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$ is thus replaced by a more general term $G(x,u)$. We assume that $G$ is a Carathéodory function and that for almost every $x\in \Omega$, the map $$\xi \mapsto G(x,\xi) \qquad \textrm{is \(C^{1}\) and convex.}$$ We denote $f(x,\xi):=G_\xi(x,\xi)$ and we assume that $f\in W^{1,h}_{\rm loc}(\Omega \times \mathbb{R})$, for some $h>N/2$. Finally, we assume that $G(x,\xi)$ satisfies the inequality $$\label{growth_G}
|G(x,\xi)|\leq b(x)\,|u|^{\gamma} +a(x)$$ where $1<p\le \gamma <p^*$ and $a, b$ are two non-negative functions belonging respectively to $L^{s}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $L^{\sigma}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ with $s>N/p$ and $\sigma>p^*/(p^*-\gamma)$.
Under assumption , all the local minimizers of $\mathfrak{G}_\delta$ are locally bounded, see [@Gi Theorem 7.5] and moreover, for every such minimizer $u$, for every $B_{r_0}\Subset B_{R_0} \Subset \Omega$, $$\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r_0})} \leq M,$$ where $M$ depends on $\|u\|_{W^{1,p}(B_{R_0})}, r_0, R_0, \|b\|_{L^{\sigma}(R_0)}$, and $\|a\|_{L^{s}(B_{R_0})}$. .2cmThen we have:
Let $p\ge 2$ and let ${U}\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ be a local minimizer of the functional $\mathfrak{G}_\delta$. Then ${U}$ is locally Lipschitz in $\Omega$.
We only explain the main differences with respect to the proof of Theorem \[teo:lipschitz\]. Since $G$ is convex with respect to the second variable, the functional $\mathfrak{G}$ is still convex. This implies that Lemma \[lm:convergence\] remains true with the same proof. We then introduce the approximation of $G$: $$G_{\varepsilon}(x,\xi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^N\times \mathbb{R}}G(x-y, \xi-\zeta)\,\rho_{\varepsilon}(y)\,\widetilde{\rho}_{\varepsilon}(\zeta)\,dy\,d\zeta,$$ where $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ is the same regularization kernel as before, while $\widetilde{\rho}_{\varepsilon}$ is a regularization kernel on $\mathbb{R}$.
Given a local minimizer $U\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and a ball $B\subset 2\,B\Subset \Omega$, there exists a unique $C^{2}$ solution $u_{\varepsilon}$ to the regularized problem $$\min\left\{\mathfrak{G}_\varepsilon(v;B)\, :\, v-U_\varepsilon\in W^{1,p}_0(B)\right\},$$ where $$\mathfrak{G}_\varepsilon(v;B)=\sum_{i=1}^N \int_B g_{i,\varepsilon}(v_{x_i})\, dx+\int_B G_{\varepsilon}(x,v)\, dx$$ and $U_\varepsilon=U*\rho_{\varepsilon}$. Moreover, by [@Gi Remark 7.6] we have $u_\varepsilon \in L^\infty(B)$, with a bound on the $L^\infty$ norm uniform in $\varepsilon>0$. In order to simplify the notation, we simply write as usual $u$ and $f$ instead of $u_{\varepsilon}$ and $f_\varepsilon$. The Euler equation is now $$\sum_{i=1}^N \int g'_{i,\varepsilon}(u_{x_i})\, \varphi_{x_i}\, dx+\int f(x,u)\, \varphi\, dx=0,\qquad \varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(B).$$ When we differentiate the Euler equation with respect to some direction $x_j$, we obtain $$\sum_{i=1}^N \int g_{i,\varepsilon}''(u_{x_i})\, u_{x_i\,x_j}\, \psi_{x_i}\, dx{ +}\int \left( f_{x_j}(x,u)+f_{\xi}(x,u)\,u_{x_j}\right)\,\psi\,dx=0,\qquad \psi\in W^{1,p}_0(B).$$ We can then repeat the proof of Proposition \[prop:a\_priori\_estimate\] with this additional term $f_{\xi}(x,u)u_{x_j}$ which leads to the following analogue of :
$$\begin{split}
\left( \int_{B_t} \left(\mathcal{U}-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{+}^{\frac{2^*}{2}\,p} \mathcal{U}^{2^*\,q} \,dx\right)^{\frac{2}{2^*}} &\leq C\,\frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2} \int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+p}\,dx + C\,\frac{q^5}{(s-t)^2}\,\varepsilon\, \int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{2\,q+2}\, dx \\
& +C\,q^5\, \|\nabla_x f\|_{L^h}\,\left(\int_{B_s} \mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+1)\,h'}\,dx\right)^\frac{1}{h'}\\
&+C\,q^5\, \|f_\xi\|_{L^h}\, \left(\int_{B_s}\mathcal{U}^{(2\,q+2)\,h'}\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{h'}}.
\end{split}$$
Using again Hölder’s inequality for the first three terms, we obtain inequality where $\|\nabla f\|$ now represents the full gradient of $f$ with respect to both $x$ and $\xi$. The rest of the proof is the same and leads to a uniform Lipschitz estimate, as desired.
[100]{}
P. Bousquet, L. Brasco, $C^1$ regularity of orthotropic $p-$harmonic functions in the plane, Anal. PDE, [**11**]{} (2018), 813–854.
P. Bousquet, L. Brasco, V. Julin, Lipschitz regularity for local minimizers of some widely degenerate problems, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), [**26**]{} (2016), 1–40.
L. Brasco, G. Carlier, On certain anisotropic elliptic equations arising in congested optimal transport: local gradient bounds, Adv. Calc. Var., [**7**]{} (2014), 379–407.
L. Brasco, C. Leone, G. Pisante, A. Verde, Sobolev and Lipschitz regularity for local minimizers of widely degenerate anisotropic functionals, Nonlinear Anal., [**153**]{} (2017), 169–199.
F. Demengel, Lipschitz interior regularity for the viscosity and weak solutions of the pseudo $p-$Laplacian equation, Adv. Differential Equations, [**21**]{} (2016), 373–400.
I. Fonseca, N. Fusco, Regularity results for anisotropic image segmentation models, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4), [**24**]{} (1997), 463–499.
I. Fonseca, N. Fusco, P. Marcellini, An existence result for a nonconvex variational problem via regularity, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var., [**7**]{} (2002), 69–95.
E. Giusti, Direct methods in the calculus of variations. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003.
Q. Han, F. Lin, Elliptic partial differential equations (Second Edition). Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York, AMS, Providence, RI, 2011.
J. Moser, A new proof of [D]{}e [G]{}iorgi’s theorem concerning the regularity problem for elliptic differential equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**13**]{} (1960), 457–468.
N. Uralt’seva, N. Urdaletova, The boundedness of the gradients of generalized solutions of degenerate quasilinear nonuniformly elliptic equations, Vest. Leningr. Univ. Math., [**16**]{} (1984), 263–270.
[^1]: Observe that when $f\equiv 0$, any Lipschitz function $u$ with $|\nabla u|\le \min\{\delta_i\, :\, i=1,\dots,N\}$ is a local minimizer of $\mathfrak{F}_\delta$. Thus in general Lipschitz continuity is the best regularity one can hope for.
[^2]: We recall that $$h^*=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
N\,h/(N-h),& \mbox{ if }h<N,\\
\mbox{ any }q<+\infty, & \mbox{ if }h=N,\\
+\infty,& \mbox{ if }h>N.
\end{array}
\right.$$
[^3]: In the case of the standard $p-$Laplacian, the sharp assumption to have Lipschitz regularity is $f\in L^{N,1}_{\rm loc}$, the latter being a Lorentz space. This sharp condition has been first detected by Duzaar and Mingione in [@DM Theorem 1.2], see also [@KM Corollary 1.6] for a more general and refined result. This sharp result is obtained by using potential estimates techniques. We recall that $L^q_{\rm loc}\subset L^{N,1}_{\rm loc}$ for every $q>N$ and under this slightly stronger assumption on $f$, Lipschitz regularity for the $p-$Laplacian can be proved by more standard techniques based on Moser’s iteration, see for example [@Br].
[^4]: This test function is not really admissible, since it is not compactly supported. Actually, to make it admissible we have to multiply it by a cut-off function. However, this gives unessential modifications, we prefer to avoid it in order to neatly present the idea of the proof.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We explore the interplay between the mass anisotropy and the uniaxial pinning of tilted columnar defects (CD) in a YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ single crystal. At high temperatures T and fields H a sharp peak in the irreversible magnetization $M_i$ at the direction of the tracks signals the presence of the CD. At low T such a peak is not observed, and the influence of the CD appears only as a perturbation to the angular dependence due to the anisotropy. We show that at low T and high H the uniaxial effects due to CD can be recovered by performing an anisotropic rescaling. As expected, this scaling fails at low H.
PACS numbers: 74.60.Ge, 74.60.Jg, 74.72.Bk
address: |
$^*$Laboratorium voor Vaste-Stoffysica en Magnetisme, K. U. Leuven,\
Celestijnenlaan 200 D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium.\
$^+$Superconductivity Technology Center, MS K763,\
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
author:
- 'Alejandro V. Silhanek$^*$ and Leonardo Civale$^+$'
title: 'Anisotropic scaling in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ crystals with columnar defects'
---
It is well established that correlated disorder in high temperature superconductors (HTSC) generates a variety of vortex structures depending on the orientation of the defects and the applied field $\bf H$.[@evidence] In the solid vortex phase, when the angle between $\bf H$ and the extended defects is small, vortices remain locked into the defects, whereas for larger angles staircase vortices develop.[@evidence; @avila01] In principle, this picture applies with minor differences to any correlated pinning potential.[@blatter94] Recently we have confirmed experimentally the presence of a lock-in phase in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ crystals with columnar defects and shown that the combined effect of CD, twins and the intrinsic pinning produces several different types of zigzag vortex structures.[@review]
The crystalline anisotropy, originated in the layered structure of the HTSC and characterized by the mass anisotropy $\gamma = m_c/m_{ab} \gg 1$, also influences the pinning in various ways. First, a large $\gamma$ implies a small vortex line tension, thus resulting in a broad lock-in and staircases angular regimes. Second, the angle-dependent line tension tends to tilt the vortices towards the $ab$-planes, thus competing with the uniaxial pinning of the CD.
In this work we explore the interplay between mass anisotropy and uniaxial pinning produced by aligned CD in a YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ single crystal. The CD were introduced by irradiation with 315 MeV Au$^{+23}$ ions at the TANDAR facility, at an angle $\theta_D = 32^\circ$ from the $c$ axis, with a dose-equivalent matching field $B_{\Phi}=$ 3 T. To that end we study the angular dependence of the irreversible dc-magnetization using a SQUID magnetometer with two sets of pick up coils that allows to determine two perpendicular components of the magnetization $\bf M$. The crystal was rotated around an axis perpendicular to both its normal (that coincides with the $c$ axis) and $\bf H$. From the width of isothermal hysteresis loops recorded for a set of angles $\theta$ ($\theta=0^\circ$ for ${\bf H} \parallel c$) we determine the modulus of the irreversible magnetization $M_i(T,H,\theta)$, which is proportional to the persistent current density $J$ according to the critical state model. Further experimental details can be found in ref.\[\].
Figure \[fig1\](a) shows $M_i(\theta)$ for several temperatures at $H$ = 2 T. At high $T$ ($\geq 40$ K) the peak at the direction of the tracks $\theta_D$ (dashed line), signaling the uniaxial pinning of the CD, is clearly visible. At $T = 20$ K, in contrast, $M_i$ grows as $\bf H$ is tilted off the $c$ axis in both directions, and there is no CD’s peak. The same qualitative behavior occurs for $T < 20$ K. Fig. \[fig1\](b) shows $M_i(\theta)$ at 20 K for several $H$. No hint of the CD’s peak is observed for $H \le 2$ T, whereas a minor “bump" at $\theta_D$ develops for $H = 2.5$ T. However, clear evidence of the uniaxial pinning of the tilted CD is visible at all $H$ as an asymmetry of $M_i(\theta)$ around $\theta = 0^\circ$: $M_i(\theta)$ is larger at $\theta > 0^\circ$ than at the symmetric angle $-\theta$. We note that the decrease of $M_i(\theta)$ as $\theta \rightarrow 90^\circ$ is due to the change in the geometrical factor and not to a decrease in $J_c$.
![Modulus of the irreversible magnetization $M_i$ vs. angle $\theta$ for a YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ crystal with CD, at (a) $H = 2$ T and various $T$; and (b) $T$ = 20 K and various $H$. For clarity, $M_i$ values are multiplied by factors 1.7; 3; 4 and 10 for $T$ = 40, 60, 70 and 80 K, respectively. (c) $M_i(\theta)$ at $T = 40$ K for $H = 2$ T and $H\varepsilon(\theta)=2$ T. (d) $M_i(\theta)$ at $T = 20$ K for $H\varepsilon(\theta)= const.$[]{data-label="fig1"}](figure1last.EPS){width="4.5in"}
The increase of $M_i(\theta)$ at fixed $H$ as $\theta$ grows is characteristic of $J_c(\theta)$ in HTSC due to anisotropy.[@blatter94] The traditional way to account for anisotropy in a superconductor is to incorporate an effective-mass tensor $m_{ij}$ into the GL or London equations.[@kogan81] Alternatively, Blatter et al.[@blatter92] showed that the expressions valid for isotropic superconductors can be extended to the anisotropic case by performing a suitable rescaling of coordinates and the vector potential. They obtained an anisotropic scaling rule $Q(\theta,H,T,\xi,\lambda,\gamma) = s_Q \bar Q(\varepsilon(\theta)H,\gamma T,\xi,\lambda)$ for a desired quantity $Q$ for which the isotropic result $\bar Q$ is known. Here $\varepsilon(\theta)^2 = \cos^2\theta+\gamma^{-2} \sin^2\theta$ and $\xi$ and $\lambda$ refer to the values for ${\bf H} \parallel c$-axis. The scaling factor $s_Q = \gamma^{-1}$ for volumes, energies, actions and temperatures, and $s_Q = 1/\varepsilon(\theta)$ for magnetic fields. Thus, a field $H$ at an angle $\theta$ maps into a field of intensity $\tilde H =$ $H\varepsilon(\theta)$ and orientation $\tilde \theta = \arctan(\gamma^{-1} \tan \theta)$ in a “fictitious" isotropic superconductor. Scalar disorder can be included in this description. It was shown[@blatter94] that $J_c(H,\theta)$ due to random defects depends on a single variable, $J_c(H,\theta) = J_c(\tilde H)$. In contrast, the uniaxial nature of the pinning of CD (or any correlated pinning) is not removed by this procedure.
We applied the scaling approach to the data of Fig. \[fig1\](b), using $\gamma = 7$. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](d), where a large number of $M_i(H,\theta)$ data points were used to build curves of $M_i(\theta)$ at $\tilde H = const$. The contrast with Fig. \[fig1\](b) is apparent. Once the influence of the mass anisotropy was removed by the scaling, the peak centered at the tracks is recovered and the angular variation of the pinning due to the CD emerges clearly.
![Modulus of irreversible magnetization $M_i$ vs $\tilde \theta$ at $T = 20$ K and $\tilde H = 2$ T, and its mirror reflection around $\tilde \theta_D = 5^\circ$ (dashed line)[]{data-label="fig2"}](figure2.EPS){width="2.8in"}
The use of the scaling approach does not modify significantly the high $T$ results, because the $H = const.$ curves already exhibit a narrow peak at $\theta_D$, which is only slightly distorted by the transformation. This is seen in fig. \[fig1\](c), where we show the $M_i(H,\theta)$ curves at $T$ = 40 K for both constant $\tilde H$ = 2 T and constant $H$ = 2 T. The situation at higher $T$ and $H$ is similar.
The curves in Fig. 1(d) are asymmetric with respect to $\theta_D$. The reason is that the correct angular variable in the fictitious isotropic superconductor is $\tilde \theta$ rather than $\theta$. In Fig. 2 we plot $M_i$ vs. $\tilde \theta$ at 20 K and $\tilde H = 2$ T, and its mirror image around $\tilde \theta_D = 5^\circ$. The peak is now almost symmetric. The small residual asymmetry is due to angular effects that are symmetric with respect to $\tilde \Theta = 0$, such as sample geometry and pinning by twin boundaries.
The conditions for the validity of the scaling approach, namely that both the spatial variations of the magnetic induction $\bf B$ and its misalignment with respect to $\bf H$ are negligible,[@blatter92] are not satisfied at low $H$. Indeed, the uniformity condition implies $\lambda \gg a_0=\sqrt{\Phi_0/B}$, which is equivalent to $H \gg$ 0.1 T. On top of that, we have shown[@NbSe] that $\bf B$ deviates from $\bf H$ for $H \le 0.02 H_{c2}$, where $H_{c2} \sim 1.6$\[T/K\]$(T_c-T)$ is the upper critical field. We thus estimate $H \sim 2$ T as a lower bound for the validity of the scaling. This value coincides with the field at which a slight deviation of the maximum with respect to $\theta_D$ in the $\tilde H = const.$ curves starts, strongly suggesting that this shift is a consequence of the breakdown of the scaling rule.
In summary, we have shown that the anisotropic scaling is an important tool to discriminate between uniaxial pinning by tilted CD and anisotropy effects in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ crystals at low temperatures.
We thank the Atomic Energy Commission of Argentina where the measurements were performed and CONICET of Argentina for financial support.
[9]{}
V. Hardy et [*al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, **54**, 656 (1996).
A.A. Zhukov et [*al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, **56**, 3481 (1997). G. Blatter et [*al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. **66**, 1125 (1994).
L. Civale, A. V. Silhanek, and G. Pasquini, cond-mat/0308505.
V.G. Kogan, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 1572 (1981)
G. Blatter, V. B. Geshkenbein and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 875 (1992).
A.V. Silhanek, L. Civale, and M.A. Avila, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 174525 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a model of electron-positron pair production in pion-nucleon collisions in the exclusive reaction $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$. The model is based on an effective field theory approach, incorporating 16 baryon resonances below 2 GeV. Parameters of the model are fitted to pion photoproduction data. We present the resulting dilepton invariant mass spectra for $\pi^- p$ collisions up to $\sqrt{s}=1.9$ GeV center-of-mass collision energy. These results are meant to give predictions for the planned experiments at the HADES spectrometer in GSI, Darmstadt.'
author:
- Miklós Zétényi
- György Wolf
title: 'Dilepton production in pion–nucleon collisions in an effective field theory approach'
---
Introduction
============
Dileptons are among the most important signals studied in heavy ion collision experiments. In the 1–2 GeV/nucleon energy range electron-positron pair production has been studied by the DiLepton Spectrometer (DLS) at LBL and, more recently, by the High Acceptance Di-Electron Spectrometer (HADES) at GSI. Due to the high complexity of nuclear collision processes, the experimental results can be interpreted only via comparison with model calculations. Usually transport models are used for this purpose. These models need the cross sections of elementary hadronic collisions as input, therefore a good understanding of the elementary cross sections is essential.
Both DLS [@DLS_NN] and HADES [@HADES_NN] studied dilepton production in elementary $NN$ collisions. In parallel a lot of theoretical work has been done in order to achieve a good description of the experimental dilepton spectrum. Earlier, a resonance approach was used [@Wolf_dilep; @Bratkovskaya], where particle production is described as a multistep process. In the first step a baryon resonance is created which then decays in one or more steps, creating the final state particles, including dileptons. This approach naturally fits the particle production mechanism of transport codes. Recent calculations apply one-boson-exchange effective Lagrangians to calculate the $NN
\rightarrow NNe^+e^-$ cross section [@Shyam2003; @Kaptari2006; @Kaptari2007; @Shyam2009; @Kaptari2009; @Shyam2010]. Although a lot of progress has been made, the measured dilepton spectra are still not perfectly reproduced by the theoretical models [@Shyam2010].
In heavy ion collisions a large number of pions are produced, therefore elementary $\pi N$ collisions are also important. Moreover, besides photon induced reactions, pion beams are much more suitable for studying individual resonances than nuclear projectiles. At HADES new experiments are planned with a pion beam, where both $\pi A$ and $\pi N$ collisions would be studied. At the same time, dilepton production in $\pi N$ collisions have not yet been studied in an effective field theory approach similar to those used in the $NN$ case.
The process $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$ is related to the time inverse of pion photoproduction, which is the key experiment in determining the electromagnetic properties of baryon resonances, and is studied in great detail both experimentally and theoretically. In particular, effective field theory models have been used to study pion photoproduction [@Garcilazo; @Feuster_Mosel_NPA; @Fernandez].
In the present paper we set up a model of electron-positron pair production in $\pi N$ collisions based on an effective field theory approach.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:kinema\] we review the kinematics of the $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$ process and give the expressions for the differential cross section. In Sec. \[sec:EFT\] we specify the effective Lagrangians and discuss the calculation of the transition matrix elements. Separate subsections deal with the version of the vector meson dominance model used in this paper to describe the electromagnetic interaction of hadrons; the contribution of the nonresonant Feynman diagrams to the matrix element, with an emphasis on the gauge-invariance preserving scheme for hadronic form factors; the contribution of baryon resonances. For nonresonant contributions explicit analytical expressions for the matrix elements are listed, while the contributions of baryon resonances are calculated numerically.
In Sec. \[sec:resparam\] we discuss the determination of baryon resonance parameters from pion photoproduction data. The calculated dilepton spectra are shown in Sec. \[sec:results\], followed by a discussion.
\[sec:kinema\] Kinematics
=========================
![\[fig:kinema\] Schematic diagram of the process $\pi +
N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$. ](kinema.eps){width="4cm"}
The differential cross section of the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N +
e^+ + e^-$ is given by $$\label{eq:dsigma}
d\sigma = \frac{(2\pi)^4}{4\sqrt{(p_i \cdot q)^2 - m_N^2 m_{\pi}^2}}
\frac{1}{n_\text{pol}} \sum_\text{pol} \left\vert\mathcal{M}\right\vert^2
d\Phi_3\left( p_i+q; p_f,k_1,k_2\right),$$ where the $n$-body phase-space is defined by $$\label{eq:phase-space}
d\Phi_n\left( P; p_1,...,p_n\right) =
\delta^{(4)}\left(P-\sum_{i=1}^{n}p_i\right) \prod_{i=1}^{n} \frac{d^3
\mathbf{p}_i}{(2\pi)^3 2p_{i0}},$$ and we have used the notation of Fig. \[fig:kinema\] for the four-momenta of particles. The three-body phase-space in Eq. (\[eq:dsigma\]) can be calculated recursively as $$d\Phi_3\left( p_i+q; p_f,k_1,k_2\right) = (2\pi)^3 d(k^2)
d\Phi_2\left( p_i+q; p_f,k\right) d\Phi_2\left( k; k_1,k_2\right).$$ Making use of the Dirac-$\delta$ in Eq. (\[eq:phase-space\]) we can integrate out four of the six momentum components in the case of the two-body phase-space, to get $$\label{eq:phase-space2}
d\Phi_2\left( P; p_1,p_2\right) =
\frac{1}{4(2\pi)^6}\frac{|\mathbf{p}_1|}{\sqrt{P^2}} d\Omega_1,$$ where $\mathbf{p}_1$ is the spatial part of $p_1$ in the frame where $P$ is at rest, and $d\Omega_1 = d\phi_1 d(\cos\theta_1)$ is the solid angle of $p_1$ in the same reference frame.
Using this the differential cross section Eq. (\[eq:dsigma\]) can be written in the form $$d\sigma = \frac{1}{64(2\pi)^5|\mathbf{q}|s} d(k^2) d\Omega_\mathbf{k}
d\Omega_{\mathbf{k}_1} \frac{|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{k}_1|}{\sqrt{k^2}}
\frac{1}{n_\text{pol}} \sum_\text{pol}
\left\vert\mathcal{M}\right\vert^2.$$ For unpolarized beams $d\sigma$ is independent of the azimuth angle $\phi_\mathbf{k}$, which can be integrated out. Note that $\mathbf{k}_1$ and $d\Omega_{\mathbf{k}_1}$ is defined in the rest frame of the decaying virtual photon of momentum $k$, in accordance with Eq. (\[eq:phase-space2\]). Further, $\sqrt{k^2} = M$ is the dilepton invariant mass, and $d(k^2) = d(M^2) = 2MdM$. Neglecting the electron mass we get $|\mathbf{k}_1| = M/2$. The differential cross section is then $$\label{eq:dsdm}
\frac{d\sigma}{dM} = \frac{M}{64(2\pi)^4 s}
\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{|\mathbf{q}|} \int d(\cos\theta_\mathbf{k})
d\Omega_{\mathbf{k}_1} \frac{1}{n_\text{pol}} \sum_\text{pol}
\left\vert\mathcal{M}\right\vert^2.$$ In Eq. (\[eq:dsdm\]) the magnitudes of the center-of-mass momenta are given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathbf{q}| & = & \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_N^2,m_\pi^2)}}{2\sqrt{s}} \\
|\mathbf{k}| & = & \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_N^2,M^2)}}{2\sqrt{s}},\end{aligned}$$ with $\lambda(a,b,c) = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - 2(ab + bc + ca)$.
The leptonic part of the matrix element $\mathcal{M}$ can be written out explicitly, resulting in the expression $$\label{eq:matrixelement}
\mathcal{M} = - \frac{e}{k^2}\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}
\bar{u}(k_1)\gamma^{\mu}v(k_2).$$ The squared matrix element summed over polarizations is $$\sum_\text{pol} \left\vert\mathcal{M}\right\vert^2 = \frac{e^2}{k^4}
W_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu\nu},$$ with the hadronic tensor $W_{\mu\nu}$ defined by $$W_{\mu\nu} = \sum_\text{pol}
\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}{\mathcal{M}_{\nu}^{\text{had}}}^{*},$$ and the leptonic tensor $l^{\mu\nu}$ given by $$l^{\mu\nu} = 4\left(k_1^{\mu}k_2^{\nu} + k_1^{\nu}k_2^{\mu} -
(k_1\cdot k_2)g^{\mu\nu} \right).$$
\[sec:EFT\] Effective Lagrangians and Matrix Elements
=====================================================
![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](N_s.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](N_u.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](pi_t.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](contact.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"}\
![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](rho_t.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](R_s.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![\[fig:diagrams\] Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N + e^+ + e^-$.](R_u.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"}
The Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $\pi + N \rightarrow N
+ e^+ + e^-$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]. These are: the Born contributions \[(a) $s$-, (b) $u$-, and (c) $t$-channel diagrams, and (d) contact interaction term\], (e) vector meson exchange diagram, (f) $s$-channel and (g) $u$-channel baryon resonance contributions.
Electromagnetic interaction of hadrons
--------------------------------------
In most studies the electromagnetic interaction of hadrons is described using some variant of the vector meson dominance (VMD) model [@VMD]. Here we adopt a version of the model described in Appendix B of Ref. [@Kroll] and also in Ref. [@VMD1], where it is denoted VMD1. In this version only the $\rho^0$ vector meson is included and the $\rho\gamma$ coupling has the form $$\label{eq:VMD}
\mathcal{L}_{\rho\gamma} = - \frac{e}{2g_{\rho}} F^{\mu\nu}
\rho^0_{\mu\nu},$$ where $F^{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor and $\rho^0_{\mu\nu} =
\partial_{\mu}\rho^0_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}\rho^0_{\mu}$. From the width of the $\rho\rightarrow e^+ e^-$ decay, the value $g_{\rho} =
4.96$ is obtained.
In addition we have to specify the coupling of various hadrons to the $\rho^0$. Hadrons can also directly couple to the electromagnetic field $A^{\mu}$. The full electromagnetic vertex of hadrons $h_1$ and $h_2$ is, therefore, the sum of the direct photon term and the VMD contribution (see Fig. \[fig:hhgamma\]). The vertex function corresponding to the VMD contribution to the $h_1h_2\gamma$ coupling has the form $$\label{eq:VMDvertex}
V^{\mu\ldots}_{h_1h_2\gamma,\text{VMD}}(k) = F_{\text{VMD}}(k^2)
V^{\mu\ldots}_{h_1h_2\rho}(k),$$ where the VMD form factor appearing on the right hand side is given by $$\label{eq:VMDformfac}
F_{\text{VMD}}(k^2) = -\frac{e}{g_{\rho}}
\frac{k^2}{k^2-m_{\rho}^2+i\sqrt{k^2}\Gamma_{\rho}(k^2)},$$ and is the product of the $\rho$ meson propagator and the $\rho\gamma$ vertex contribution. In Eq. (\[eq:VMDvertex\]) $k$ is the photon four-momentum, $\mu$ is the Lorentz index of the photon line and the dots stand for possible further Lorentz indices corresponding to Rarita-Schwinger fields in case $h_1$ or $h_2$ are higher spin baryons.
![\[fig:hhgamma\] According to the vector meson dominance (VMD) model applied in this paper, the full electromagnetic vertex is a sum of the direct photon term and the $\rho$ meson contribution.](VMD_sum.eps){width="13cm"}
For the electromagnetic interaction of a baryon resonance $R$ ($h_1=R$ and $h_2=N$), the $g_{RN\rho}$ coupling constants can be determined from the $R\rightarrow N\rho$ width of the baryon resonance $R$. The VMD form factor in Eq. (\[eq:VMDformfac\]) is proportional to $k^2$, therefore the VMD part of the electromagnetic vertex does not contribute to the $R\rightarrow N\gamma$ decay width for real photons, $k^2=0$. Thus, $g_{RN\gamma}$ can be fixed independently using the photonic decay width $\Gamma_{R\rightarrow N\gamma}$. This is an advantage of the choice of the VMD Lagrangian Eq. (\[eq:VMD\]). If instead one uses the more common form $$\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{\rho\gamma} = - \frac{em_{\rho}^2}{g_{\rho}}
\rho^0_{\mu}A^{\mu},$$ $k^2$ in the numerator of the VMD form factor, Eq. (\[eq:VMDformfac\]) is replaced by $m_{\rho}^2$. In that case the VMD contribution to $\Gamma_{R\rightarrow N\gamma}$ is nonzero, and in fact overpredicts the physical $N\gamma$ width for most of the baryon resonances, as pointed out in Ref. [@Friman_Pirner].
\[sec:Nonresonant\]Nonresonant contributions
--------------------------------------------
### Contributions of direct photon couplings
In order to calculate the nonresonant Feynman diagrams Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](a)–(e), we have to specify the hadronic and electromagnetic interaction Lagrangians of pions and nucleons. We use a pseudovector $NN\pi$ coupling, $$\label{eq:L_NNpi}
\mathcal{L}_{NN\pi} = - \frac{f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}} \bar{\psi}_N\gamma_5
\gamma^{\mu}\vec{\tau}\psi_N \cdot \partial_{\mu}\vec{\pi}.$$ Following Ref. [@Garcilazo] we use the value $f_{NN\pi} = 0.97$ for the coupling constant.
The electromagnetic interaction Lagrangians must be chosen in such a way that electromagnetic gauge invariance is fulfilled. This will ensure that the photon field $A^{\mu}$ will couple to conserved currents constructed from the hadron fields, and the resulting hadronic matrix elements will satisfy the condition $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}k^{\mu} = 0$. An important consequence is, that the photon propagator can be written as $-i g_{\mu\nu}/k^2$, which has been used in the derivation of Eq. \[eq:matrixelement\].
Gauge invariant Lagrangians can be obtained by replacing derivatives $\partial_{\mu}$ with the covariant derivative $$\nabla_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + i e A_{\mu} Q$$ in all terms of the Lagrangian ($Q$ is the electric charge operator). Carrying out this replacement in the nucleon kinetic energy term results in the $NN\gamma$ interaction Lagrangian $-e\bar{\psi}_N\slashed{A}Q\psi_N$. This is supplemented by the magnetic term, which contains the field tensor $F^{\mu\nu}$, and is gauge invariant. The complete $NN\gamma$ interaction is then $$\label{eq:L_NNgamma}
\mathcal{L}_{NN\gamma} =
- e\bar{\psi}_N\left[\frac{1+\tau_3}{2}\slashed{A} -
\left(\frac{1+\tau_3}{2}\kappa_p+\frac{1-\tau_3}{2}\kappa_n\right)
\frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}}{4m_N}F^{\mu\nu}\right]\psi_N.$$ (The isospin 1/2 representation of the electric charge operator, $Q =
(1+\tau_3)/2$ has been substituted.)
Starting from the pion kinetic energy term we obtain the $\pi\pi\gamma$ interaction in the form $$\label{eq:L_gammapipi}
\mathcal{L}_{\pi\pi\gamma} = -eA_{\mu}J_{\pi}^{\mu},$$ where $J_{\pi}^{\mu} = i(\pi^{-}\partial^{\mu}\pi^{+} -
\pi^{+}\partial^{\mu}\pi^{-})$ is the pion current. In addition a $\pi\pi\gamma\gamma$ term is also generated, but it does not contribute to the studied process.
Inserting the covariant derivative in the pseudovector pion-nucleon coupling term we obtain an $NN\pi\gamma$ contact interaction of the form $$\label{eq:L_NNpigamma}
\mathcal{L}_{NN\pi\gamma} = - \frac{i e f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\bar{\psi}_N\gamma_5 \gamma^{\mu}\vec{\tau}\psi \cdot
A_{\mu}Q\vec{\pi}.$$
Using the Lagrangians Eqs. (\[eq:L\_NNpi\]),(\[eq:L\_NNgamma\])–(\[eq:L\_NNpigamma\]) we can calculate those Born contributions \[diagrams (a)–(d) in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]\] to $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}$ that contain a direct photon coupling. The construction of the Lagrangians assures that the sum of these contributions satisfies the gauge invariance condition $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}k^{\mu}=0$. Note, however, that the individual Feynman diagrams are not gauge invariant.
In order to describe the off-shell behavior of internal hadron lines we apply at all hadronic vertices form factors given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(s) & = & \frac{1}{1 + (s-m_N^2)^2/\Lambda^4}, \label{eq:F1} \\
F_2(u) & = & \frac{1}{1 + (u-m_N^2)^2/\Lambda^4}, \label{eq:F2} \\
F_3(t) & = & \frac{1}{1 + (t-m_{\pi}^2)^2/\Lambda^4} \label{eq:F3}\end{aligned}$$ for $s$-, $u$- and $t$-channel diagrams, respectively. These satisfy $$F_1(m_N^2) = F_2(m_N^2) = F_3(m_{\pi}^2) = 1.$$
The application of different form factors to the individual diagrams Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](a)–(c) destroys the overall gauge invariance of the Born contributions. The solution to this problem has been given by Davidson and Workman in the case of pion photoproduction [@Davidson-Workman], and the method can be generalized to the present case. We first write $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}$ in the form $$\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}} = \bar{u}_f T_{\mu} u_i.$$ Let $T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}}$ denote the Born contribution to $T_{\mu}$ obtained from direct photon terms. It can be shown by explicit calculation of $T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}}$ from the Born channel Feynman diagrams, that the replacement $T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}} \rightarrow
T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}} + \Delta T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}}$ makes the hadronic matrix element $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}$ gauge invariant, if $$\Delta T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}} =
\frac{\sqrt{2}ef_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}} 2m_N
\gamma_5\left[
\left(\hat{F}(s,u,t)-F_3(t)\right) \frac{2q^{\mu}-k^{\mu}}{t - m_{\pi}^2} -
\left(\hat{F}(s,u,t)-F_2(u)\right) \frac{2p_i^{\mu}-k^{\mu}}{u - m_N^2}
\right],$$ where $$\label{eq:Fhat}
\hat{F}(s,u,t) = F_1(s) + F_2(u) + F_3(t)
- F_1(s)F_2(u) - F_1(s)F_3(t) - F_2(u)F_3(t)
+ F_1(s)F_2(u)F_3(t).$$ $\hat{F}(s,u,t)$ was chosen in such a way that $$\hat{F}(m_N^2,u,t) = \hat{F}(s,m_N^2,t) = \hat{F}(s,u,m_{\pi}^2) = 1,$$ which means that the poles of $T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}}$ at $t=m_{\pi}^2$ and $u=m_N^2$ are canceled by the factors $\hat{F} - F_{2(3)}$. This means that the term $\Delta T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}}$ can be generated by adding a suitably chosen contact interaction to the Lagrangian.
Gauge invariance of the resulting $T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}}$ can be made transparent by writing it in the form $$T_{\mu}^{\text{Born}} = \sum_{i=1}^4 A_i M_{i,\mu},$$ where $M_{i,\mu}$ denote the gauge invariant combinations $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,\mu} & = & \gamma_5\left(\gamma_{\mu}\slashed{k}-k_{\mu}\right), \label{eq:M1} \\
M_{2,\mu} & = & \frac{\gamma_5}{2}\left[(2p_{i\mu}-k_{\mu})(2q\cdot k-M^2)
- (2q_{\mu}-k_{\mu})(2p_i\cdot k-M^2)\right], \label{eq:M2} \\
M_{3,\mu} & = & \frac{\gamma_5}{2}\left[\gamma_{\mu}(2p_f\cdot k+M^2)
- (2p_{f\mu}+k_{\mu})\slashed{k}\right], \label{eq:M3} \\
M_{4,\mu} & = & \frac{\gamma_5}{2}\left[\gamma_{\mu}(2p_i\cdot k-M^2)
- (2p_{i\mu}-k_{\mu})\slashed{k}\right]. \label{eq:M4}\end{aligned}$$ In the $k^2=0$ limit $M_{i,\mu}$ correspond to the gauge invariant combinations defined in Ref. [@Davidson-Workman] for the case of pion photoproduction.
The coefficients $A_i$ are obtained from the explicit Feynman diagram calculations and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 & = & - \frac{\sqrt{2}e f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}} \left[
\frac{1}{2m_N}\left(F_1\kappa_{n} + F_2\kappa_{p}\right)
+ \frac{2 m_N F_2}{u-m_N^2}(1+\kappa_{p})
+ \frac{2 m_N F_1}{s+m_N^2}\kappa_{n}
\right], \label{eq:A1} \\
A_2 & = & \frac{\sqrt{2}e f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\frac{4 m_N \hat{F}}{(t-m_{\pi}^2)(u-m_N^2)}, \label{eq:A2} \\
A_3 & = & \frac{\sqrt{2}e f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\frac{2\kappa_{n}F_1}{s-m_N^2}, \label{eq:A3} \\
A_4 & = & \frac{\sqrt{2}e f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\frac{2\kappa_{p}F_2}{u-m_N^2}. \label{eq:A4}\end{aligned}$$ In the derivation of Eqs. (\[eq:A1\])–(\[eq:A4\]) we have used the fact, that $k_{\mu}l^{\mu\nu}=0$, and thus arbitrary terms proportional to $k_{\mu}$ can be added to $T_{\mu}$ without affecting the cross section.
### VMD contributions to Born diagrams
For the calculation of the VMD contributions we need the coupling of hadrons to the $\rho^0$ meson. Here we face the same problems related to gauge invariance as in the case of the direct photon couplings. First we have to ensure that the relation $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had}}k^{\mu}
= 0$ holds without the inclusion of hadronic form factors. One possibility to fulfill this condition is to define the interaction of $\rho$ mesons with other hadrons by replacing derivatives $\partial_{\mu}$ in the hadronic Lagrangians with $$\label{eq:covar_deriv_rho}
\nabla_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} - i \tilde{g}_{\rho} \vec{\rho}_{\mu}\cdot\vec{T},$$ where $\vec{T}$ denotes the generators of the isospin SU(2) group. This method is inspired by an SU(2) gauge theory with $\rho$ mesons as gauge bosons.
In this way an $NN\rho$ interaction term can be obtained from the nucleon kinetic energy term. Similarly to the direct photon coupling, a magnetic type term can be added to it, yielding the total $NN\rho$ interaction Lagrangian $$\label{eq:L_NNrho}
\mathcal{L}_{NN\rho} = \frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}}{2}\bar\psi_N
\left(\vec{\slashed{\rho}} -
\kappa_{\rho}\frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}}{4m_N}\vec\rho^{\mu\nu}\right) \cdot \vec{\tau}
\psi_N.$$ The $\rho\pi\pi$ term is obtained from the pion kinetic energy term and has the form $$\label{eq:L_rhopipi}
\mathcal{L}_{\rho\pi\pi} =
- \tilde{g}_{\rho}\left[(\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}) \times
\vec{\pi}\right]\cdot\vec{\rho}_{\mu}.$$ Comparing the Lagrangians Eqs. (\[eq:L\_NNrho\]) and (\[eq:L\_rhopipi\]) with the traditional forms of the $NN\rho$ and $\rho\pi\pi$ couplings, we see that their construction in terms of the covariant derivative Eq. (\[eq:covar\_deriv\_rho\]) provides a relation of their coupling constants in the form $$2g_{NN\rho} = g_{\rho\pi\pi} = \tilde{g}_{\rho}.$$ From the width of the decay $\rho\rightarrow\pi\pi$ the value $g_{\rho\pi\pi} = 5.96$ is obtained. $g_{NN\rho}$ can be determined from low energy nucleon-nucleon scattering. In Ref. [@Fernandez] the value $g_{NN\rho} = 2.6$ was used, yielding the ratio $g_{\rho\pi\pi}/g_{NN\rho} = 2.29$, which is reasonably close to the value of 2 predicted by SU(2) gauge invariance. In the present calculation we use the values $\tilde{g}_{\rho} = g_{\rho\pi\pi} = 5.96$ and $g_{NN\rho} = \tilde{g}_{\rho}/2 = 2.98$.
Inserting the covariant derivative Eq. (\[eq:covar\_deriv\_rho\]) in the pseudovector $NN\pi$ Lagrangian Eq. (\[eq:L\_NNpi\]) we obtain an $NN\pi\rho$ contact interaction, $$\mathcal{L}_{NN\pi\rho} = - \frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\bar\psi_N \gamma_5 \gamma^{\mu}\vec{\tau}\psi\cdot
\left(\vec{\rho}_{\mu}\times\vec{\pi}\right).$$
In accordance with Eq. (\[eq:VMDvertex\]) the VMD contribution to the hadronic matrix element can be written in the form $$\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had,VMD}} =
F_{\text{VMD}}(k^2)\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_{\mu},$$ where the VMD form factor $F_{\text{VMD}}(k^2)$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:VMDformfac\]). Feynman diagrams representing $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_{\mu}$ can be obtained from the VMD diagrams by truncating the dilepton part, starting from the $\rho$ propagator.
At hadronic vertices we employ the same form factors \[Eqs. (\[eq:F1\])–(\[eq:F3\])\] as in the direct photon contributions. Then we write $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_{\mu}$ in the form $$\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_{\mu} = \bar{u}_f \tilde{T}_{\mu} u_i.$$ The explicit form of $\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}}$ (the contribution to $\tilde{T}_{\mu}$ of Born diagrams with VMD coupling) is calculated from the relevant Feynman diagrams. We observe that the replacement $\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}} \rightarrow
\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}} + \Delta
\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}}$ ensures the validity of the gauge invariance relation, $\mathcal{M}_{\mu}^{\text{had,VMD}}k^{\mu} = 0$ if $\Delta \tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}}$ is chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Delta\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}} =
\frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi}} 2m_N \gamma_5 } \\
& & \times \left[
\left(\hat{F}(s,u,t)-F_2(u)\right) \frac{2p_i^{\mu}-k^{\mu}}{u - m_N^2} -
\left(\hat{F}(s,u,t)-F_1(u)\right) \frac{2p_f^{\mu}+k^{\mu}}{s - m_N^2} -
2\left(\hat{F}(s,u,t)-F_3(t)\right) \frac{2q^{\mu}-k^{\mu}}{t - m_{\pi}^2}
\right].\end{aligned}$$ This $\Delta \tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}}$ is free from poles, and is assumed to be generated by suitable contact terms added to the Lagrangian.
The obtained $\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}}$ can be expanded as $$\tilde{T}_{\mu}^{\text{Born,VMD}} = \sum_{i=1}^5 \tilde{A}_i M_{i,\mu},$$ where $M_{1...4,\mu}$ are given in Eqs. (\[eq:M1\])–(\[eq:M4\]), and $$\label{eq:M5}
M_{5,\mu} = \frac{\gamma_5}{2}\left[(2p_{f\mu}+k_{\mu})(2q\cdot k-M^2)
- (2q_{\mu}-k_{\mu})(2p_f\cdot k+M^2)\right].$$ The coefficients $\tilde{A}_i$ are obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}_1 & = & \frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi}}
\left[
\frac{\kappa_{\rho}}{2m_N}\left(F_2 - F_1\right)
+ 2 m_N(1+\kappa_{\rho})\left( \frac{F_2}{u-m_N^2} -
\frac{F_1}{s-m_N^2} \right)
\right], \\
\tilde{A}_2 & = &
- \frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi}} \frac{4 m_N
\hat{F}}{(t-m_{\pi}^2)(u-m_N^2)}, \\
\tilde{A}_3 & = &
\frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi}}
\frac{2\kappa_{\rho}F_1}{s-m_N^2}, \\
\tilde{A}_4 & = &
- \frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi}}
\frac{2\kappa_{\rho}F_2}{u-m_N^2}, \\
\tilde{A}_5 & = &
- \frac{\tilde{g}_{\rho}f_{NN\pi}}{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi}} \frac{4 m_N
\hat{F}}{(t-m_{\pi}^2)(s-m_N^2)}.\end{aligned}$$
### $t$-channel $\rho$- and $a_1$-exchange contributions
We also calculated the contributions of the $t$-channel $\rho$- and $a_1$-exchange diagrams, Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](e). For the $\rho$ exchange we adopt the $\rho\pi\gamma$ interaction Lagrangian from Ref. [@Feuster_Mosel_NPA], $$\mathcal{L}_{\rho\pi\gamma} = e\frac{g_{\rho\pi\gamma}}{4m_{\pi}}
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} F^{\mu\nu}\vec{\rho}^{\lambda\sigma}
\cdot \vec{\pi}.$$ The value of the coupling constant, $g_{\rho\pi\gamma} = 0.103$, is obtained from the width of the $\rho \rightarrow \pi\gamma$ decay. Lagrangians equivalent to the above $\mathcal{L}_{\rho\pi\gamma}$ have been used in Refs. [@Fernandez; @Garcilazo].
The $a_1\pi\gamma$ interaction was studied in Ref. [@Xiong]. In that paper the momentum space form of the interaction Lagrangian was given. Its coordinate space equivalent is given by $$\label{eq:a1pigamma}
\mathcal{L}_{a_1\pi\gamma} = - i e\frac{g_{a_1\pi\gamma}}{m_{\pi}}
\vec{a}_{\mu} F^{\mu\nu} \cdot \partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi},$$ where $\vec{a}_{\mu}$ denotes the axial-vector–isovector $a_1$ field. From the width of the $a_1 \rightarrow \pi\gamma$ decay we get $g_{a_1\pi\gamma} = 0.106$ for the coupling constant.
We also need to specify the form of the $NNa_1$ interaction. The role of $t$-channel $a_1$ exchange in the nucleon-nucleon interaction was studied in Ref. [@Durso]. They take the $NNa_1$ Lagrangian from the chiral $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ model of Ref. [@Wess-Zumino]. In that model the Lagrangian has the form $$\label{eq:L_NNa1}
\mathcal{L}_{NNa_1} = g_{NNa_1}\bar\psi_N
\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_5\vec{\tau}\psi_N \cdot \vec{a_{\mu}},$$ and the coupling constant is related to the pseudovector pion-nucleon coupling via $$\frac{g_{NNa_1}}{m_{a_1}} = \frac{f_{NN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}.$$ This relation gives the value $g_{NNa_1} = 8.65$. In Ref. [@Yu] the nucleon-$a_1$ coupling has been determined from the nucleon axial form factor, and the value $g_{NNa_1} = 6.7$ was obtained.
In close analogy with the Born contributions we apply form factors given by $$F_V(t) = \frac{1}{1 + (t-m_V^2)^2/\Lambda^4}$$ for $t$-channel $\rho$- and $a_1$-exchange diagrams, where $m_V$ denotes the $\rho$ or $a_1$ meson mass.
We found that the contribution of $t$-channel $\rho$ exchange is at least three orders of magnitude smaller than the Born contribution in the $\sqrt{s}\le1$GeV energy range. The $a_1$-exchange contribution is even smaller and never exceeds 10% of the $\rho$ contribution.
Contributions of baryon resonances
----------------------------------
### Interaction Lagrangians
In order to calculate the $s$- and $u$-channel baryon resonance contributions, diagrams Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](f) and (g), we have to specify the coupling of baryon resonances to the $\pi N$, $\rho N$ and $\gamma N$ channels.
Similarly to the nucleon-pion interaction we employ pseudovector couplings in the case of spin-1/2 nucleon resonances, $$\mathcal{L}_{R_{1/2}N\pi} = - \frac{g_{RN\pi}}{m_{\pi}} \bar{\psi}_R \Gamma
\gamma^{\mu}\vec{\tau}\psi_N \cdot \partial_{\mu}\vec{\pi}
+ \text{H.c.} \label{eq:R12Npi}$$ In the spin-3/2 case we use the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{R_{3/2}N\pi} = \frac{g_{RN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\bar{\psi}_R^{\mu} \Gamma \vec{\tau}\psi_N\cdot\partial_{\mu}\vec{\pi}
+ \text{H.c.}, \label{eq:R32Npi}$$ while in the spin-5/2 case the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{R_{5/2}N\pi} = \frac{g_{RN\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\bar{\psi}_R^{\mu\nu} \Gamma \vec{\tau}\psi_N \cdot
\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi} + \text{H.c.} \label{eq:R52Npi}$$ In the above $\Gamma = \gamma_5$ for $J^P = {\frac{1}{2}}^{+}$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^{-}$ and ${\frac{5}{2}}^{+}$ resonances and $\Gamma = 1$ otherwise. $\psi_{R}^{\mu}$ and $\psi_{R}^{\mu\rho}$ are the Rarita-Schwinger fields describing spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ and $\frac{5}{2}$ resonances, respectively, and $\vec{\tau}$ are the (isospin) Pauli matrices. In the case of $\Delta$ resonances $\vec{\tau}$ has to be replaced by the isospin $\frac{3}{2} \rightarrow \frac{1}{2}$ transition matrices, $\vec{T}$.
We now list the Lagrangians describing the $RN\gamma$ and $RN\rho$ coupling of baryon resonances. For spin-$1/2$ nucleon resonances these are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{R_{1/2}N\gamma} & = & \frac{g_{RN\gamma}}{2m_{\rho}} \bar{\psi}_{R}
\sigma^{\mu\nu} \tilde{\Gamma} \psi_N F_{\mu\nu} +
\text{H.c.}, \label{eq:RNgamma_first}\\
\mathcal{L}_{R_{1/2}N\rho} & = & \frac{g_{RN\rho}}{2m_{\rho}} \bar{\psi}_{R}
\vec{\tau} \sigma^{\mu\nu} \tilde{\Gamma} \psi_N \cdot \vec{\rho}_{\mu\nu} +
\text{H.c.}\end{aligned}$$ For spin-$3/2$ nucleon resonances the corresponding Lagrangians are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{R_{3/2}N\gamma} & = & - \frac{ig_{RN\gamma}}{m_{\rho}}
\bar{\psi}_{R}^{\mu} \gamma^{\nu}\tilde{\Gamma} \psi_N
F_{\mu\nu} + \text{H.c.}, \\
\mathcal{L}_{R_{3/2}N\rho} & = & - \frac{ig_{RN\rho}}{m_{\rho}}
\bar{\psi}_{R}^{\mu}\vec{\tau} \gamma^{\nu}\tilde{\Gamma} \psi_N \cdot
\vec{\rho}_{\mu\nu} + \text{H.c.},\end{aligned}$$ and for spin-$5/2$ nucleon resonances we use $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{R_{5/2}N\gamma} & = & - \frac{ig_{RN\gamma}}{m_{\rho}}
\bar{\psi}_{R}^{\mu\rho} \gamma^{\nu}\tilde{\Gamma} (\partial_{\rho}\psi_N)
F_{\mu\nu} + \text{H.c.}, \\
\mathcal{L}_{R_{5/2}N\rho} & = & - \frac{ig_{RN\rho}}{m_{\rho}}
\bar{\psi}_{R}^{\mu\rho}\vec{\tau} \gamma^{\nu}\tilde{\Gamma}
(\partial_{\rho}\psi_N) \cdot
\vec{\rho}_{\mu\nu} + \text{H.c.} \label{eq:RNgamma_last}\end{aligned}$$ For the $RN\rho$ couplings, $\vec{\tau}$ is replaced by $\vec{T}$ in the case of $\Delta$ resonances, similarly to the $RN\pi$ case. In Eqs. (\[eq:RNgamma\_first\])–(\[eq:RNgamma\_last\]) $\tilde{\Gamma} =
\gamma_5$ for $J^P = {\frac{1}{2}}^{-}$, ${\frac{3}{2}}^{+}$ and ${\frac{5}{2}}^{-}$ resonances and $\tilde{\Gamma} = 1$ otherwise.
Dilepton production in the Dalitz decay of baryon resonances ($R\rightarrow Ne^+e^-$) was studied in Refs. [@Krivoruchenko] and [@Zetenyi]. In [@Zetenyi] we discussed the possible forms of matrix elements of the electromagnetic current between a resonance and a nucleon state. We demonstrated that the contributions of the various possibilities do not differ significantly, unless the resonance mass is far from the nominal value. Based on this result, the matrix elements containing the lowest power of external momenta were chosen for the calculation of the resulting dilepton spectra. The Lagrangians Eqs. (\[eq:RNgamma\_first\])–(\[eq:RNgamma\_last\]) correspond to the same choice in the sense that the matrix elements calculated from them coincide with those chosen in Ref. [@Zetenyi].
### \[sec:propa\_FF\] Propagators and form factors
The propagator of spin-3/2 baryon resonances is $$G_{R_{3/2}}^{\mu\nu}(p) = \frac{i}{p^2-m_R^2+i\sqrt{p^2}\Gamma_R(p^2)}
P_{3/2}^{\mu\nu}(p,m_R),$$ where $$P_{3/2}^{\mu\nu}(p,m_R) = -(\slashed{p}+m_R)
\left(g^{\mu\nu} -
\frac{\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}}{3} -
\frac{2}{3}\frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}{m_R^2} +
\frac{p^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu} - p^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}}{3m_R}
\right).$$ On the mass-shell $P_{3/2}^{\mu\nu}(p,m_R)$ coincides with the spin-3/2 projector operator.
For the spin-5/2 propagator we use $$G_{R_{5/2}}^{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}(p) =
\frac{i}{p^2-m_R^2+i\sqrt{p^2}\Gamma_R(p^2)}
P_{5/2}^{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}(p,m_R),$$ where $$P_{5/2}^{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}(p,m_R) = (\slashed{p} + m_R)
\left[ \frac{3}{10}\left(G^{\mu\rho}G^{\nu\sigma}
+ G^{\mu\sigma}G^{\nu\rho}
\right)
- \frac{1}{5}G^{\mu\nu}G^{\rho\sigma}
- \frac{1}{10}\left(T^{\mu\rho}G^{\nu\sigma}
+ T^{\nu\sigma}G^{\mu\rho}
+ T^{\mu\sigma}G^{\nu\rho}
+ T^{\nu\rho}G^{\mu\sigma}
\right)
\right],$$ with $$G^{\mu\nu} = - g^{\mu\nu} + \frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}{m_R^2},$$ and $$T^{\mu\nu} =
- \frac{1}{2}(\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}-\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu})
+ \frac{p^{\mu}\left(\slashed{p}\gamma^{\nu}
- \gamma^{\nu}\slashed{p}
\right)}{2m_R^2}
- \frac{p^{\nu}\left(\slashed{p}\gamma^{\mu}
- \gamma^{\mu}\slashed{p}
\right)}{2m_R^2}.$$
We parametrize the $p^2$ dependence of the $N\pi$ and $N\eta$ width of baryon resonances as [@Teis97] $$\label{eq:Gamma_p}
\Gamma(p^2) = \Gamma(m_R^2)\frac{m_R}{\sqrt{p^2}}
\left(\frac{q}{q_R}\right)^{2l+1}
\left(\frac{q_R^2+\delta^2}{q^2+\delta^2}\right)^{l+1},$$ where $l$ is the angular momentum of the pion or $\eta$ meson, $q$ is the magnitude of the outgoing three-momentum in the rest frame of the decaying resonance given by $$q = \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(p^2,m_N^2,m_{\pi(\eta)}^2)}}{2\sqrt{p^2}},$$ while $q_R$ is the same quantity for an on-shell resonance, $p^2 =
m_R^2$. The cutoff parameter $\delta$ is given by $$\delta^2 = \left(m_R - m_N - m_{\pi(\eta)} \right)^2 +
\frac{\left[\Gamma(m_R^2)\right]^2}{4},$$ with the exception of the $\Delta(1232)$ where the value $\delta =
0.3$GeV, and the $N(1535)$, where $\delta = 0.5$GeV has been used.
The $p^2$ dependence of the $N\pi$ width of baryon resonances can be calculated from the appropriate Feynman diagrams using the effective Lagrangians Eqs. (\[eq:R12Npi\])–(\[eq:R52Npi\]). In order to get a $p^2$ dependence numerically similar to Eq. (\[eq:Gamma\_p\]) we employ a cutoff factor of the form $$F(p^2) = \sqrt{\frac{m_R}{\sqrt{p^2}}}
\left(\frac{q_R^2+\delta^2}{q^2+\delta^2}\right)^\frac{l+1}{2}$$ at each $RN\pi$ vertex.
Two-pion decays of baryon resonances are assumed to proceed through an intermediate baryon or meson resonance, as $R \rightarrow
(\Delta/N(1440))\pi \rightarrow N\pi\pi$ or $R \rightarrow N(\rho/\sigma)
\rightarrow N\pi\pi$. For the $p^2$ dependence of the corresponding decay width we choose the expression obtained from a Feynman diagram calculation, multiplied by the cutoff factor $$F_{\pi\pi}(p^2) = \left[\frac{(\sqrt{p^2}-m_N-2m_{\pi})^2 + \delta^2}
{(m_R-m_N-2m_{\pi})^2 + \delta^2} \right]^2.$$
It was pointed out in Refs. [@Garcilazo; @Feuster_Mosel_NPA] that the pion photoproduction data can be reproduced only if the $u$-channel resonance diagrams are multiplied by the extra cutoff factor $\Lambda_u^2/(\Lambda_u^2 + q^2)$, with $\Lambda_u = $ 0.3 GeV. ($q$ is the magnitude of the pion momentum in the center-of-mass frame.) The role of this cutoff is to remove the high-energy divergence of these contributions. A similar divergence of the $u$-channel contributions occurs in the case of the $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$ process discussed in the present paper. However, we find that diagrams with higher spin resonances diverge faster. Especially spin-5/2 resonances need a stronger cutoff. Therefore we use a spin dependent cutoff factor of the form $$\label{eq:uch_cutoff}
F_u(p^2) = \left(\frac{\Lambda_u^2}{\Lambda_u^2 + q^2}\right)^{J}$$ for $u$-channel diagrams with a resonance of spin $J$. Following Refs. [@Garcilazo; @Feuster_Mosel_NPA] we use the value $\Lambda_u = $ 0.3 GeV for the cutoff parameter.
\[sec:resparam\] Resonance parameters
=====================================
Our model includes 16 baryon resonances below 2 GeV that have three- or four-star status according to the Review of Particle Physics [@PDG]. We did not include the state $\Delta(1920)$ because we have no information about its $N\rho$ and $N\gamma$ branching ratio. We also excluded the spin-7/2 $\Delta(1950)$ resonance.
We take the mass and total width of the resonances from [@PDG]. The $RN\pi$ and $RN\rho$ coupling constants are determined from the partial decay widths, that are obtained from the total width and the mean value of the lower and upper bounds of the appropriate branching ratio listed in [@PDG].
The $N\gamma$ branching ratios are poorly known for most resonances. Also, the partial decay widths give no information about the sign of coupling constants. These signs determine the signs of interference terms in the $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$ cross section. To overcome these problems we also calculated the total cross section of pion photoproduction, fitted to the available experimental data, using the $RN\gamma$ coupling constants as fit parameters. We varied also the signs of these coupling constants.
The Feynman diagrams contributing to pion photoproduction can be obtained from the time inverse of the diagrams in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\] by truncating at the photon propagator. The calculation of the matrix elements goes along the same lines as for the $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$ process, but now the photon is on-shell, $k^2 = 0$, which substantially simplifies the obtained expressions. In particular, there are no VMD contributions to pion photoproduction because of the choice of the $\rho\gamma$ Lagrangian of the form Eq. (\[eq:VMD\]).
Nonresonant contributions are calculated according to the gauge-invariance preserving scheme of Ref. [@Davidson-Workman], which can be obtained from the formulas of Sec. \[sec:Nonresonant\] in the $k^2 = 0$ limit. Resonant contributions are calculated numerically.
During the fitting procedure we varied the $RN\gamma$ coupling constants within the ranges allowed by the total width and $N\gamma$ branching ratios of the resonance $R$ as listed in [@PDG]. An exception is the $N(1680)$ resonance where we reduced the limits of the $p\gamma$ branching ratio by a factor of about 10 to coincide with the limits of the $n\gamma$ branching ratio. This reduction was necessary because otherwise the large $N(1680)p\gamma$ coupling resulted in a high $N(1680)$ peak on the $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^{+}n$ total cross section starting with a rapid rise already below 1 GeV laboratory photon energy, which is not seen in experimental data. The other exception is the $\Delta(1232)$ where we decreased the photonic branching ratio by about 25% below the PDG lower bound in order to obtain a reasonable description of the pion photoproduction data.
We repeated the fit with various values of the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ of the Born contributions. The best fit was obtained with the value $\Lambda = 0.63$ GeV.
The resonance parameters—including the fitted $RN\gamma$ coupling constants—are summarized in Table \[tab:resonances\]. Figure \[fig:pion-photoprod\] shows the total pion photoproduction cross sections calculated from our best fit in comparison with the experimental data. We also show the contribution of Born diagrams. The three plots correspond to the processes $\gamma p\rightarrow\pi^0 p$, $\gamma p\rightarrow\pi^+ n$, and $\gamma n\rightarrow\pi^- p$.
The discrepancies seen in the $\pi^0 p$ and $\pi^+ n$ channels are hard to cure in the framework of the present model. Both cross sections contain the $p\gamma$ coupling constant of each resonance in the $s$-channel contributions. Thus the ratio of the contribution to the $\pi^0 p$ and $\pi^+ n$ channels of each $s$-channel resonance diagram is purely determined by isospin Clebsch-Gordan coefficients appearing in the $RN\pi$ vertex. Since Born and $s$-channel resonance contributions dominate the cross sections little freedom is left to balance the two channels with $\gamma+p$ initial state.
In the $\pi^- p$ channel above 0.8 GeV laboratory photon energy the total cross section is less than the Born contribution. This is a result of a destructive interference.
[|c|c|d|d|r|r|d|d|dd|]{} & \[0pt\]\[0pt\][$J^P$]{} & m\_R & \_ & &\
& & (GeV) & & $N\pi$ & $N\rho$ & & & &\
$\Delta$(1232) & $3/2^+$ & 1.232 & 0.118 & 100 & 0 & 1.52 & 0 & -1.5 & -1.5\
$N(1440)$ & $1/2^+$ & 1.440 & 0.3 & 65 & 0 & 7.40 & 0 & 0.204 & -0.088\
$N(1520)$ & $3/2^-$ & 1.520 & 0.115 & 60 & 20 & 1.94 & 9.92 & -0.67 & 0.654\
$N(1535)$ & $1/2^-$ & 1.535 & 0.15 & 45 & 2 & 0.838 & 1.73 & 0.204 & 0.033\
$N(1650)$ & $1/2^-$ & 1.655 & 0.165 & 77 & 8 & 1.09 & 0.994 & -0.186 & -0.181\
$N(1675)$ & $5/2^-$ & 1.675 & 0.15 & 40 & 1 & 0.122 & 6.74 & 0.124 & -0.679\
$N(1680)$ & $5/2^+$ & 1.685 & 0.13 & 67 & 9 & 0.509 & 6.03 & -0.38 & -0.381\
$N(1700)$ & $3/2^-$ & 1.700 & 0.10 & 10 & 17 & 0.434 & 1.25 & -0.135 & -0.060\
$N(1710)$ & $1/2^+$ & 1.710 & 0.10 & 15 & 15 & 1.28 & 1.68 & 0.0694 & 0.044\
$N(1720)$ & $3/2^+$ & 1.720 & 0.2 & 15 & 77 & 0.208 & 9.37 & -0.045 & 0.515\
$\Delta(1600)$ & $3/2^+$ & 1.600 & 0.35 & 17 & 12 & 0.355 & 16.5 & 0.189 & 0.189\
$\Delta(1620)$ & $1/2^-$ & 1.630 & 0.145 & 25 & 16 & 0.587 & 1.72 & 0.0272 & 0.0272\
$\Delta(1700)$ & $3/2^-$ & 1.700 & 0.3 & 15 & 42 & 0.922 & 3.40 & 0.361 & 0.531\
$\Delta(1905)$ & $5/2^+$ & 1.890 & 0.33 & 12 & 60 & 0.178 & 4.76 & 0.173 & 0.173\
$\Delta(1910)$ & $1/2^+$ & 1.910 & 0.25 & 22 & 0 & 1.95 & 0 & 0.165 & 0.165\
$\Delta(1930)$ & $5/2^-$ & 1.960 & 0.36 & 10 & 0 & 0.0491 & 0 & 0.0 & 0.0
![\[fig:pion-photoprod\] (Color online) Total cross section of pion photoproduction. Results of our calculation are compared with experimental data. Dashed lines show the contribution of Born diagrams.](pion_photoprod_pi0_p.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:pion-photoprod\] (Color online) Total cross section of pion photoproduction. Results of our calculation are compared with experimental data. Dashed lines show the contribution of Born diagrams.](pion_photoprod_pi+_n.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:pion-photoprod\] (Color online) Total cross section of pion photoproduction. Results of our calculation are compared with experimental data. Dashed lines show the contribution of Born diagrams.](pion_photoprod_pi-_p.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm"}
\[sec:results\] Results for dilepton production
===============================================
![\[fig:spectra\] (Color online) Dilepton invariant mass spectra from the reaction $\pi^- + p \rightarrow n + e^+ + e^-$ for various collision energies.](spectra.eps){width="8.6cm"}
We used the effective field theory model described in Sec. \[sec:EFT\] to calculate the matrix elements of the process $\pi^- + p \rightarrow n + e^+ + e^-$ represented by the Feynman diagrams of Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]. Then we used Eq. (\[eq:dsdm\]) to calculate the differential cross section $d\sigma/dM$. The integrations were carried out numerically using a Monte Carlo technique. The resulting dilepton spectra for various collision energies are shown in Fig. \[fig:spectra\]. The mass spectra at 1.3 GeV and below are monotonically decreasing, above 1.5 GeV pion energy the $\rho$ meson contributes. At 1.5 and 1.7 GeV energy only the tail of the $\rho$ meson spectrum is populated, still it produces a peak in the dilepton invariant mass spectrum. Note, however, that in the model no direct $\rho$ channel is included. The effect of the $\rho$ meson is encoded in the VMD form factors of hadrons.
![\[fig:channels\] (Color online) Contributions of the dominant channels to the dilepton invariant mass spectrum of the reaction $\pi^- + p \rightarrow n + e^+ + e^-$ at $\sqrt{s}=1.9$ GeV energy. See the text for the precise definition of the channels.](channels.eps){width="8.6cm"}
As the center-of-mass energy increases from 1.3 GeV to 1.9 GeV the importance of different resonances also changes. At 1.3 GeV the $s$-channel $\Delta(1232)$ contribution dominates the dilepton cross section. On the other hand at 1.9 GeV the Born term and the $s$-channel $N(1680)$ gives the dominant contribution. The $s$-channel $N(1520)$ diagram is also important. These can be seen in Fig. \[fig:channels\] which shows the contributions of the dominant channels to the dilepton spectrum at $\sqrt{s}=1.9$ GeV center-of-mass energy. Similarly to pion photoproduction, $u$-channel resonance contributions are always negligible after the inclusion of the cutoff Eq. (\[eq:uch\_cutoff\]).
In Fig. \[fig:channels\] we also show the contribution of the interference terms of the dominant channels. Note that interference terms can be negative, therefore we used a linear scale on the vertical axis. Since the interference terms are not negligible, dilepton production in $\pi N$ collisions cannot be approximated by the incoherent sum of $s$-channel baryon resonance diagrams Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](f), (which is the usual assumption in transport models), even if a background term is added to simulate the Born term. The simplest solution for transport models is to use the cross section calculated by the sum of all diagrams shown in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]. There is a price to pay for that: it is difficult to study in medium modification of baryon resonances in heavy ion reactions.
\[sec:Conc\] Conclusion
=======================
We have developed an effective field theoretical model to calculate the $\pi N \rightarrow Ne^+e^-$ cross section. We constructed an effective Lagrangian including nucleons, photons, pions and $\rho$ mesons (via VMD), and 16 baryon resonances below 2 GeV, i.e. all states with three- or four-star status except $\Delta(1950)$ and $\Delta(1920)$. We applied form factors at each vertex for internal hadron lines to account for their off-shell behavior. To maintain gauge invariance we generalized the method of Davidson-Workman [@Davidson-Workman] to the production of massive photons (with and without an intermediate $\rho$ meson). The $NN\pi$ and $\pi\pi\rho$ couplings are well known. In the derivation of the interaction Lagrangians we used the electromagnetic gauge invariance and a model inspired by SU(2) gauge theory with $\rho$ mesons as gauge bosons. This model gives relations between some of the coupling constants.
Coupling constants of baryon resonances to the $N\pi$ and $N\rho$ channels have been determined from the appropriate partial width of the resonance, while the $RN\gamma$ couplings constants have been fitted to the pion photoproduction data.
For dilepton production we obtained monotonically decreasing invariant mass spectra below 1.5 GeV center-of-mass energy, while at higher energies the VMD form factor (related to the intermediate $\rho$ meson) creates a peak at high dilepton masses. The spectrum is dominated by the Born-term, but the $N(1680)$ and $N(1520)$ and their interference terms are sizable too. The importance of interference terms contradicts the usual assumption of transport models that the cross section is dominated by incoherent sum of $s$-channel resonance contributions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank for the support by the Hungarian OTKA funds T71989 and T101438. Gy.W. thanks support from the TET-10-1-2011-0061 and ZA-15/2009 joint projects.
[99]{} W.K. Wilson *et al.* (DLS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C **57**, 1865 (1998). G. Agakichiev *et al.* (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B **690**, 118 (2010). Gy. Wolf, G. Batko, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, K. Niita, and M. Schäfer, Nucl. Phys. A **517**, 615 (1990). E.L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, M. Effenberger, and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A **653**, 301 (1999). R. Shyam and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C **67**, 065202 (2003). L.P. Kaptari and B. Kämpfer, Nucl. Phys. A **764**, 338 (2006). L.P. Kaptari and B. Kämpfer, Eur. Phys. J. A **33**, 157 (2007). R. Shyam and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C **79**, 035203 (2009). L.P. Kaptari and B. Kämpfer, Phys. Rev. C **80**, 064003 (2009). R. Shyam and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C **82**, 062201(R) (2010). H. Garcilazo and E. Moya de Guerra, Nucl. Phys. A **562**, 521 (1993). T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A **612**, 375 (1997). C. Fernández-Ramírez, E. Moya de Guerra, and J.M. Udías, Ann. Phys. (NY) **321**, 1408 (2006). J.J. Sakurai, *Currents and mesons* (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1969); Ann. Phys. (NY) **11**, 1 (1960). N.M. Kroll, T.D. Lee, and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. **157**, 1376 (1967). H.B. O’Connell *et al.*, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **39**, 201 (1997). B. Friman and H.J. Pirner, Nucl. Phys. A **617**, 496 (1997). R.M. Davidson and R. Workman, Phys. Rev. C **63**, 025210 (2001); **63**, 058201 (2001). L. Xiong, E. Shuryak, and G.E. Brown, Phys. Rev. D **46**, 3798 (1992). J.W. Durso and G.E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A **430**, 653 (1984). J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. **163**, 1727 (1976). B.G. Yu, T.K. Choi, and W. Kim, Phys. Rev. C **83**, 025208 (2011). M. I. Krivoruchenko and B. V. Martemyanov, Annals of Physics **296**, 299 (2002). M. Zétényi and Gy. Wolf, Phys. Rev. C **67**, 044002 (2003); Heavy Ion Phys. **17**, 27 (2003). S. Teis, W. Cassing, M. Effenberger, A. Hombach, U. Mosel and Gy. Wolf, Z. Phys. A **356**, 421 (1997). K. Nakamura *et al.* (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G **37**, 075021 (2010).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We extend parts of the Lagrangian spectral invariants package recently developed by Leclercq and Zapolsky to the theory of Lagrangian cobordism developed by Biran and Cornea. This yields a non-degenerate Lagrangian “spectral metric” which bounds the Lagrangian “cobordism metric” (recently introduced by Cornea and Shelukhin) from below. It also yields a new numerical Lagrangian cobordism invariant as well as new ways of computing certain asymptotic Lagrangian spectral invariants explicitly.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics, ETH Z[ü]{}rich, R[ä]{}mistrasse 101\
8092 Z[ü]{}rich, Switzerland\
*<[email protected]>*
author:
- 'Mads R. Bisgaard'
bibliography:
- 'BIBpub.bib'
title: Invariants of Lagrangian cobordisms via spectral numbers
---
Introduction
============
One approach to studying Lagrangian submanifolds of a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ which has attracted a lot of attention lately is by studying their Lagrangian cobordisms in $({\mathbb R}^2 \times M,\omega_{{\mathbb R}^2}\oplus \omega)$ (see precise definitions in Section \[secLagCob\]). Biran and Cornea showed in [@BiranCornea13] and [@BiranCornea14] that suitable Lagrangian cobordisms preserve symplectic invariants. Considering “Lagrangians up to Lagrangian cobordism” thus seems like a very natural notion for studying the *symplectic* topology of Lagrangian submanifolds. Moreover, Cornea and Shelukhin [@CorneaShelukhin15] recently discovered the existence of a remarkable “cobordism metric” $d_c$ on suitable subspaces of the space of Lagrangians in $(M,\omega)$ (see precise definitions in Section \[secLagmet\]). This metric can be viewed as a generalization of the Lagrangian version of the well-known Hofer metric introduced by Chekanov [@Chekanov00]. Motivated by these discoveries we produce a Lagrangian cobordism invariant by applying the Lagrangian spectral invariant package recently developed by Leclercq and Zapolsky in [@LeclercqZapolsky15]. We also show that spectral numbers provide functions on subsets of the space of Lagrangian submanifolds in $(M,\omega)$ to ${\mathbb R}$ which are Lipschitz continuous with respect to $d_c$ and use this to define a non-degenerate “spectral metric” which bounds $d_c$ from below.
Setting and notation {#setting}
--------------------
Throughout the paper we consider a connected symplectic manifold $(M^{2n},\omega)$ which is either closed or open and convex at infinity [@GromovEliashberg91]. We also consider the associated symplectic manifold $(\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ defined by $\tilde{M}:={\mathbb R}^2(x,y) \times M$ and $\tilde{\omega}:=\omega_{{\mathbb R}^2}\oplus \omega$, where $\omega_{{\mathbb R}^2}:=dx\wedge dy$. Unless otherwise stated, any Lagrangian submanifold $L^n\subset (M,\omega)$ will be assumed closed, connected and *monotone*. By this we mean that there is a positive constant $\tau_L>0$ satisfying $$\omega|_{\pi_2(M,L)}=\tau_L \cdot \mu|_{\pi_2(M,L)},$$ where $\omega:\pi_2(M,L) \to {\mathbb R}$ denotes integration of $\omega$ and $\mu: \pi_2(M,L)\to {\mathbb Z}$ denotes the Maslov index. We will also assume that the minimal Maslov number $N_L:=\min \{\mu(\alpha)>0\ |\ \alpha \in \pi_2(M,L) \}$ associated to $L$ satisfies $N_L \geq 2$. If $\mu|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\equiv 0$ we set $N_L=\infty$ (this is a special case of the *weakly exact* setting - see Section \[adapcob\]).
In the monotone setting both Floer homology $HF_*(L)$ and quantum homology $QH_*(L)$ of $L$ with $\Lambda$-coefficients are well-defined, where $\Lambda:={\mathbb Z}_2[t,t^{-1}]$ [@BiranCornea07], [@BiranCornea09], [@LeclercqZapolsky15], [@Zapolsky15].[^1] Here we will only work with $\Lambda$-coefficients and therefore omit them from the notation.
Given $\tau>0$ we denote by $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}=\mathcal{L}_{\tau}(M,\omega)$ the space of all Lagrangian submanifolds $L\subset (M,\omega)$ as above, satisfying the additional condition that $\tau_L=\tau$ (i.e. all Lagrangians are *uniformly monotone*). We also denote by $\mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}\subset \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ the subspace consisting of Lagrangians $L$ for which $QH_*(L)\neq 0$.
Main results {#MainResults}
============
The Lagrangian cobordism metric structure {#secLagmet}
-----------------------------------------
Given a Lagrangian cobordism $V\subset (\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ connecting two Lagrangians $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ (see Section \[secLagCob\] for precise definitions) it is natural to consider the set $\pi(V)\subset {\mathbb R}^2$, where $\pi:\tilde{M}={\mathbb R}^2 \times M \to {\mathbb R}^2$ denotes the projection. The insight that $\pi(V)$ contains valuable information originally arose during Biran and Cornea’s extensive study of Lagrangian cobordism [@BiranCornea13], [@BiranCornea14]. The idea was made quantitative in [@CorneaShelukhin15] where Cornea and Shelukhin established the existence of a remarkable natural *cobordism metric* on the space $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$.[^2] We say that the Lagrangian cobordism $V$ is *elementary* if it is connected and monotone with $N_V\geq 2$ when viewed as a Lagrangian submanifold of $(\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ (see also Section \[secLagCob\]).
Given $L,L'\subset \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ as well as an elementary Lagrangian cobordism $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$ the *outline of $V$*, $ou(V)$, is by definition the closed subset of ${\mathbb R}^2$ given as the complement of the union of unbounded components of ${\mathbb R}^2 \backslash \pi(V)$. The *shadow of $V$* is defined by $$\mathcal{S}(V):=\text{Area}(ou(V)).$$
The main result of this paper shows that $\mathcal{S}(V)$ provides a natural upper bound on the difference in spectral numbers coming from the bounding Lagrangians. The theory of spectral numbers for Lagrangian submanifolds has been developed in various settings by various authors, starting with Viterbo [@Viterbo92] and Oh [@Oh97], [@Oh99]. Here we will use the version for monotone Lagrangians recently developed by Leclercq and Zapolsky [@LeclercqZapolsky15]. Associated to a given $L\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ they defined a *spectral invariant* function $$l_L:QH_*(L)\times \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)\to {\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty\}$$ satisfying $l(\alpha,\phi)=-\infty$ if and only if $\alpha =0\in QH_*(L)$ (see Section \[SecLagInv\] for preliminaries on Lagrangian spectral invariants). To state our main result we recall that, if $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ and $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$ is an elementary Lagrangian cobordism then, by Theorem 2.2.2 in [@BiranCornea13], $V$ induces a *ring isomorphism* $\Phi_V:QH_*(L)\stackrel{\cong}{\to} QH_*(L')$.
\[lemcob1\] Let $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ and let $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$ be an elementary Lagrangian cobordism. Then $$|l_L(\alpha ,\phi)-l_{L'}(\Phi_V(\alpha),\phi)|\leq \mathcal{S}(V)$$ for all $\alpha \in QH_*(L)\backslash \{0\}$ and all $\phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$.
Example \[cobex1\] below shows that the result is sharp in the sense that there exist cobordisms $V$ for which the statement becomes false if $\mathcal{S}(V)$ is replaced by a smaller number. Cornea and Shelukhin further considered the following
Define a function $d_c:\mathcal{L}_{\tau}\times \mathcal{L}_{\tau}\to [0,\infty]$ by $$d_c(L,L'):=\inf\{\mathcal{S}(V)\ |\ V:L' \rightsquigarrow L \}, \quad L,L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}.$$ Here the infimum runs over all elementary Lagrangian cobordisms $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$.
One of the main results in Cornea and Shelukhin’s paper [@CorneaShelukhin15] is that $d_c$ in fact is a metric on $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$. Of course $d_c(L,L')=\infty$ if and only if there do not exist any elementary Lagrangian cobordisms $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$. Recall that, given $L\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$, the fundamental class $[L]\in QH_n(L)$ is the unity with respect to the ring structure on $QH_*(L)$. It is convenient to introduce the notation $l^+_L(\phi):=l_L([L],\phi)$ for $\phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$. Since $\Phi_V$ preserves the ring structure, Theorem \[lemcob1\] implies
\[corcob1\] For every pair of Lagrangian submanifolds $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ we have $$|l_L^{+}(\phi)-l_{L'}^{+}(\phi)|\leq d_c(L,L') \quad \forall \ \phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega).$$
Corollary \[corcob1\] says that, for any fixed $\phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$, the function $(\mathcal{L}^*_{\tau},d_c)\to ({\mathbb R},|\cdot| )$ given by $L'\mapsto l^+_{L'}(\phi)$ is $1$-Lipschitz. Of course this statement is only interesting when $L'\mapsto l^+_{L'}(\phi)$ is restricted to an elementary Lagrangian cobordism class $\subset \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$.
The following definition and proposition were generously suggested to us by the anonymous referee whom we wholeheartedly thank!
\[defref\] Define $d_s:\mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}\times \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}\to [0,\infty]$ by $$d_s(L,L'):= \sup \{ |l^+_L(\phi)-l^+_{L'}(\phi)|\ |\ \phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)\}, \quad L,L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}^*.$$
As the notation suggests $d_s$ is a (spectral) metric. It is clear that $d_s$ is symmetric and satisfies the triangle inequality. Hence, the only non-trivial property to check in order for $d_s$ to be a metric, is non-degeneracy.
\[propref\] $d_s:\mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}\times \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}\to [0,\infty]$ is a non-degenerate metric.
Note that this result shows that the estimate in Theorem \[lemcob1\] is non-trivial whenever $L\neq L'$. As an immediate consequence of Corollary \[corcob1\] we obtain
\[corref\] For all $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ we have $d_s(L,L')\leq d_c(L,L')$.
This result together with Proposition \[propref\] gives a new proof of the fact that the restriction of $d_c$ to $\mathcal{L}^{*}_{\tau}$ is non-degenerate. Fixing $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ one often considers the subset $\mathcal{H}(L):=\{\phi(L)\ |\ \phi \in \operatorname{Ham}(M,\omega)\}\subset \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ equipped with the Hofer metric $d_H$ [@Chekanov00]. It follows from Corollary \[corref\] and the Lagrangian suspension construction [@CorneaShelukhin15] that $$\label{cobref1}
d_s(L',L'')\leq d_c(L',L'')\leq d_H(L',L'') \quad \forall \ L',L''\in \mathcal{H}(L).$$ Denote by $\operatorname{Symp}_{c|M}(\tilde{M}, \tilde{\omega} )\leq \operatorname{Symp}(\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega} )$ the subgroup of symplectomorphisms $\psi$ which are *compactly supported relative to $M$* in the sense that there is a compact $K\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ such that $\psi|_{({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash K)\times M}=(\operatorname{id}_{{\mathbb R}^2}\times \varphi)|_{({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash K)\times M}$ for some $\varphi \in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$. Given $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$, $\psi \in \operatorname{Symp}_{c|M}(\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ and an elementary Lagrangian cobordism $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$ we obtain a new cobordism $\psi(V):\varphi(L') \rightsquigarrow \varphi(L)$. It is easy to check that $d_s$ is $\operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$-invariant and therefore Corollary \[corref\] gives a Lagrangian non-squeezing type inequality: $$\label{cobref2}
d_s(L,L') \leq \mathcal{S}(\psi(V)) \quad \forall \ \psi \in \operatorname{Symp}_{c|M}(\tilde{M}, \tilde{\omega}).$$ From this point of view it would be interesting to understand for which pairs $L',L''\in \mathcal{H}(L)$ it holds that $d_s(L',L'')=d_H(L',L'')$. For such pairs one can find Lagrangian suspensions which are (close to) “optimal” in the sense that they (almost) minimize shadow among all elementary Lagrangian cobordisms $L'' \rightsquigarrow L'$ (see also Example \[cobex1\] below). Some investigations in this direction were already carried out in Remark 5.1 in [@CorneaShelukhin15]. Moreover, Corollary \[corcob1\] above can be viewed as a generalization of a bound found in [@LeclercqZapolsky15] for the Hofer distance on the universal cover of $\mathcal{H}(L)$ for a fixed $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$.
It is an open problem to understand the extend to which $d_c$ differs from $d_H$ in our setting: The main examples of elementary Lagrangian cobordisms are Lagrangian suspensions and their images under $\operatorname{Symp}_{c|M}(\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$-elements. On the other hand there are many explicit examples of non-monotone Lagrangian cobordisms which do not arise as Lagrangian suspensions [@BiranCornea13], [@Chekanov97], [@Haug15]. In [@Bisgaard17] we study how properties similar to (\[cobref2\]) of such cobordisms are intimately linked to their topology.
[^3] \[cobex1\] Consider $T^*S^1 = {\mathbb R}/{\mathbb Z}\times {\mathbb R}$ with coordinates $(q,p)\in {\mathbb R}/{\mathbb Z}\times {\mathbb R}$ and equipped with the symplectic structure $dp \wedge dq$. Denote by $L\subset T^*S^1$ the 0-section. Define an autonomous Hamiltonian $H\in C^{\infty}(T^*S^1)$ by $H(q,p)=(\sin(2\pi q)+1)$ and let $L':=\phi_H^1(L)\subset T^*S^1$. Choose a monotone function $\rho \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb R};[0,1])$ such that for some small $\epsilon >0$ we have $\rho =0$ on $(-\infty, \epsilon]$ and $\rho=1$ on $[1-\epsilon,\infty)$. Then the Lagrangian suspension construction [@Polterovich01] applied to the time-dependent Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_t(q,p):=\rho'(t)H(q,p)$ produces an exact Lagrangian cobordism $V:L' \rightsquigarrow L$ with shadow $\mathcal{S}(V)=2$. Moreover, since $H$ has Hofer norm $=2$ we conclude that $d_{H}(L,L')\leq 2$. We claim that $d_s(L,L')\geq 2$, which by (\[cobref1\]) implies $$d_s(L,L')= d_c(L,L')= d_H(L,L')=2.$$ To see this fix a small $\epsilon >0$ and a corresponding $1> \! \! \! >\delta >0$ such that $$\max\{ H(q,p) \ | \ (q,p)\in T^*S^1\backslash B_{3\delta}(\tfrac{1}{4})\}\geq 2-\frac{\epsilon}{3},$$ where $B_{3\delta}(\tfrac{1}{4})$ denotes the ball of radius $3\delta$ centered at $\tfrac{1}{4}\in L$. Choose $\varphi_1 \in C^{\infty}(L;[0,1])$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1 \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
=0, & \text{on}\ L\cap B_{2\delta}(\tfrac{1}{4}) \\
=1, & \text{on}\ L\backslash B_{3\delta}(\tfrac{1}{4})
\end{array}
\right. \quad \& \quad
\varphi'_1 \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\leq 0, & \text{on}\ [\frac{1}{4}-3\delta, \frac{1}{4}-2\delta ] \\
\geq 0, & \text{on}\ [\frac{1}{4}+2\delta , \frac{1}{4}+3\delta],
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and define $H^1(q,p):=\varphi_1(q)H(q,p)$. Applying Lemma \[lemref1\] below together with an easy approximation argument one sees that for all $s\in [0,1]$ we have $l^+_L(sH^1)=\max_{T^*S^1}(sH^1) \geq s(2-\tfrac{\epsilon}{3})$. Fix now $\varphi_2 \in C^{\infty}(T^*S^1;[0,1])$ such that $\varphi_2=1$ outside a very small neighborhood of $L'\backslash (B_{\delta}(\tfrac{1}{4})\cup B_{\delta}(\tfrac{3}{4}))$ and $\varphi_2=0$ on an even smaller neighborhood of $L'\backslash (B_{\delta}(\tfrac{1}{4}) \cup B_{\delta}(\tfrac{3}{4}))$. Define $H^2(q,p):=\varphi_2(q,p)H^1(q,p)$. By continuity and the Lagrangian control property from [@LeclercqZapolsky15] we have $|l^+_{L'}(sH^2)|\leq \tfrac{\epsilon}{3}$ for all $s\in [0,1]$ if $\delta$ is chosen small enough. For a $s_*\in (0,1)$ very close to $1$ (depending only on the set $\{\varphi_2 \neq 1\}$) the path $\{\phi_{s_*H^1}^t(L)=\phi_{s_*H^2}^t(L)\}_{t \in [0,1]}$ is contained in the set $\{ \varphi_2=1 \}$. In particular, for every $s\in [0,s_*]$, the Hamiltonian chords of the autonomous Hamiltonian $sH^2+(s_*-s)H^1=(s_*+s(\varphi_2-1))H^1$ connecting $L$ to itself coincide with those of the Hamiltonian $s_*H^1$, and are contained in the set $\{\varphi_2=1\}$. Hence, spectrality [@LeclercqZapolsky15] gives $$l^+_L(sH^2+(s_*-s)H^1)\in \mathcal{A}_{s_*H^1:L}(\operatorname{Crit}(\mathcal{A}_{s_*H^1:L})) \quad \forall \ s\in [0,s_*].$$ Since $\mathcal{A}_{s_*H^1:L}(\operatorname{Crit}(\mathcal{A}_{s_*H^1:L}))\subset {\mathbb R}$ is nowhere dense and $$[0,s_*]\ni s \mapsto l^+_L(sH^2+(s_*-s)H^1) \in {\mathbb R}$$ is continuous we conclude that $l^+_L(s_*H^2)=l^+_L(s_*H^1)\geq s_*(2-\tfrac{\epsilon}{3})\geq 2-\tfrac{2\epsilon}{3}$ if $s_*$ is sufficiently close to $1$. Hence, $$d_s(L,L')\geq |l^+_L(s_*H^2)-l^+_{L'}(s_*H^2)|\geq |l^+_L(s_*H^2)|-|l^+_{L'}(s_*H^2)| \geq 2-\epsilon.$$ Now the claim follows by letting $\epsilon \to 0$.
A Lagrangian cobordism invariant {#Lagspecinv}
--------------------------------
Fix $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$. A nice fact about $l_L^+$ is that it satisfies the triangle inequality $$l_{L}^+(\phi \psi)\leq l_{L}^+(\phi )+l_{L}^+(\psi)\quad \forall \ \phi, \psi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega).$$ This and the continuity property of $l_L^+$ allows one to consider the asymptotic spectral invariant $\sigma_L:\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega) \to {\mathbb R}$ given by $$\sigma_L(\phi):=\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{l_L^+(\phi^k)}{k} , \quad \phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega).$$ We want to point out that, just like $l_L$, $\sigma_L$ is known to satisfy a number of “nice” properties. In the case when $L$ is the 0-section of a cotangent bundle many of these are documented in [@ZapolskyMonznerVichery12]. For the monotone setting we are considering many analogous properties follow immediately from the properties of $l_L$ which are documented in [@LeclercqZapolsky15].
Our next result shows that $\sigma_L$ can be considered as an object associated to $L$’s elementary Lagrangian cobordism class.
\[thmcob1\] Let $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$. Then the function $\sigma_L:\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)\to {\mathbb R}$ is an elementary Lagrangian cobordism invariant of $L$. In other words, if $L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ is in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class as $L$ then $\sigma_{L'}:\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)\to {\mathbb R}$ is well-defined and $\sigma_L=\sigma_{L'}$.
As mentioned in the introduction Biran and Cornea’s Lagrangian cobordism theory [@BiranCornea13], [@BiranCornea14] shows that it is desirable to be able to detect whether or not two given Lagrangians are in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class. To our knowledge, $L\mapsto \sigma_L$ is one of very few numerical invariants known for Lagrangian cobordism. Naturally one would like to make use of the algebraic structures on $\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ and properties of $\sigma_L$ to derive criteria for detecting the non-existence of elementary Lagrangian cobordisms. One example of how this can be done is the following result. Recall that $\operatorname{Ham}(M,\omega)$ is a normal subgroup of $\operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$. In particular $\operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$ acts on $\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ by conjugation $$\begin{array}{c}
\operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)\times \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega) \to \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega) \\
(\psi , \phi) \mapsto \psi \phi \psi^{-1}
\end{array}$$ As a consequence of Theorem \[thmcob1\] and the symplectic invariance property from [@LeclercqZapolsky15] we obtain
\[cobcor100\] Let $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ and $\psi \in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$. If $L$ and $\psi(L)$ are in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class then $\sigma_L$ is invariant under conjugation by $\psi$. I.e. $$\sigma_L(\phi)=\sigma_L(\psi \phi \psi^{-1}) \quad \forall \ \phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega).$$
By the Lagrangian suspension construction this result implies in particular that $\sigma_L$ is invariant under conjugation by elements of $\operatorname{Ham}(M,\omega)$. We do not know of any examples $\psi \in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)\backslash \operatorname{Ham}(M,\omega)$ such that $L$ and $\psi(L)$ are in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class.
Consider a pair of Lagrangians $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ satisfying $L\cap L'=\emptyset$. Now choose a normalized[^4] autonomous Hamiltonian $H\in C^{\infty}(M)$ satisfying $H|_L \equiv c$ and $H|_{L'} \equiv c'$ for constants $c\neq c'$. Then $$\sigma_L(\phi_H)=c\neq c'=\sigma_{L'}(\phi_H),$$ by the Lagrangian control property from [@LeclercqZapolsky15]. In view of Theorem \[thmcob1\] this observation gives a new proof of the following result which can also be derived from Biran and Cornea’s work [@BiranCornea13] (see Remark \[cobrem1\] below).
\[cobcor191919\] Let $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$. If $L' \in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ is in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class as $L$ then $L \cap L' \neq \emptyset$.
In fact there is even a third proof of this fact based on the metric $d_s$: If $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ satisfy $L\cap L' =\emptyset$ then it is easy to check that $d_s(L,L')=\infty$. In particular Corollary \[corref\] implies that $d_c(L,L')=\infty$ and therefore $L$ and $L'$ cannot be in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class.
Spectral invariants coming from Floer theory are known to be very hard to compute. However, given $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$, a consequence of Theorem \[thmcob1\] is that there is a rather large subset of $\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ on which $\sigma_L$ can be computed explicitly! Consider the subgroup $\mathcal{G}_L\subset \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ defined by $$\phi \in \mathcal{G}_L \stackrel{Def.}{\Longleftrightarrow} (\exists \{\phi_t\}_{t\in [0,1]} \in \phi \ : \ \phi_t(L)=L\ \forall \ t\in [0,1]).$$ In other words $\mathcal{G}_L$ consists exactly of the homotopy classes (rel. endpoints) of paths $\phi$ in $\operatorname{Ham}(M,\omega)$, based at the identity, which contain a path $\{\phi_t\}_{t\in [0,1]}$ satisfying $\phi_t(L)=L$ for all $t\in [0,1]$. It is easy to check that $\phi \in \mathcal{G}_L$ if and only if $\phi=\phi_H$ for a normalized $H\in C^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ satisfying $H_t|_L=c(t)$ for some $c\in C^{\infty}([0,1])$. For such a Hamiltonian the Lagrangian control property from [@LeclercqZapolsky15] reads $$\label{Cob999}
\sigma_L(\phi_H)=\int_0^1 c(t)dt.$$ Applying Theorem \[thmcob1\] this has the following interesting consequence: $\sigma_L(\phi)$ *can be computed explicitly by a formula similar to (\[Cob999\]) for every* $$\label{cobeq99999}
\phi \in \bigcup_{L'}\mathcal{G}_{L'}.$$ *Here $L'$ runs over the entire elementary Lagrangian cobordism class of $L$.* Note that, by the Lagrangian suspension construction, the orbit of $L$ under the natural action $\operatorname{Ham}(M,\omega)\times \mathcal{L}_{\tau} \to \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ is contained in the elementary Lagrangian cobordism class of $L$. It is therefore clear that the union in (\[cobeq99999\]) is a rather large set in general.
Analogues of $\sigma_L$ have a very prominent history in symplectic topology. In the case of spectral invariants coming from Hamiltonian Floer homology the study of the analogue of this quantity was pioneered by Entov and Polterovich in their development of *Calabi quasimorphisms* on $\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ [@EntovPolterovich03] (see also [@PolterovichRosen14]). In case $L$ is the zero-section of the cotangent bundle $T^*N$ of a closed manifold $N$ Monzner, Vichery and Zapolsky [@ZapolskyMonznerVichery12] showed, using ideas due to Viterbo [@Viterbo08], that $\sigma_L$ is closely related to Mather’s $\alpha$-function. Moreover, for the special case $N=\mathbb{T}^n$, they showed that $\sigma_L$ is closely related to Viterbo’s homogenization operator.
What happens in the (weakly) exact case? {#adapcob}
----------------------------------------
If one chooses to work with weakly exact Lagrangians one can obtain the results in Section \[MainResults\] in a slightly different form. For the convenience of the reader we here point out these changes.
### The case $\mu|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\equiv 0$
One alternative construction of spectral invariants which is relevant for our purposes was carried out by Leclercq [@Leclercq08] for closed Lagrangians $L\subset (M,\omega)$ verifying $$\label{eqweak}
\omega|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\equiv 0 \quad \& \quad \mu|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\equiv 0.$$ Note that the existence of such a Lagrangian in $(M,\omega)$ implies that $M$ is symplectically aspherical in the sense that $\omega|_{\pi_2(M)}\equiv 0$ and $c_1(TM)|_{\pi_2(M)}\equiv 0$. We denote by $\mathcal{L}_0$ the space of all closed Lagrangians $L\subset (M,\omega)$ satisfying (\[eqweak\]). Note that for any $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, $QH_*(L)$ reduces to $H_*(L)=H_*(L;{\mathbb Z}_2 )$. As already mentioned this setting is covered by our results in Section \[MainResults\]. However, it is also possible to recover some of our results using Leclercq’s spectral invariants which satisfy particularly nice properties. The spectral invariant function $$c(\cdot \ ;L,\cdot ):H_*(L)\times \mathcal{H}(L)\to {\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty \},$$ constructed by Leclercq in [@Leclercq08], is associated to a fixed $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$. Among other properties he showed that $c(\alpha;L, L')=-\infty $ if and only if $\alpha=0\in H_*(L)$ and, for every pair $(\alpha, L')\in H_*(L)\times \mathcal{H}(L)$ for which $\alpha \neq 0$, one has $0\leq c(\alpha;L,L')\leq d_H(L,L')$. For $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ the results in Section \[secLagmet\] continue to be true, *mutatis mutandis*, if one replaces $l_L$ by $c(\cdot \ ; L,\cdot)$. More precisely, when replacing $l_L$ by $c(\cdot \ ;L,\cdot )$, $QH_*(L)$ is replaced by $H_*(L)$, $\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ is replaced by $\mathcal{H}(L)$ and the statements hold for elementary Lagrangian cobordisms $V$ verifying $\tilde{\omega}|_{\pi_2(\tilde{M},V)}\equiv 0\equiv \mu|_{\pi_2(\tilde{M},V)}$. One could of course also study the asymptotic version of $c(\cdot \ ; L,\cdot )$. However, it is not clear to us that this quantity contains information about Lagrangian cobordisms.
### The case $\mu|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\neq 0$ {#weakex}
Recall that a Lagrangian $L\subset (M,\omega)$ is said to be weakly exact if $\omega|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\equiv 0$. We denote by $\mathcal{L}_{we}(M,\omega)$ the space of all closed and weakly exact Lagrangian submanifolds in $(M,\omega)$. In case $(M,\omega=d\lambda )$ is exact[^5] the exact Lagrangians are special cases of weakly exact Lagrangians. The version of spectral invariants developed in [@LeclercqZapolsky15] was initially constructed in the exact setting for the particular case of the zero-section in a cotangent bundle by Oh [@Oh97], [@Oh99]. The parts of Oh’s scheme which are needed for our results can also be carried out for Lagrangians in $\mathcal{L}_{we}(M,\omega)$ (see [@LeclercqZapolsky15], [@Zapolsky13]). In this setting $HF(L)$ does not necessarily carry a ${\mathbb Z}$-grading but is still isomorphic to $H(L)=\oplus_{k=0}^nH_k(L;{\mathbb Z}_2)$. Zapolsky [@Zapolsky13] showed that, for $L\in \mathcal{L}_{we}$, $l_L$ in fact descends to $\operatorname{Ham}(M,d\lambda)$: $$l_L:H(L)\times \operatorname{Ham}(M,d\lambda)\to {\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty \}.$$ Therefore, one recovers all results from Section \[Lagspecinv\] with the one difference that $\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$ can be replaced by $\operatorname{Ham}(M,d\lambda)$ throughout, given that one also restricts to looking at Lagrangian cobordisms $V$ satisfying $\tilde{\omega}|_{\pi_2(\tilde{M},V)}\equiv 0$. The same goes for the results in Section \[secLagmet\]. For additional properties of $\sigma_L$ for $L\in \mathcal{L}_{we}$ we refer to [@ZapolskyMonznerVichery12], where the case of a zero-section in a cotangent bundle is studied in detail.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
The work presented here is carried out in the framework of my PhD at the ETH Z[ü]{}rich. I am grateful to my advisors Paul Biran and Will J. Merry for all the helpful discussions. Especially I want to thank Paul for encouraging me to think independently about Lagrangian cobordisms. I also want to thank Frol Zapolsky for generously sharing his ideas on spectral invariants, Luis Haug for patiently helping me understand his work [@Haug15] and Egor Shelukhin as well as R[é]{}mi Leclercq for helping me improve the exposition of my results. Last but certainly not least I am indebted to the anonymous referee whose careful reading and generous advise significantly improved the quality of the paper.
Preliminaries on Lagrangian spectral invariants {#SecLagInv}
===============================================
Fix $L\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$. Given a pair $(H,J)$, where $H\in C^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ is a (time-dependent) Hamiltonian satisfying $\phi_H^1(L) \pitchfork L$ and $J=\{J_t\}_{t\in [0,1]}$ is a generic smooth path of $\omega$-compatible almost complex structures, one can construct the Floer homology group $HF_*(H,J:L)$. Recall that $HF_*(H,J:L)$ can be thought of as the Morse homology of the action functional $\mathcal{A}_{H:L}$. Here we view $\mathcal{A}_{H:L}$ as being defined on the space $\overline{\Omega}_L$ consisting of equivalence classes of pairs $\widetilde{\gamma}=[\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}]$ where $\gamma:([0,1],\{0,1\})\to (M,L)$ and $\widehat{\gamma}:(\dot{D}^2, \partial \dot{D}^2 )\to (M,L)$ is a capping of $\gamma$ ($\dot{D}^2=D^2\backslash \{1\} \subset {\mathbb C}$ denotes the punctured unit disc). The equivalence relation is given by identifying cappings of equal symplectic area. Following [@Zapolsky15] we use the convention[^6] $$\mathcal{A}_{H:L}(\widetilde{\gamma}=[\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}])=\int_0^1 H_t(\gamma(t)) \ dt - \int \widehat{\gamma}^*\omega, \quad \widetilde{\gamma}\in \overline{\Omega}_L.$$ Lagrangian Floer homology was first developed by Floer [@Floer88] and later developments were carried out by Oh [@Oh93], [@Oh931]. Today Lagrangian Floer theory is a well-documented theory and some of the standard references to which we refer for further details are [@Seidel08], [@Oh151] and [@Oh152]. Here and throughout the paper we will follow the conventions and notation appearing in [@Zapolsky15], to which we also refer the interested reader. Assuming $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ one can use $HF_*(H,J:L)$ to extract so-called *spectral invariants*. This idea was recently developed in the monotone setting by Leclercq and Zapolsky [@LeclercqZapolsky15]. Leclercq and Zapolsky constructed a *Lagrangian spectral invariant* function $$\label{cob20}
l_L:QH_*(L)\times \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)\to {\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty\},$$ satisfying $l_L(\alpha,\phi)=-\infty$ if and only if $\alpha=0\in QH_*(L)$. This function is defined by “mimicking” classical critical point theory as follows. $HF_*(H,J:L)$ is the homology of the Floer chain complex $(CF_*(H,J:L),d)$ where $CF_*(H,J:L)$ is the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector space generated by critical points of $\mathcal{A}_{H:L}$ and $d$ is defined by “counting finite energy Floer trajectories”. Given $a\in {\mathbb R}$ we denote by $CF^a_*(H,J:L)\subset CF_*(H,J:L)$ the subspace generated by those $\operatorname{Crit}(\mathcal{A}_{H:L})$-points whose action is $<a$. Floer-trajectories can be interpreted as negative gradient flow lines for $\mathcal{A}_{H:L}$, so $d$ restricts to a differential on $CF^a_*(H,J:L)$. We denote by $$\iota^a:CF^a_*(H,J:L) \hookrightarrow CF_*(H,J:L)$$ the inclusion and by $\iota^a_*:HF^a_*(H,J:L) \rightarrow HF_*(H,J:L)$ the map induced on homology. Identifying all the groups $HF_*(H,J:L)$ for different choices of data $(H,J)$ we obtain the Floer homology ring of $L$, $HF_*(L)$. After choosing a quantum datum for $L$, $QH_*(L)$ is well-defined and ring-isomorphic to $HF_*(L)$ via a PSS-type isomorphism $$\text{PSS}:QH_*(L)\stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} HF_*(L).$$ Given $\alpha \in QH_*(L)$ and a Floer datum $(H,J)$ Leclercq and Zapolsky define $$l_L(\alpha,H,J):=\inf\{a\in {\mathbb R}\ |\ \text{PSS}(\alpha)\in \operatorname{Image}(\iota_*^a)\subset HF_*(H,J:L)\}.$$ They then further show that $l_L(\alpha,H,J)$ is independent of $J$ and that $l_L$ descends to a function (\[cob20\]) satisfying many additional properties [@LeclercqZapolsky15].
Preliminaries on Lagrangian cobordism {#secLagCob}
=====================================
Recently Biran and Cornea introduced several new methods for studying Lagrangian submanifolds via Lagrangian cobordisms [@BiranCornea13], [@BiranCornea14]. Here we follow their work. Recall that $\pi :\tilde{M}={\mathbb R}^2 \times M\to {\mathbb R}^2$ denote the canonical projection. For subsets $V\subset \tilde{M}$ and $U\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ we write $V|_{U}=V\cap \pi^{-1}(U)$.
We say that two families $(L_i)_{i=0}^{k_-}$ and $(L'_j)_{j=0}^{k_+}$ of closed connected Lagrangian submanifolds of $(M,\omega)$ are *Lagrangian cobordant* if for some $R>0$ there exists a smooth compact Lagrangian submanifold $V\subset ([-R,R]\times {\mathbb R}\times M, \omega_{{\mathbb R}^2}\oplus \omega )$ with boundary $\partial V =V\cap (\{\pm R\}\times {\mathbb R}\times M)$ satisfying the condition that for some $\epsilon >0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cob21}
V|_{[-R,-R+\epsilon)\times {\mathbb R}}&=\bigsqcup_{i=0}^{k_-}([-R,-R+\epsilon)\times \{i\})\times L_i \\
\label{cob22}
V|_{(R-\epsilon,R]\times {\mathbb R}}&=\bigsqcup_{j=0}^{k_+}((R-\epsilon,R]\times \{j\})\times L'_j.\end{aligned}$$ In particular $V$ defines a smooth compact cobordism $(V,\bigsqcup_{i=0}^{k_-}L_i,\bigsqcup_{j=0}^{k_+}L'_j)$. We write $V:(L'_j)_j \rightsquigarrow (L_i)_i$.
Our notation will not distinguish between a Lagrangian cobordism and its obvious horizontal ${\mathbb R}$-extension. This extension is a *Lagrangian with cylindrical ends*. More generally we have
A *Lagrangian with cylindrical ends* is a Lagrangian submanifold $V\subset (\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ without boundary satisfying the conditions that $V|_{[a,b]\times {\mathbb R}}$ is compact for all $a<b$ and that there exists $R>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
V|_{(-\infty,-R]\times {\mathbb R}}&=\bigsqcup_{i=0}^{k_-}((-\infty,-R]\times \{a^-_i\})\times L_i \\
V|_{[R,\infty)\times {\mathbb R}}&=\bigsqcup_{j=0}^{k_+}([R,\infty)\times \{a^+_j\})\times L'_j\end{aligned}$$ for Lagrangians $L_i,L'_j \subset (M,\omega)$ and constants $a^-_i,a^+_j\in {\mathbb R}$ verifying $a^-_i\neq a^-_{i'}$ for $i\neq i'$ and $a^+_j\neq a^+_{j'}$ for $j\neq j'$.
We will be interested in specific Lagrangian cobordisms and Lagrangians with cylindrical ends which allow us to compare Floer-theoretic invariants of the ends.
Given two families $(L_i)_{i=0}^{k_-},(L'_j)_{j=0}^{k_+}\subset \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ we say that a Lagrangian cobordism $V:(L'_j)_j \rightsquigarrow (L_i)_i$ is *admissible* if $V\subset (\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ is itself a monotone, connected Lagrangian submanifold with monotonicity constant $\tau_V=\tau$ and minimal Maslov number $N_V \geq 2$. We say that $V$ is an *elementary Lagrangian cobordism* if $V$ is admissible and satisfies $k_+=k_-=0$, i.e. if there is only one positive and one negative end.
For examples of Lagrangian cobordisms we refer to [@Haug15], [@BiranCornea13] and [@Chekanov97].
Note that “being cobordant by an elementary Lagrangian cobordism” is an equivalence relation on $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$.
\[cobrem1\] If $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ are in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class then the Floer homology group $HF(L,L')$ with coefficients in the universal Novikov ring over the base ring ${\mathbb Z}_2$ is well-defined [@BiranCornea13]. If $QH_*(L)\neq 0$ then results from [@BiranCornea13] imply that $HF(L,L')\neq 0$. In particular Corollary \[cobcor191919\] follows.
Quantum (and Floer) homology for Lagrangians with cylindrical ends was introduced by Biran and Cornea [@BiranCornea13], [@BiranCornea14] and further studied by Singer [@Singer15]. Since action estimates are crucial for our intentions we will make some small adaptions in the construction of Lagrangian Floer homology from [@BiranCornea13] to make it suit our purposes.
Proofs of results {#Lagsecproof}
=================
Here we develop the theory needed to prove our results. Most of our results are in fact consequences of Theorem \[lemcob1\] whose proof we postpone until the end. For the proof of Proposition \[propref\] it will be convenient to view $l_L$ as a function $$l_L:QH_*(L)\times C^{\infty}_c([0,1]\times M)\to {\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty\},$$ so that we don’t have to worry about normalizing our Hamiltonians [@LeclercqZapolsky15]. Given $L\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ we will denote by $U=U(L)\subset M$ a Darboux-Weinstein neighborhood of $L\subset M$. In particular we have a neighborhood $W=W(L)\subset T^*L$ of $L\subset T^*L$ and a symplectic identification $U\approx W$ which restricts to the identity on $L$ [@McDuffSalamon98]. For the proof of Proposition \[propref\] we will need
\[lemref1\] Fix $L\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$. Denote $b:U\to L$ the restriction of the base-point map $T^*L\to L$ to $W\approx U$. Let $h\in C^{\infty}(L)$ be a Morse function such that $\max_L|h|< \tfrac{\tau_L N_L}{2}$ and $\operatorname{Graph}(dh)\subset Y$, where $Y$ is a precompact and fiber-wise convex neighborhood of the 0-section in $W\approx U$. Define $H\in C^{\infty}_c(M)$ by $H:=\varphi b^*h$, where $\varphi \in C^{\infty}_c(U;[0,1])$ is a cutoff satisfying $\varphi|_Y\equiv 1$. Then there exists $q\in \operatorname{Crit}_n(h)$ such that[^7] $$l^+_L(H)=h(q).$$
Let $L,L'\in \mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$ with $L\neq L'$. Denote by $b:U(L) \to L$ the restriction of the base-point map $T^*L\to L$ to $W(L)\approx U(L)$. Choose $q\in L \backslash L'$ and a Morse function $f\in C^{\infty}(L)$ such that $\operatorname{Crit}_n(f)=\{q\}$. Fix a Morse chart $B\subset L\backslash L'$ at $q$ and a bump function $h\in C_c^{\infty}(B)$ attaining its unique maximum at $q$ with $0<h(q)<\tfrac{\tau_LN_L}{2}$. By perhaps rescaling $h$ we may assume that $\operatorname{Graph}(dh|_B)\cap (L'\cap U(L))=\emptyset$ and choose a cutoff $\varphi \in C^{\infty}_c(U(L))$ as in Lemma \[lemref1\] such that $\varphi|_{b^{-1}(B)\cap L'}=0$. Consider for small $\epsilon \geq 0$ the autonomous Hamiltonian $H^{\epsilon}:=\varphi b^*(h+\epsilon f)\in C^{\infty}_c(M)$. Since $H^{0}|_{L'}\equiv 0$ the Lagrangian control property from [@LeclercqZapolsky15] implies that $l^+_{L'}(H^{0})=0$. Moreover, for all small $\epsilon >0$ we have $$l^+_L(H^{\epsilon})=h(q)+\epsilon f(q)$$ by the lemma and $H^{\epsilon} \stackrel{\epsilon \to 0}{\longrightarrow} H^{0}$ uniformly. Thus, continuity of $l_L^{+}$ implies $l^+_L(H^{0})=h(q)$. Hence, $$d_s(L,L')\geq |l_L^+(\phi_{H^{0}})-l_{L'}^+(\phi_{H^{0}})|=|l_L^+(H^{0})-l_{L'}^+(H^{0})|=h(q) >0.$$
By the spectrality property of $l_L$ [@LeclercqZapolsky15] and the fact that $[L]\in QH_n(L)$ we know that $l_L^+(H)= \mathcal{A}_{H:L}([\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}])$ for some $[\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}]\in \operatorname{Crit}(\mathcal{A}_{H:L})$ whose Conley-Zehnder index equals $n$. By construction of $H$ we can identify $[\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}]\approx [q,\widehat{q}]$ where $q\in \operatorname{Crit}(h)$ and $\widehat{q}$ is a topological disc in $M$ with boundary on $L$. The Conley-Zehnder index of $[q,\widehat{q}]$ equals $|q|_h-\mu(\widehat{q})$, where $|q|_h$ denotes the Morse index of $q$ and $\mu$ denotes the Maslov index [@Zapolsky15]. We claim that we must have $|q|_h=n$. To see this, assume for contradiction that $|q|_h<n$. Then $\mu(\widehat{q})=|q|_h-n<0$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{H:L}([\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}])&=\int_0^1H(\gamma(t))dt-\int \widehat{\gamma}^*\omega =h(q)-\omega(\widehat{q}) \\
&=h(q)-\tau_L\mu(\widehat{q})\geq -\max_{L}|h|+\tau_LN_L> \frac{\tau_LN_L}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ But by the continuity property of $l^+_L$ we also have $$|\mathcal{A}_{H:L}([\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}])|=|l_L^+(H)|\leq \max_M|H|=\max_L|h|<\frac{\tau_LN_L}{2},$$ which is a contradiction. This shows that $|q|_h=n$ and therefore $\mu(\widehat{q})=|q|_h-n=0$. It follows that $$l_L^+(H)= \mathcal{A}_{H:L}([\gamma, \widehat{\gamma}])=h(q)-\tau_L \mu(\widehat{q})=h(q).$$
In the above proof we used the ${\mathbb Z}$-grading on $HF_*(L)$. If $L\in \mathcal{L}_{we}(M,\omega)$ with $\mu|_{\pi_2(M,L)}\neq 0$ then $HF(L)$ does not necessarily carry a ${\mathbb Z}$-grading (see Section \[weakex\]). However, Proposition \[propref\] continues to hold true also in this setting. We will not need this and therefore not carry out the proof. The basic idea is that, if the condition $\max_L|h|< \tfrac{\tau_L N_L}{2}$ in the statement of Lemma \[lemref1\] is replaced by the condition that $h$ be $C^2$-small, then the Floer chain complex $CF(H,J:L)$ of the weakly exact Lagrangian $L$ reduces to the Floer chain complex $CF(H|_U,J|_U:L)$ of $L$ viewed as a the 0-section in $W\approx U$ (see [@Oh96]). But this chain complex carries a ${\mathbb Z}$-grading, simply given by the index of the critical points of $h$, so the above argument can be carried out.
Note first that the existence of $\Phi_V$ guarantees that any $L'\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ in the same elementary Lagrangian cobordism class as $L$ is in fact an element of $\mathcal{L}^*_{\tau}$, so indeed $\sigma_{L'}:\widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)\to {\mathbb R}$ is well-defined. Moreover $L'$ and $L$ are in the same class if and only if $d_c(L,L')<\infty$. Assuming this is the case Corollary \[corcob1\] gives $$|\sigma_L(\phi)-\sigma_{L'}(\phi)|= \lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{|l_L^+(\phi^k)-l_{L'}^+(\phi^k)|}{k}\leq \lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{d_c(L,L')}{k}=0$$ for all $\phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$.
Note first that $\psi(L)\in \mathcal{L}_{\tau}$. Recall from [@BiranCornea07] and [@LeclercqZapolsky15] that any $\psi\in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$ induces an isomorphism $$\psi_*:QH_*(L) \to QH_*(\psi(L)).$$ Clearly $\psi_*$ maps $[L]$ to $[\psi(L)]$. In particular it follows from the symplectic invariance property of Lagrangian spectral invariants [@LeclercqZapolsky15] that $$l_L^+(\phi)=l_{\psi(L)}^+(\psi \phi \psi^{-1}) \quad \forall \ \phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega).$$ Assuming the existence of an elementary Lagrangian cobordism $V:L\rightsquigarrow \psi(L)$ it therefore follows from Theorem \[thmcob1\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_L(\phi)&=\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{l_L^+(\phi^k)}{k}=\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{l_{\psi(L)}^+(\psi \phi^k \psi^{-1})}{k}\\
&=\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{l_{\psi(L)}^+((\psi \phi \psi^{-1})^k)}{k}=\sigma_{\psi(L)}(\psi \phi \psi^{-1})=\sigma_{L}(\psi \phi \psi^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$
Floer homology, PSS and spectral invariants for Lagrangians with cylindrical ends
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this section we consider a connected monotone Lagrangian submanifold $V\subset (\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ with cylindrical ends and minimal Maslov number $N_V \geq 2$. We denote by $(L_i)_{i=0}^{k_-}$ the family of Lagrangians in $(M,\omega )$ corresponding to negative ends of $V$ and by $(L'_j)_{j=0}^{k_+}$ the family of Lagrangians in $(M,\omega )$ corresponding to positive ends of $V$.
### Floer homology with Hamiltonian perturbations for Lagrangians with cylindrical ends {#HFcylends}
Our reference for Lagrangian Floer homology is [@Zapolsky15] and we adopt the conventions used there. Since we work in the setting of Lagrangians with cylindrical ends we will apply the machinery developed in [@BiranCornea13] and [@BiranCornea14] to deal with compactness issues. Due to the fact that we use many different references we will here point out how to combine the different approaches.
Here, following [@BiranCornea14], Floer homology will be based on the choice of a class of *perturbation functions* $h\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^2)$. Our requirements of $h$ will differ slightly from those in [@BiranCornea14]. We therefore point out the specific conditions which $h$ needs to satisfy. Fix a number $R>0$ such that $V$ is cylindrical outside $[-R,R]^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cob6}
V|_{{\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-R,R]^2}=& \left(\bigsqcup_{i=0}^{k_-}(-\infty,-R]\times \{a^-_i\}\times L_i\right)\cup \left( \bigsqcup_{j=0}^{k_+}[R,\infty)\times \{a^+_j\}\times L_j'\right).\end{aligned}$$ We will require the following of $h$.
(i) Fix $\epsilon >0$ so small that all the sets $V_j^+=[R,\infty)\times [a_j^+-\epsilon,a_j^++\epsilon]$ and $V_j^-=(-\infty,-R]\times [a_j^--\epsilon,a_j^++\epsilon]$ are pairwise disjoint. We require that the support of $h$ be contained in the union of these and $[-C,C]^2$ where $C:=R+1$.
(ii) The Hamiltonian isotopy $\phi_h^t$ associated to $h$ exists for all $t\in {\mathbb R}$.
(iii) The restriction of $h$ to each of the sets $T_j^+=[C,\infty)\times [a_j^+-\tfrac{\epsilon}{2},a_j^++\tfrac{\epsilon}{2}]$ and $T_j^-=(-\infty,-C]\times [a_j^--\tfrac{\epsilon}{2},a_j^++\tfrac{\epsilon}{2}]$ takes the form $$\label{cob5}
h(x,y)=\alpha_j^{\pm}x+\beta_j^{\pm}$$ where each $\alpha_j^{\pm}\in {\mathbb R}\backslash \{0\}$ has absolute value so small that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_h^t([C,\infty)\times \{a_j^+\})&\subset T_j^{+} \quad \forall \ t\in [-1,1]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_h^t((-\infty, -C]\times \{a_j^-\})&\subset T_j^{-} \quad \forall \ t\in [-1,1].\end{aligned}$$
(iv) $\phi_h^t([-C,C]^2)=[-C,C]^2$ for all $t\in [-1,1]$.
It is easy to verify the existence of such an $h$ and having fixed one we denote by $\mathfrak{h}$ the corresponding class of perturbation functions. This class is defined as follows: $h' \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^2)$ is an element of $\mathfrak{h}$ if and only if it satisfies (i)-(iv) and $h=h'$ outside $[-C,C]^2$.
Given a fixed class of perturbation functions $\mathfrak{h}$ we now specify the requirements for the data going into the definition of the Floer chain complexes we want to consider.
(i) $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ denotes the space of all Hamiltonians $\tilde{H}\in C^{\infty}([0,1]\times \tilde{M})$ satisfying the condition that there is a compact subset $Y\subset (-C,C)^2$ (depending on $\tilde{H}$) such that $$\label{cob1}
\tilde{H}_t(z,p)=h(z)+H_t(p) \quad \forall \ (t,z,p)\in [0,1]\times ({\mathbb R}^2\backslash Y)\times M,$$ for some Hamiltonian $H\in C_c^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ and some $h\in \mathfrak{h}$.
(ii) $\tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ denotes the space of time dependent $\tilde{\omega}$-compatible almost complex structures $\tilde{J}=\{\tilde{J}_t\}_{t\in [0,1]}$ on $\tilde{M}$ satisfying the additional condition that the canonical projection $\pi: \tilde{M} \to {\mathbb R}^2$ restricts to a $(\tilde{J}_t,(\phi_h^t)_*i)$-holomorphic map on $({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-C,C]^2)\times M$ for all $t\in [0,1]$ . Here $i$ denotes the canonical complex structure on ${\mathbb C}\approx {\mathbb R}^2$ and $h$ is some element of $\mathfrak{h}$.
Note that $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ is a convex space. Given a non-degenerate $\tilde{H}\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$, in the sense that $\phi_{\tilde{H}}^1(V) \pitchfork V$, and a generic $\tilde{J}\in \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ we want to consider the Floer chain complex $$(CF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V),d ),$$ defined in [@Zapolsky15]. Due to our non-compact setting we need to verify that all finite energy Floer trajectories, i.e. finite energy solutions $u:{\mathbb R}\times [0,1]\to \tilde{M}$ of Floer’s equation $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_su +\tilde{J}_t(u)(\partial_tu -X_{\tilde{H}_t}(u))=0 \\
u({\mathbb R}\times \{0,1\})\subset V,
\end{array}
\right.$$ stay in a compact set. The next proposition ensures that this is the case.
\[propcob1\] Let $\tilde{H}\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ be non-degenerate and let $\tilde{J}\in \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$. Then all finite energy solutions of Floer’s equation are contained in $[-C,C]^2\times M$. As a consequence the pair $(\tilde{H},\tilde{J})$ is regular for generic $\tilde{J}\in \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ in the sense that $(CF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V),d )$ is a well-defined chain complex. Moreover, for every two regular Floer data $(\tilde{H}^-,\tilde{J}^-),(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}^+)\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}} \times \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ and every regular homotopy of Floer data from $(\tilde{H}^-,\tilde{J}^-)$ to $(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}^+)$, there is a continuation chain map $$(CF_*(\tilde{H}^-,\tilde{J}^-:V),d )\to (CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}^+:V),d ),$$ which induces an isomorphisms on homology. This isomorphism is canonical in the sense that it is independent of the choice of regular homotopy of Floer data.
This follows immediately from the compactness and transversality arguments carried out in [@BiranCornea13] and [@BiranCornea14]. In fact the compactness argument runs analogously to the one carried out in the proof of Proposition \[propcob2\] below.
As usual we will identify all Floer homology groups via the canonical isomorphisms induced by continuation maps. In this way we obtain an abstract Floer homology group which we denote by $HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h})$.
As explained in Section \[SecLagInv\] the main structure needed to extract spectral invariants from homology groups is an ${\mathbb R}$-filtration. Given $a \in {\mathbb R}$ and a regular Floer datum $(\tilde{H},\tilde{J})\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}\times \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$, we denote by $(CF_*^{a}(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V),d)$ the Floer chain complex generated by critical points of the action functional $\mathcal{A}_{\tilde{H}:V}$ whose action is $<a$. This is a well-defined chain complex because the Floer differential $d$ is action decreasing. We denote by $HF_*^{a}(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)$ its homology and by $\iota^{a}_*:HF_*^{a}(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)\to HF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)$ the map induced by the inclusion $\iota^{a}:(CF_*^{a}(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V),d)\hookrightarrow (CF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V),d)$.
### The PSS isomorphism
Suppose we are given a Lagrangian $V\subset (\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$ with cylindrical ends as above together with a regular quantum datum $\mathcal{D}=(\tilde{f},\tilde{\rho},\tilde{J}')$ *adapted to the exit region* $S=\partial V$ in the sense of Section 3 in [@Singer15]. Here $(\tilde{f},\tilde{\rho})$ denotes a Morse-Smale pair on $V$ satisfying additional conditions as in [@Singer15]. In particular $\tilde{f}$ is required to be split on $$\left(\bigsqcup_{i=0}^{k_-}(-\infty,-R+\delta]\times \{a^-_i\}\times L_i \right)\cup \left( \bigsqcup_{j=0}^{k_+}[R-\delta,\infty)\times \{a^+_j\}\times L'_j\right)$$ for some small $\delta > 0$ and $-\nabla^{\tilde{\rho}}\tilde{f}$ is required to point outwards along $\partial V|_{[-R,R]^2}$. Also, $\tilde{J}'$ denotes a generic almost complex structure on $\tilde{M}$ satisfying the condition that $\pi:\tilde{M}\to {\mathbb R}^2$ restricts to a $(\tilde{J}',i)$-holomorphic function on $({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-R+\delta,R-\delta]^2) \times M$. As showed in [@Singer15] and [@BiranCornea13] the quantum chain complex $(QC_*(\mathcal{D}:V,\partial V),d)$ is then an honest chain complex whose homology $QH_*(\mathcal{D}:V,\partial V)$ is independent of the choice of regular quantum datum $\mathcal{D}$.
We now fix a choice of perturbation function $h$ for $V$ and require it satisfy the following condition, which is identical to the one used in Section 5.2 of [@BiranCornea13]. $$\label{cob7}
\begin{array}{c}
\text{For every $j\in \{1,\ldots ,k_{\pm}\}$ the constant $\alpha_j^{\pm}$ in} \\ \text{(\ref{cob5}) is required to satisfy $\pm \alpha_j^{\pm}<0$.}
\end{array}$$ Denote by $\mathfrak{h}$ the corresponding class of perturbation functions. It was discovered in [@BiranCornea13] (see also Remark 3.5.1. in [@BiranCornea14]) that this specific choice of class implies that there is a PSS-type isomorphism $QH_*(V,\partial V) \cong HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h})$. Fixing a regular Floer datum $(\tilde{H},\tilde{J})\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}\times \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ we will now point out how this isomorphism adapts to our setup. More precisely, we will define chain maps $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cob2}
\operatorname{PSS}_+:QC_*(\mathcal{D}: V,\partial V)\to CF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)\\
\label{cob3}
\operatorname{PSS}_-:CF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)\to QC_*(\mathcal{D}: V,\partial V)\end{aligned}$$ which, at the level of homology, are inverse to each other and induce a canonical isomorphism $QH_*(V,\partial V)\cong HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h})$. In the standard case of closed monotone Lagrangians of closed symplectic manifolds this was carried out in [@BiranCornea07]. Moreover, the construction is described in great detail in [@Zapolsky15].
We first introduce some notation. Define $Z:={\mathbb R}\times [0,1]$ and $Z_{\pm}:=\{(s,t)\in Z\ | \ \pm s \geq 0\}$, viewed as subsets of ${\mathbb R}^2 \approx {\mathbb C}$. We will think of $D^2=\{z\in {\mathbb C}\ |\ |z|\leq 1\}$ as a Riemann surface with boundary equipped with the conformal structure it inherits from ${\mathbb C}$. Define also $D_{\pm}:=D^2 \backslash \{\pm 1\}$ where we view $\pm 1$ as a positive $(+)$, repectively negative $(-)$, boundary puncture in the sense of [@Zapolsky15] (see also [@Seidel08]) and equip the punctures with the standard strip-like ends $\epsilon_{\pm}:Z_{\pm}\to D_{\pm}$ given by $$\epsilon_{\pm}(z)=\frac{e^{\pi z}-i}{e^{\pi z}+i}, \quad z\in Z_{\pm}.$$ Choose once and for all two functions $a_{\pm}\in C^{\infty}(D_{\pm},[0,1])$ satisfying the following conditions:
(i) $a_{\pm}(z)=0$ whenever $z \notin \operatorname{Image}(\epsilon_{\pm})$ or $z=\epsilon_{\pm}(s,t)$ for $t=0$ and/or $\pm s\leq 1$.
(ii) $a_{\pm}(\epsilon_{\pm}(s,t))=t$ whenever $\pm s\geq 2$.
(iii) $\pm \partial_s(a_{\pm}\circ \epsilon_{\pm})(s,1)>0$ whenever $1<\pm s<2$.
Following [@BiranCornea14] we consider now a specific type of perturbation data $(\tilde{K}^{\pm},\tilde{I}^{\pm})$ on $D_{\pm}$, compatible with the Floer data $(\tilde{H},\tilde{J})$. That is, we will consider pairs $(\tilde{K}^{\pm},\tilde{I}^{\pm})$ where $\tilde{K}^{\pm}\in \Omega^1(D_{\pm},C^{\infty}(\tilde{M}))$ is a 1-form on $D_{\pm}$ with values in $C^{\infty}(\tilde{M})$ and $(\tilde{I}^{\pm}_z)_{z\in D_{\pm}}$ is a family of $\tilde{\omega}$-compatible almost complex structures on $\tilde{M}$. The specific requirements we make are as follows.
(i) Globally (on all of $D_{\pm}$) we have $\tilde{K}^{\pm}=da_{\pm}\otimes \tilde{h} + k_{\pm}$ where $\tilde{h}:=h\circ \pi$ for some $h\in \mathfrak{h}$ and each of the other ingredients are required to satisfy
(a) $\epsilon_{\pm}^*\tilde{K}^{\pm}=\tilde{H}dt$ on $\{(s,t)\in Z_{\pm}\ |\ \pm s\geq 2\}$.
(b) $\tilde{K}^{\pm}=0$ on $D_{\pm}\backslash \operatorname{Image}(\epsilon_{\pm})$ and $\epsilon_{\pm}^*\tilde{K}^{\pm}=0$ on $\{(s,t)\in Z_{\pm}\ |\ \pm s\leq 1\}$.
(c) $k_{\pm}(\xi)=0$ for all $\xi \in T\partial D_{\pm}$.
(d) For $C= R+1$ as in the previous subsection we have $d\pi(X_{k_{\pm}})=0$ on $({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-C,C]^2)\times M$.
(ii) $\tilde{I}^{\pm}_z=\tilde{J}'$ for all $z=\epsilon_{\pm}(s,t)$ with $\pm s<1$.
(iii) $\tilde{I}^{\pm}_z=\tilde{J}_t$ for all $z=\epsilon_{\pm}(s,t)$ with $\pm s>2$.
(iv) $\tilde{I}^{\pm}$ satisfies the condition, that the restriction of $\pi:\tilde{M}\to {\mathbb R}^2$ to $({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-C,C]^2)\times M$ is $(I^{\pm}_z,(\phi_h^{a_{\pm}(z)})_*i)$-holomorphic for all $z\in D_{\pm}$.
We will call a perturbation datum $(\tilde{K}^{\pm},\tilde{I}^{\pm})$ satisying these specified criteria a *$\operatorname{PSS}$-admissible perturbation datum*. Having chosen $(\tilde{K}^{\pm},\tilde{I}^{\pm})$ we consider solutions $u_{\pm}\in C^{\infty}(D_{\pm},{\mathbb R}^2 \times M)$ of $$\label{cob4}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
d_zu_{\pm}+\tilde{I}^{\pm}_z \circ d_zu_{\pm} \circ i= X_{\tilde{K}^{\pm}}+\tilde{I}^{\pm}_z \circ X_{\tilde{K}^{\pm}} \circ i\\
u_{\pm}(\partial D_{\pm})\subset V,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where for $\xi \in T_zD_{\pm}$ the term $X_{\tilde{K}^{\pm}(\xi)}$ denotes the Hamiltonian vector field of the autonomous Hamiltonian $\tilde{K}^{\pm}(\xi)\in C^{\infty}(\tilde{M})$. The following compactness result is a small adaption of the compactness argument appearing in [@BiranCornea14].
\[propcob2\] Let $u_+\in C^{\infty}(D_{+},\tilde{M})$ be a solution of the “$+$”-case of (\[cob4\]) and let $u_-\in C^{\infty}(D_{-},\tilde{M})$ be a solution of the “$-$”-case of (\[cob4\]) satisfying the condition $$\label{cob8}
u_-(1)\in [-C,C]^2\times M.$$ Moreover, suppose both $u_{\pm}$ have finite energy. Then $u_{\pm}(D_{\pm})\subset [-C,C]^2\times M$.
The argument is the same for the two cases, so we only consider $u:=u_+:D_+\to \tilde{M}$. First note that, since $u$ has finite energy, $u\circ \epsilon_+(s,t)$ converges to a Hamiltonian chord of $\tilde{H}$ connecting $V$ to itself when $s\to \infty$. Since $\tilde{H}\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ all such chords are contained in $[-C,C]^2\times M$. Now define $\tilde{h}:=h\circ \pi :\tilde{M}\to {\mathbb R}$ for some $h\in \mathfrak{h}$ and consider the map $v\in C^{\infty}(D_+,\tilde{M})$ defined by the equation $u(z)=\phi_{\tilde{h}}^{a_+(z)}(v(z)),\ z\in D_+$. Differentiation reveals that $v$ satisfies $$d_zv+\tilde{I}'_z \circ d_zv \circ i= Y+\tilde{I}'_z \circ Y \circ i,$$ where $X_{\tilde{K^{+}}}=d\phi_{\tilde{h}}^{a_+(z)}(Y)+da_+ \otimes X_{\tilde{h}}$ and $\tilde{I}^+_z=(\phi_{\tilde{h}}^{a_+(z)})_*\tilde{I}'_z$. Moreover, $v$ satisfies the “moving boundary condition” $$v(z)\in (\phi_{\tilde{h}}^{a_+(z)})^{-1}(V) \quad \forall \ z\in \partial D_+.$$ Note that it follows from the requirements of $\tilde{K}^{\pm}$ and $\tilde{I}^{\pm}$ that, outside the compact subset[^8] $$U:=[-C,C]^2\times M=\bigcup_{t\in [0,1]}(\phi_{\tilde{h}}^t)^{-1}([-C,C]^2\times M) \subset \tilde{M},$$ we have $\tilde{I}'_z=i\oplus J_z$ for some almost complex structure $J_z$ on $M$ and $d_{v(z)}\pi(Y)=0$ for all $z\in D_+$. In particular $\tilde{v}:=\pi \circ v:D_+\to {\mathbb C}$ restricts to a holomorphic function on $v^{-1}(\tilde{M}\backslash U)$. It then follows, using the open mapping theorem from complex analysis and the conformal properties of holomorphic maps as in the proof of Lemma 3.3.2 of [@BiranCornea14], that the assumption $\tilde{v}(D_+)\cap ({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-C,C]) \neq \emptyset$ contradicts the convergence statement made in the beginning of the proof. Hence $\tilde{v}({\mathbb R}\times [0,1])\subset [-C,C]^2$. Since $\phi_h^t$ preserves $[-C,C]^2$ for all $t\in [-1,1]$ the statement follows.
We note that, since $-\nabla^{\tilde{\rho}}\tilde{f}$ points outwards along $\partial V|_{[-R,R]^2}$, the only relevant solutions of the “$-$”-case of (\[cob4\]) for defining $\operatorname{PSS}$ are those satisfying (\[cob8\]). Transversality issues and energy estimates for moduli spaces of such solutions are dealt with in [@BiranCornea14]. With these observations at hand we can define (\[cob2\]) and (\[cob3\]) exactly as in [@BiranCornea07] or [@Zapolsky15], to which we refer for details. We recall that (\[cob2\]) is defined “by counting” rigid constellations of pearly trajectories and finite energy solutions $u_+$ of (\[cob4\]) subject to the condition that the pearly trajectory “ends” at $u_+(-1)$. (\[cob3\]) is defined similarly.
Following [@Zapolsky15] one now checks that the homology isomorphism $\operatorname{PSS}:QH_*(\mathcal{D}: V;\partial V)\to HF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)$ is independent of the chosen data and that it respects continuation isomorphisms. Moreover in [@Singer15] it is shown that $QH_*(V,\partial V)$ is a unital algebra, and by the standard arguments we have a canonical isomorphism $\operatorname{PSS}:QH_*(V,\partial V)\to HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h})$ of unital algebras.
It is important to note that the specific requirement (\[cob7\]) imposed on the elements in $\mathfrak{h}$ in order for the PSS map $QH_*(V,\partial V)\cong HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h})$ to exist is closely connected with the definition of $QH_*(V,\partial V)$. To see the connection we suggest the curious reader take a look at the proof of Proposition 5.2 in [@BiranCornea13].
Note that a consequence of the above discussion is that for any two choices of perturbation functions $h^{\pm}$ satisfying (\[cob7\]), but are in distinct classes $h^-\in \mathfrak{h}^-$, $h^+\in \mathfrak{h}^+$ there is a natural isomorphism $HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h}^-)\cong QH_*(V,\partial V) \cong HF_*(V,\mathfrak{h}^+)$ provided by $\operatorname{PSS}$.
### Spectral invariants for Lagrangians with cylindrical ends
We will apply the machinery developed in [@LeclercqZapolsky15] to Lagrangians with cylindrical ends. The translation to our setup is more or less immediate and we will only need a minimum of properties developed there, so we will here only mention the details needed to carry those properties over to our setup. Let $h$ be a choice of perturbation function satisfying (\[cob7\]) and $\mathfrak{h}$ the corresponding perturbation function class. If $(\tilde{H},\tilde{J})\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}\times \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ is a regular Floer datum and $\alpha \in QH_*(V,\partial V)$ we define $$\label{cob9}
l(\alpha, \tilde{H},\tilde{J}):=\inf\{a \in {\mathbb R}\ | \ \operatorname{PSS}(\alpha)\in \operatorname{Image}(\iota^{a}_*)\subset HF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V) \}.$$ which is an element of ${\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty\}$. Here $\iota^{a}_*$ denotes the map on homology induced by the natural map $\iota^{a}:CF_*^{a}(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)\to CF_*(\tilde{H},\tilde{J}:V)$. It is immediate that $l(0,\tilde{H},\tilde{J})=-\infty$. For $\alpha \neq 0$ an argument from[^9] [@LeclercqZapolsky15] shows that the existence of continuation isomorphisms implies that $$\label{cob11}
\int_0^1 \min_{\tilde{M}}(\tilde{H}_t^- - \tilde{H}_t^+)dt\leq l(\alpha,\tilde{H}^-,\tilde{J}^-) -l(\alpha, \tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}^+) \leq \int_0^1 \max_{\tilde{M}}(\tilde{H}_t^- - \tilde{H}_t^+)dt$$ for any two regular Floer data $(\tilde{H}^-,\tilde{J}^-),(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}^+)\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}\times \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$. In particular it follows that (\[cob9\]) does not depend on the specific choice of compatible almost complex structure $\tilde{J}$. We therefore write $l(\alpha, \tilde{H})=l(\alpha, \tilde{H},\tilde{J})$. When we want to emphasize that $l$ is associated to the relative quantum homology $QH_*(V,\partial V)$ we write $l_{(V,\partial V)}(\alpha, \tilde{H})=l(\alpha, \tilde{H})$. Moreover, it follows from (\[cob11\]) and genericity of non-degenerate Floer data that $l_{(V,\partial V)}$ extends by continuity to a function $$\label{cob10}
l_{(V,\partial V)}:QH_*(V,\partial V)\times \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}\to {\mathbb R}\cup \{-\infty\}$$ satisfying $l_{(V,\partial V)}(\alpha,\tilde{H})=-\infty$ if and only if $\alpha=0\in QH_*(V,\partial V)$.
Proof of Theorem \[lemcob1\]
----------------------------
For the convenience of the reader the proof is split into several steps. We make use of the notation from the statement of the theorem.
*Step 1: The definition of $\Phi_V$*. We briefly recall the definition of the canonical restriction map $j':QH_*(V,\partial V)\to QH_{*-1}(L')$. For details we refer to Section 9 in [@Singer15]. Fix $R>0$ such that $$V|_{{\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-R,R]^2}= \left((-\infty,-R]\times \{0\}\times L\right)\cup \left( [R,\infty)\times \{0\}\times L'\right).$$ The Morse function $\tilde{f}\in C^{\infty}(V)$ in the regular quantum datum $\mathcal{D}=(\tilde{f},\tilde{\rho},\tilde{J}')$ for $QH_*(V,\partial V)$ which we consider is required to satisfy the following condition. $$\tilde{f}(t,0,p)=f^+(p) +\sigma^+(t) \quad \forall \ (t,p)\in [R,R+1]\times L'$$ where $\sigma^+:[R,R+1]\to {\mathbb R}$ has a unique maximum at $R+\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $f^+\in C^{\infty}(L')$ is Morse. Moreover, on $[R,R+1]\times L'$ the Riemannian metric $\tilde{\rho}$ is given by $\rho \oplus \rho^+$ for some metric $\rho$ on $[R,R+1]$ and some metric $\rho^+$ on $L'$ just as well as $\tilde{J}'=i\oplus J'$ outside $[-R,R]^2\times M$ for some generic $\omega$-compatible almost complex structure $J'$ on $M$. In this setup the quotient map $$QC_*(\mathcal{D}: V,\partial V) \to QC_{*-1}(\mathcal{D}': L'),$$ where $\mathcal{D}'=(f^+,\rho^+,J')$, is a chain map. The map induced on homology is exactly the map $j'$. Of course there is similarly a map $j:QH_*(V,\partial V)\to QH_{*-1}(L)$. By Theorem 2.2.2 in [@BiranCornea13] $V$ is a quantum h-cobordism. From Lemma 5.1.2. in the same paper it now follows that both $j$ and $j'$ are isomorphisms. That they also respect multiplication is shown in [@Singer15], Theorem 1.2. By definition $\Phi_V=j'\circ j^{-1}$. The estimate in Theorem \[lemcob1\] is therefore equivalent to the estimate $$\label{cob25}
|l_L(j(\alpha),\phi)-l_{L'}(j'(\alpha),\phi)|\leq \mathcal{S}(V),$$ for all $\alpha \in QH_*(V,\partial V)\backslash \{0\}$ and all $\phi \in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$.
*Step 2: Adapting $V$.* Our strategy is based on the following trick from [@CorneaShelukhin15] which replaces $V$ by a new elementary Lagrangian cobordism $V':L' \rightsquigarrow L$. Fix once and for all a small $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$. Given $\psi \in \operatorname{Symp}({\mathbb R}^2,\omega_{{\mathbb R}^2})$ we define $\tilde{\psi}:=\psi \times \operatorname{id}\in \operatorname{Symp}(\tilde{M},\tilde{\omega})$. We choose a $\psi$ such that every point outside $[-R,R]\times {\mathbb R}$ is fixed and such that $V':=\tilde{\psi}(V)$ satisfies $$\label{cob30}
\pi(V')\subset \{(x,y)\in {\mathbb R}^2 \ |\ 0\leq y\leq \beta(x)\},$$ where $\beta \in C^{\infty}_c({\mathbb R},[0,\infty))$ satisfies $\operatorname{supp}(\beta)\subset (-R,R)$ and $$\label{cob31}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\beta(t)\ dt \leq \mathcal{S}(V')+\tilde{\epsilon}.$$ The existence of such $\psi$ and $\beta$ is quite obvious. Moreover, the construction implies that $V':L' \rightsquigarrow L$ is an elementary Lagrangian cobordism satisfying $\mathcal{S}(V)=\mathcal{S}(V')$ and $\Phi_V=\Phi_{V'}$.
*Step 3: Constructing suitable extensions of $H$.* We first fix a perturbation function $h$ satisfying the following criteria (here we use the notation from the first conditions (i)-(iv) in Section \[HFcylends\])
- $\operatorname{supp}(h)\subset V_0^- \cup V_0^+$ and $\partial_yh(x,y)=0$ for all $(x,y)$ satisfying $|y|<\tfrac{\epsilon}{2}$.
- $h$ must satisfy (\[cob7\]) as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_xh(x,0)&\geq 0 \quad \forall \ x\leq - R \\
\partial_xh(x,0)&\leq 0 \quad \forall \ x\geq R.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we require these inequalities be strict for $x<-(R+\tfrac{1}{3})$ and $x>R+\tfrac{1}{3}$ respectively.
- Lastly, we require $|h(-(R+\tfrac{1}{2}),0)|,|h(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)|\leq \tilde{\epsilon}$.
Denote by $\mathfrak{h}$ the class corresponding to $h$. Fix now $0<\delta <\! \! < \tilde{\epsilon}$ and choose a cut-off $b\in C^{\infty}_c({\mathbb R},[0,\delta])$ such that $$b=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\delta, & \text{on}\ [-R-\tfrac{1}{2},R+\tfrac{1}{2}] \\
0, & \text{on}\ {\mathbb R}\backslash (-C+\tfrac{1}{5},C-\tfrac{1}{5}).
\end{array}
\right.$$ Define the constant $K:=\int_{-R-1}^{R+1}\left(b(t)+\beta(t) \right)\ dt$ which for small enough choice of $\delta$ satisfies $K\leq \mathcal{S}(V')+2\tilde{\epsilon}$. We now define 3 auxiliary functions as follows. We denote by $\rho \in C^{\infty}_c({\mathbb R},[0,1])$ a cut-off satisfying $$\rho=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \text{on}\ [-R,R] \\
0, & \text{on}\ {\mathbb R}\backslash (-(R+\tfrac{1}{2}),R+\tfrac{1}{2}).
\end{array}
\right.$$ By $\eta_-,\eta_+ \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb R},[0,1])$ we denote *monotone* functions satisfying $$\eta_-=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \text{on}\ (-\infty,-R-\tfrac{4}{5}] \\
-1, & \text{on}\ [-R-\tfrac{2}{3},\infty),
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\&
\quad
\eta_+=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \text{on}\ (-\infty,R+\tfrac{2}{3}] \\
0, & \text{on}\ [R+\tfrac{4}{5},\infty),
\end{array}
\right.$$ as well as $\max_{{\mathbb R}}|\eta_-'|,\max_{{\mathbb R}}|\eta_+'|\leq 10$. Using this auxiliary data we can finally define two specific perturbation functions $h_-,h_+\in \mathfrak{h}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
h_+(x,y)&=\left(\int_{-R-1}^{x}(b(t)+\beta(t))\ dt\right)\eta_+(x)\rho(y) +h(x,y)\\
h_-(x,y)&=\left(\int_{-R-1}^{x}(b(t)+\beta(t))\ dt-K \right)\eta_-(x)\rho(y) +h(x,y),\end{aligned}$$ where $(x,y)\in {\mathbb R}^2$. We have constructed $h_\pm$ such that they satisfy the following properties. Assuming our data is chosen carefully we achieve $$\phi_{h_-}^1(\pi(V'))\cap \pi(V')=\{(-R-\tfrac{1}{2},0)\} \quad \& \quad \phi_{h_+}^1(\pi(V'))\cap \pi(V')=\{(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)\}.$$ Moreover, $x\mapsto h_-(x,0)$ has a local non-degenerate maximum at $x=-(R+\tfrac{1}{2})$ and $x\mapsto h_+(x,0)$ has a local non-degenerate maximum at $x=R+\tfrac{1}{2}$. Given any Hamiltonian $H\in C_c^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ we define associated Hamiltonians $\tilde{H}^-,\tilde{H}^+ \in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{H}^-_t(z,p)=H_t(p)+h_-(z) \quad \& \quad \tilde{H}^+_t(z,p)=H_t(p)+h_+(z),\end{aligned}$$ for $(t,z,p)\in [0,1]\times {\mathbb R}^2 \times M$. For future use we denote $c_{\pm}:=h_{\pm}(\pm (R+\tfrac{1}{2}))$. Note that we can estimate $$\label{cob40}
|c_--c_+|\leq 5\tilde{\epsilon}.$$
*Step 4: Relating spectral invariants of the ends to those of $V'$.* Let $H\in C_c^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ be a normalized Hamiltonian which is non-degenerate both for $L$ and $L'$. Define $\phi:=\phi_H\in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ham}}(M,\omega)$. It suffices to prove the theorem for such $\phi$. In the notation of [@LeclercqZapolsky15] we have $l_L(\alpha,H)=l_L(\alpha,\phi)$ for $\alpha \in QH_*(L)$.
For all $\alpha \in QH_*(V',\partial V')$ it holds that $$l_{L'}(j'(\alpha),H)=l_{(V',\partial V')}(\alpha, \tilde{H}^+)-c_+ \quad \& \quad l_L(j(\alpha),H)=l_{(V',\partial V')}(\alpha, \tilde{H}^-)-c_-.$$
The proofs of the two equalities are similar, so we only prove the first one. Fix once and for all a generic path of $\omega$-compatible almost complex structures $J=\{J_t\}_{t\in [0,1]}$ in $M$ so that the Floer chain complex $(CF_*(H,J:L'),d)$ is well defined. We also want to consider the Floer chain complex $CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V')$ for a specific choice of regular $\tilde{J}$. We specify this choice below. Note that, by the construction of $h_{+}$ there is a 1-1 correspondence between chords of $X_{\tilde{H}^+}$ connecting $V'$ to itself and chords of $X_H$ connecting $L'$ to itself (see Figure \[fig1\]). We define the subspace $Y_*\subset CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V')$ as the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector space generated by those critical points[^10] $[\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}]$ of $\mathcal{A}_{\tilde{H}^+:V'}$ for which $\widehat{\gamma}$ is *not* equivalent to any capping of $\gamma$ whose image is completely contained in the fiber $\{(R+\frac{1}{2},0)\}\times M$. Since any capping of a $X_H$-chord sitting inside $M$ can be viewed as a capping of the corresponding $X_{\tilde{H}^+}$-chord sitting inside $\{(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)\}\times M$ there is a well-defined inclusion map[^11] $$\label{cob27}
\iota :CF_{*-1}(H,J:L')\hookrightarrow CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V')$$ of ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector spaces. It is clear from the definition of $Y_*$ that the image of $\iota$ is a direct complement to $Y_*$. I.e. we obtain a splitting of ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector spaces: $$\label{cob26}
CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V')=CF_{*-1}(H,J:L')\oplus Y_*.$$ Now choose any $\tilde{J}=\{\tilde{J}_t\}_{t\in [0,1]}\in \tilde{\mathcal{J}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ satisfying the condition that $\tilde{J}_t=(\phi_{h_+}^t)_*i \oplus J_t$ outside $[-R,R]^2\times M$. We claim that $\tilde{J}$ is regular for $\tilde{H}^+$. To see this, note that all finite energy Floer trajectories corresponding to the data $(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J})$ are completely contained in the fiber $\{(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)\}\times M$. This is easy to see using the same trick as in the proof of Proposition \[propcob2\] but is in fact also a simple case of the *bottleneck* construction in the proof of Lemma 3.3.2 in [@BiranCornea14]. In particular the linearized operator associated to Floer’s equation splits along any finite energy Floer trajectory. It therefore follows from the automatic transversality result in Corollary 4.3.2 from [@BiranCornea14], which is based on the theory developed in [@Seidel12], that $(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J})$ is a regular Floer datum. Here it was crucial that $x=R+\tfrac{1}{2}$ is a local maximum for ${\mathbb R}\ni x\mapsto h_+(x,0)$. Considering the definition of $Y_*$ it is not hard to see that this implies that (\[cob26\]) is in fact a splitting of chain complexes. As a consequence the quotient map $q:(CH_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V'),d)\to (CH_{*-1}(H,J:L'),d)$ which collapses the $Y_*$ component is a chain map satisfying $$\label{cob41}
q(CF_*^{a+c_+}(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V'))\subset CF_{*-1}^a(H,J:L')\quad \forall \ a\in {\mathbb R}.$$ Similarly one sees that $$\label{cob42}
\iota(CF_{*-1}^a(H,J:L'))\subset CF_*^{a+c_+}(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V') \quad \forall \ a\in {\mathbb R}.$$ We now want to choose regular perturbation data for $\operatorname{PSS}_{V'}$ and $\operatorname{PSS}_{L'}$ such that the two diagrams $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V') & CF_{*-1}(H,J:L') \ar[l]_{\iota} \\
QC_*(\mathcal{D}: V',\partial V') \ar[r]^{j'} \ar[u]^{\operatorname{PSS}_{V'}} & QC_{*-1}(\mathcal{D}': L') \ar[u]_{\operatorname{PSS}_{L'}}
} \\
\xymatrix{
CF_*(\tilde{H}^+,\tilde{J}:V') \ar[r]^{q} & CF_{*-1}(H,J:L') \\
QC_*(\mathcal{D}: V',\partial V') \ar[r]^{j'} \ar[u]^{\operatorname{PSS}_{V'}} & QC_{*-1}(\mathcal{D}': L') \ar[u]_{\operatorname{PSS}_{L'}}
}\end{aligned}$$ commute. Denote by $(K^+,I^+)$ a regular perturbation datum for $\operatorname{PSS}_{L'}:QC_*(\mathcal{D}': L')\to CF_*(H,J:L')$. By definition of $j'$ we see[^12] that in order to accomplish commutativity of the above diagrams it suffices to extend $(K^+,I^+)$ to a regular perturbation datum $(\tilde{K}^+,\tilde{I}^+)$ such that the image of every finite energy solution $u_+\in C^{\infty}(D_+,\tilde{M})$ of (\[cob4\]) is contained in the fiber $\{(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)\}\times M$ and can be identified with a solution of the corresponding equation for $\operatorname{PSS}_{L'}:QC_*(\mathcal{D}': L')\to CF_*(H,J:L')$. Once this has been carried out the claim easily follows from (\[cob41\]) and (\[cob42\]).
We now argue how to extend $(K^+,I^+)$. First choose a $\operatorname{PSS}$-admissible family of almost complex structures $\{\tilde{I}^+_z\}_{z\in D_+}$ on $\tilde{M}$ satisfying the condition that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}^+_z|_{({\mathbb R}^2 \backslash [-R,R]^2)\times M}&=(\phi_{h_+}^{a_+(z)})_*i \oplus I^+_z\quad \forall \ z\in D_+.\end{aligned}$$ Now define $$\tilde{K}^+:= da_+ \otimes \tilde{h}_+ + k_+,$$ where $k_+ \in \Omega^1(D_+,C^{\infty}(\tilde{M}))$ is defined by $k_+(\xi)=K^+(\xi)$ for $\xi \in TD_+$. Needless to say, we here view $K^+ \in \Omega^1(D_+,C^{\infty}(\tilde{M}))$ in the obvious way. Moreover $\tilde{h}_+:=h_+\circ \pi$. We note that, using this data, it follows from the same argument as above that the image of any finite energy solutions $u_+$ of (\[cob4\]) is contained in the fiber $\{(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)\}\times M$. Hence, the linearization of the operator associated to (\[cob4\]) along any finite energy solution is split. One last time we use Lemma 4.3.1 in [@BiranCornea14], for the case $k=0$ in their terminology, to argue that the perturbation datum $(\tilde{K}^+,\tilde{I}^+)$ is regular.[^13] Again it is crucial that $x=R+\tfrac{1}{2}$ is a local maximum for $x\mapsto h_+(x,0)$. This finishes the proof of the claim.
*Step 5: The estimate.* Applying (\[cob11\]) and making use of the lemma together with the estimates obtained in Step 3 one easily computes that, for all $\alpha \in QH_*(V',\partial V')\backslash \{0\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cob28}
|l_{L}(j(\alpha),\phi)-l_{L'}(j'(\alpha),\phi)|&\leq |l_{(V',\partial V')}(\alpha,\tilde{H}^-)-l_{(V',\partial V')}(\alpha,\tilde{H}^+)| +5\tilde{\epsilon} \\
&\leq \int_0^1 \max_{\tilde{M}}|\tilde{H}^-_t-\tilde{H}^+_t|\ dt +5\tilde{\epsilon} \nonumber \\
&=\max_{[-C,C]^2}|h_--h_+| +5\tilde{\epsilon} \nonumber \\
&\leq \mathcal{S}(V')+10\tilde{\epsilon}=\mathcal{S}(V)+10\tilde{\epsilon}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$ was arbitrary the proof is done.
[^1]: [@BiranCornea07] and [@BiranCornea09] use language/notation which is slightly different from [@LeclercqZapolsky15] and [@Zapolsky15]. To avoid confusion we therefore point out that $QH(L)$ (respectively $HF(L)$) with $\Lambda$-coefficients in [@BiranCornea07] and [@BiranCornea09] corresponds to $QH(L)$ (respectively $HF(L)$) of a suitable quotient complex with ${\mathbb Z}_2$-coefficients in [@LeclercqZapolsky15] and [@Zapolsky15] (see Section 2.6 in [@LeclercqZapolsky15] for details).
[^2]: In fact Cornea and Shelukhin showed that there is a cobordism metric in several different settings.
[^3]: We thank the anonymous referee for suggesting this example.
[^4]: If $(M^{2n},\omega)$ is a closed symplectic manifold we say that a Hamiltonian $H\in C^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ is *normalized* if $\int_M H_t \omega^n =0$ for all $t\in [0,1]$. If $(M^{2n},\omega)$ is non-compact we say that $H\in C^{\infty}([0,1]\times M)$ is *normalized* if it has compact support.
[^5]: Recall that $(M,\omega)$ is said to be *exact* if $\omega=d\lambda$ for some 1-form $\lambda$ on $M$. In this case a Lagrangian $L\subset (M,d\lambda)$ is said to be *exact* (with respect to $\lambda$) if $\lambda|_L=df$ for some $f\in C^{\infty}(L)$.
[^6]: Note that $\mathcal{A}_{H:L}$ is defined *absolutely* here. In other words, since the definition of $HF_*(H,J:L)$ in [@LeclercqZapolsky15] and [@Zapolsky15] does not require the choice of a base point in $\Omega_L$ there is no need to normalize spectral invariants. This will be important below.
[^7]: Here $\operatorname{Crit}_n(h)$ denotes the critical points of $h$ whose Morse index equals $n$.
[^8]: Here the last condition imposed on our perturbation function $h$ is crucial.
[^9]: A different setup is considered in the reference, but the argument carries over to our case *mutatis mutandis*.
[^10]: Recall that a critical point $[\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}]$ of $\mathcal{A}_{\tilde{H}^+:V'}$ consists of a chord $\gamma:([0,1],\{0,1\})\to (\tilde{M},V')$ satisfying $\dot{\gamma}=X_{\tilde{H}^+}(\gamma)$ and an equivalence class of cappings $\widehat{\gamma}$ of $\gamma$, where we say that two cappings of $\gamma$ are equivalent if they have the same symplectic area.
[^11]: The fact that $\iota$ increases the degree by 1 comes from the fact that we follow the normalization convention of the Conley-Zehnder index from [@Zapolsky15]. We point out that this convention corresponds to assigning Maslov index 1 to the loop ${\mathbb R}/{\mathbb Z}\ni t\mapsto e^{-t\pi i}{\mathbb R}$ in the Lagrangian Grassmannian of $({\mathbb C},dx\wedge dy)\approx ({\mathbb R}^2, \omega_{{\mathbb R}^2})$.
[^12]: Lemma 1.3 in [@Singer15] implies that pearly trajectories which are not completely contained in the fiber $\{(R+\tfrac{1}{2},0)\}\times M$ cannot “end in it”.
[^13]: Technically speaking the case $k=0$ is not contained in the statement of Lemma 4.3.1 in [@BiranCornea14]. However, applying the methods from [@Seidel12] exactly as in the proof of this lemma one sees that the conclusion of the lemma also holds for the case $k=0$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Lately, many companies are using Mobile Workforce Management technologies combined with information collected by sensors from mobile devices in order to improve their business processes. Even for small companies, the information that needs to be handled grows at a high rate, and most of the data collected have a geographic dimension. Being able to visualize this data in real-time within a map viewer is a very important deal for these companies. In this paper we focus on this topic, presenting a case study on visualizing large spatial datasets. Particularly, since most of the Mobile Workforce Management software is web-based, we propose a solution suitable for this environment.'
author:
- Alejandro Cortiñas
- 'Miguel R. Luaces'
- 'Tirso V. Rodeiro'
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
title: 'A Case Study on Visualizing Large Spatial Datasets in a Web-based Map Viewer[^1]'
---
[^1]: This work has been funded by Xunta de Galicia/FEDER-UE CSI: ED431G/01; GRC: ED431C 2017/58. MINECO-CDTI/FEDER-UE CIEN LPS-BIGGER: IDI-20141259; INNTERCONECTA uForest: ITC-20161074. MINECO-AEI/FEDER-UE Datos 4.0: TIN2016-78011-C4-1-R; Flatcity: TIN2016-77158-C4-3-R. EU H2020 MSCA RISE BIRDS: 690941.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[The formation of self-organised structures that resist shear deformation have been discussed in the context of shear jamming and thickening[@bi2011; @mari2015; @peters2016], with frictional forces playing a key role. However, shear induces geometric features necessary for jamming even in frictionless packings[@vinu2016]. We analyse conditions for jamming in such assemblies by solving force and torque balance conditions for their contact geometry. We demonstrate, and validate with frictional simulations, that the for mean contact number $Z = D + 1$ (for spatial dimension $D = 2$, $3$) holds at jamming for both finite and infinite friction, above the density. We show that the shear jamming threshold satisfies the marginal stability condition recently proposed for jamming in frictionless systems[@wyart2012]. We perform rigidity percolation analysis[@thorpe1983; @henkes2016] for $D = 2$ and find that rigidity percolation precedes shear jamming, which however coincides with the percolation of over-constrained regions, leading to the identification of an analogous to that observed in covalent glasses[@intermediate]. ]{}'
author:
- 'H. A. Vinutha'
- Srikanth Sastry
bibliography:
- 'sjforbal.bib'
title: Force networks and jamming in shear deformed sphere packings
---
Jamming is the process by which disordered assemblies of particles become rigid and resist externally imposed stresses, for instance when their density becomes large enough. It has been widely investigated, both as a phenomenon that occurs in granular matter, and as a particular aspect of the emergence of rigidity in disordered matter, [*e. g.*]{} colloidal suspensions, foams, glass formers and gels and to understand the rheological properties of thermal and athermal driven systems [@liu-2010; @zhang2010; @bi2011; @wyart2012; @mari2015; @peters2016]. The jamming of frictionless sphere assemblies is particularly well studied and occurs at a packing fraction of $\phi_J \approx 0.64$, referred to as random close packing (RCP) or the jamming point. In the presence of friction, jamming is expected to occur down to a significantly lower density, which is $\sim 0.54$ (in $3D$) [@silbert2010; @makse2008] in the isotropic case, also known as the random loose packing density (RLP), but strong dependences on friction and protocol lead to a wide range of estimates of this density, \[$0.54 - 0.61$\]. A rather different scenario was envisaged by Cates [*et al*]{} [@cates1998] for jamming in systems subjected to external stress, in which the application of external stress itself leads to a self organisation of particles that could resist stress, and thus lead to jamming. Such a scenario of [*shear jamming*]{} has been studied recently experimentally and theoretically [@zhang2010; @bi2011; @sarkar2013; @sarkar2016] for sheared granular packings in the presence of friction, but also in the case of frictionless spheres [@bertrand2016; @kumar2016; @baity2016; @urbani-2017]. However, our understanding is yet incomplete concerning various central issues, such as: (i) the range of densities over which shear jamming may occur, and the corresponding conditions, (ii) the differences and similarities between shear jamming and the isotropic frictionless as well as frictional jamming, (iii) a geometric description of the self organization of particles that lead to jamming behaviour, and (iv) the origins of the geometric organisation observed.\
We address these issues in the present work, by exploiting the observation [@vinu2016] that athermally sheared frictionless sphere assemblies develop structural features that correspond to shear jamming, when frictional forces are present to provide mechanical stability. Thus, the geometry of such assemblies, encapsulated in their contact network can be interrogated to understand geometric and mechanical conditions necessary for shear jamming, avoiding some of the ambiguities attendant simulation and experimental investigations of frictional packings. We do so by solving force and torque balance conditions that must be satisfied, with finite contact forces, by jammed states, for both finite and infinite friction. We employ a new method which improves the accuracy of such computations, and validate our results through simulations of frictional particles. Details of our computations are provided in the Methods section and in the Suppmentary Information (SI). As described below, we obtain a precise, detailed geometric characterisation of the shear jamming transition that is at variance in key aspects with results for isotropic frictional jamming [@makse2008], and makes contact with analyses of rigidity in the rather different context of covalent network glasses [@intermediate]. We also obtain a mechanical characterisation, that is consistent with criteria for marginal stability analysed for frictionless packings but not hitherto applied to shear or frictional jamming.
![[**(a)**]{} The average contact number $Z$, [**(b)**]{} stress $\sigma_{xz}$, and [**(c)**]{} the average contact force $\langle f_c \rangle$, as a function of strain, shown for different densities. $Z$ values are obtained from sheared configurations, and $\sigma_{xz}$ and $f_c$ from force balance solutions. The vertical lines show strain values corresponding to the shear jamming (SJ) transition, where $\sigma_{xz}$ and $\langle f_c \rangle$ show discontinuous jumps, which also correspond to $Z = 4 (= D+1)$. The maroon horizontal lines indicates $Z=4$ and the cutoff used to identify the shear jamming strain in $\sigma_{xz}$ and $\langle f_c \rangle$ plots. [**(d)**]{} Threshold shear strains as a function of density, which shows that the shear jamming (SJ) transition, in the limit of infinite friction and finite friction, occurs at $Z=D+1$.[]{data-label="figm1"}](./forbal_fig1.pdf)
We first consider three dimensional sphere assemblies that are athermally sheared, and consider force and torque balance conditions as a function of strain to estimate the jamming strain, in the limit of infinite friction (friction coefficient $\mu \rightarrow \infty$). Fig. \[figm1\](a) shows the mean contact number $Z$ for a range of densities from $0.56$ to $0.627$. Fig. \[figm1\](b) and (c) show respectively the shear stress $\sigma_{xz}$, where $xz$ is the shear plane and the average contact force $\langle f_c \rangle $ obtained from the solutions to the balance conditions, where averages are performed over contacts and over independent solutions. The shear stress and the average contact force exhibit sharp increases at density dependent strain values. We identify the shear jamming transition from the discontinuous change in $\langle f_c \rangle $, which closely corresponds to the strain values where stress shows a sharp increase. The corresponding strain value (vertical lines) is termed the jamming strain. The jamming strain at each density closely corresponds to a strain value at which $Z=D+1$ (as shown in Fig. \[figm1\](a)) which is the [*isostatic*]{} value in the infinite friction limit, based on the constraining counting argument due to Maxwell [@maxwell1864]. In Fig. \[figm1\](d), we show the jamming strain values along with the strain values at which $Z=D+1$. We next consider the finite friction case, with $\mu = 1$. In Fig. \[figm2\](a)(b), we show $Z$ and $<f_c>$ as a function of strain for each density, obtained from solutions to the balance conditions (marked BCM $\mu=1$) and from frictional simulations (marked DEM $\mu=1$). Note that in the case of BCM, only contacts with finite contact forces (with threshold $f_c < 10^{-10}$) are counted, whereas with DEM, contacts are lost during the frictional simulations. As shown in Fig. \[figm1\](d), It is clear that for finite friction too, jamming strain values correspond to $Z=4 (= D+1)$, at all densities (however, the jamming strain values differ for BCM and DEM, a feature that may depend on protocol details of DEM and need further investigation). This result for shear jamming is at variance with arguments and results for isotropic frictional jamming, wherein $Z$ varies continuously from $6(2D)$ to $4(D+1)$ as $\mu$ is varied from $0$ to $\infty$ [@silbert2010; @makse2008].
![\[figm2\] The average contact number $Z$ and the average contact force $\langle f_c \rangle$, for [**(a)**]{} BCM and [**(b)**]{} DEM, $\mu=1$. $Z$ values for BCM ($\mu=1$) are obtained after removing rattler contacts, [*i. e.*]{}, contacts with $f_c \leq 10^{-10}$. For the DEM case, only contacts that remain after the simulations are considered. The vertical (dashed) lines shows strain values corresponding to the shear jamming (SJ) transition, where $\langle f_c \rangle$ show discontinuous jumps, and the bold vertical lines show strain values corresponding to $Z = 4 (= D+1)$. The maroon horizontal lines indicates $Z=4$ and the cutoff used to identify SJ strain in $\langle f_c \rangle$ plots.](./forbal_fig2.pdf)
We characterize the ensemble of independent force solutions by measuring the mean angle $\alpha_{mean}$ between pairs of independent solutions, In Fig. \[figm3\](a), we show for two different system sizes the mean angle as a function of density, for $\mu \rightarrow \infty$. $\alpha_{mean}$ decreases with a decrease in density, approaching zero as the lower limit density limit $\phi=0.55$ is approached, indicating that decrease of the solution space volume over and above the decrease in its dimensionality (see Methods). The rapid decrease below $\phi=0.58$ also helps explain the difficulty of finding force balanced configurations at lower densities, as noted in previous work [@vinu2016; @vinu-sjperc]. Another characteristic feature of forces that signals shear jamming is the saturation of the spatial anisotropy of stresses. In Fig. \[figm3\](b), we show the stress anisotropy (defined in Methods) as a function of strain for different densities. Initially we observe a linear increase in the stress anisotropy with strain, which flattens out above a strain value which closely corresponds to $Z=D+1$, indicated by dashed lines for each density.
![\[figm3\] [**(a)**]{} Mean angle ($\alpha_{mean}$) averaged over all pairs of independent solutions as a function of density. For comparison, we show the mean angle $\alpha_{mean} = 41.4^{\textdegree}$ (maroon horizontal line) between two vectors chosen randomly with all the components positive (first quadrant), which is greater than the mean angle obtained from force solutions at $\phi=0.627$. As the density is decreased along with the decrease in the null space dimension, see SI Fig. $S3$, $\alpha_{mean}$ mean also decreases and approaches zero at the isostatic limit. [**(b)**]{} Stress anisotropy as a function of strain for different densities, indicating saturation across the strain value where $Z$ equals $D + 1$ (indicated by dashed vertical lines). Stresses are obtained from the BCM method in the limit of infinite friction.](./forbal_fig3.pdf)
![\[figm4\] [**(a)**]{}Contact force distributions obtained from BCM for the steady state configurations at different densities. Solutions are obtained starting with random initial guesses for the contact forces. Above $\phi=0.55$, the force distributions acquire jammed-like character [*i.e.,*]{} display finite force peaks. [**(b)**]{} Comparison of the jamming strain and $Z = D+1$ with the strain values where the system becomes marginal (shown by a black arrow in [**(f)**]{}). Different thresholds are consistent with each other. [**(c)**]{} Small force distributions ($f_c < \langle f_c \rangle$) for different densities in the steady state. [**(d)**]{} Exponent value $\theta$ of small force distributions shown as a function of density and compared with ${\frac{1} { \gamma_g} - 2}$, which needs to be smaller than $\theta$ for stability of the packings. [**(e)**]{} Small force distribution as a function of strain, shown for $\phi=0.61$, for different windows $Z$ (or $\gamma$) values. SS in the legend indicates steady state $Z$ values. [**(f)**]{} Exponent value $\theta$ of the small force distributions shown as a function of strain and compared with ${\frac{1} { \gamma_g} - 2}$, which needs to be smaller than $\theta$ for stability of the packings. The strain values used to plot small force exponents are the strain value at the lower end of the $Z$ window over which they are averaged. $\gamma_g$ is the power law exponent of $g(r)$, computed from configurations in a window of $Z$ (or $\gamma$) values (see SI Fig. $S5$. Supporting data for densities $\phi=0.57$ and $\phi=0.58$ are shown in SI Fig. $S6, S7$).](./forbal_fig4.pdf)
In Fig. \[figm4\](a), we show distribution of contact forces (whose magnitudes include normal and tangential components) for different densities in the steady state. These distributions display peaks at finite forces, indicative of jamming [@ohern-2002], above the density $\phi=0.55$ which thus marks the lower density limit to jamming. Recently, attention has been focussed on the distribution of forces at the small force limit, observed to obey a power law distribution $P(f) \sim f^{\theta}$, which we consider next. The exponent $\theta$, together with the power law exponent $\gamma_g$ governing the near contact singularity of the pair correlation function $g(r)$ have been related through a stability criterion by Wyart and co-workers [@wyart2012; @lern2013]. Considering only extended mode instabilities, the inequality expressing the criterion for stability is $\gamma_g \geq \frac{1}{ 2+ \theta}$, whereas considering local buckling modes, the stability criterion is $\gamma_g \geq \frac{1-\theta_b}{ 2}$. With a view of studying the extent to which these stability criteria may correspond to the jamming thresholds we observe, we compute the small force distributions, for steady state strains, which are shown in Fig. \[figm4\](c). We observe a regime in small forces which is described by a power law, whose slope decreases as density decreases. The behaviour and significance of the distributions at smaller forces than the power law regime is difficult to analyse with confidence, which we discuss briefly in the SI. In Fig. \[figm4\](d), we show the small force exponent values as a function of density. We observe that the inequality $\gamma_g \geq \frac{1}{ 2+ \theta}$ is observed at higher densities, and approaches an equality as $\phi = 0.55$ is approached, marking it as the lower density limit to shear jamming. We monitor the evolution of force distributions as a function of strain (approaching the jamming strain from above) to investigate whether the jamming strain corresponds to marginal stability. In Fig. \[figm4\](e)(f), we show small force distributions (evaluated over bins of strain value for statistics) and the small force exponent as a function of strain, for $\phi=0.61$. The strain value above which the stability criterion is met is the jamming strain identified earlier, as we show for three densities Fig. \[figm4\](b). Thus, the marginal stability criterion, analysed for frictionless systems [@wyart2012] also describes the shear jamming threshold. This remarkable agreement is not [*a priori*]{} obvious, and prompts theoretical analysis of the stability criterion for frictional systems under the application of shear deformation.
![\[figm5\] Shear jamming behaviour for the two dimensional soft disc system. [**(a)**]{} Threshold shear strains as a function of density. Data points marked “$Z = 3$" corresponds to strain values where $Z$ reaches $D+1 = 3$ for each density, and “BCM“ corresponds to the shear jamming strain (see SI Fig. $S9$). Data points ”rigid" and “rigid + stress" correspond to strain values where the percolation probability, for percolation along both $x$ and $y$, reaches the value $0.5$ (see SI Fig. $S11$). [**(b)**]{} Percolation probability as a function of $Z$, showing the presence of an intermediate phase between rigidity percolation and rigid+stress percolation. The blue shaded region indicates the floppy (F) phase, the green region indicates the intermediate (R) phase and the red region indicates the stressed or over-constrained phase (R+S). [**(c)**]{} An overlay of the rigid, rigid+stress percolating clusters and the strong force network ($f_c > \langle f_c \rangle$; white bonds), at $\phi=0.82,\gamma = 0.082, Z = 2.928$. Orange discs belong to the floppy regions (or small rigid clusters of size smaller than $5$), green discs belong to the percolating rigid cluster, and blue discs belong to over-constrained regions. The graphic illustrates a strong correlation between the strong force network and the over-constrained region (In SI Fig. $S15$, we show force network and the over-constrained regions for a series of strain values, illustrating this further). [**(d)**]{} Distribution of rigid+stress clusters, shown for $\phi = 0.8$, for different values of $dZ = Z_c - Z$ (with which the different curves are labeled). $Z_c$ is computed for each initial configuration corresponding to the percolation of the rigid+stress cluster. The maroon curve represents a slope of $-1.75$, shown for reference. For comparison, for a self-organized rigidity percolation model $\alpha = -1.94$ [@briere2007].](./forbal_fig5.pdf)
The results above characterise the force networks we obtain and the shear jamming limit density of $\phi = 0.55$. In order to elucidate further the nature of the force networks we generate, we perform a rigidity analysis, as we describe next. Rigidity percolation analysis [@thorpe1983; @jacobs1995; @mouka-1995] has previously been used to study the rigidity of covalent glass networks and jammed packings with and without friction [@henkes2016]. We perform this analysis, along with force balance analysis, for a two dimensional soft disc system, to take advantage of reliable methods for rigidity analysis for two dimensional constraint networks. The shear jamming transition for AQS configurations, for $\mu \rightarrow \infty$ (BCM), occurs at strain values very close to $Z = D+1$, which is consistent with the $3D$ results (see also [@zhang2010]), as shown in Fig. \[figm5\](a). Rigidity analysis is performed using the pebble game [@jacobs1997; @henkes2016], as described in the Methods section. In this analysis, jamming corresponds to the emergence of a system spanning rigid cluster. In Fig. \[figm5\](a), we show that percolation of rigid clusters, along all directions, (marked [*rigid*]{}) occurs before the isostaticity condition, $Z=(D+1)$, is reached, as has also been observed for sheared frictional packings in [@henkes2016]. To understand this discrepancy, we also consider percolation of over-constrained (marked [*rigid+stress*]{}) regions in our configurations. It has been noted by Moukarzel et al. [@mouka-1995] that the onset of stress transmission through a lattice of springs occurs when stressed clusters of macroscopic size are present. In Fig. \[figm5\](a), we observe that strain values of rigid+stress percolation closely correspond to the shear jamming transition. We perform a system size analysis of percolation probabilities, as a function of contact number $Z$, and find threshold values of $Z \approx 2.89$ for rigid, and $Z \approx 3.0$ for rigid+stress percolation, see Fig. \[figm5\](b). Thus, shear jamming corresponds to rigid+stress percolation, preceded by an [*intermediate*]{} regime of rigidity percolation without stress propagation or shear jamming. This observation has not previously been reported, although results that suggest such an intermediate regime have been reported for compressed granular packings [@bandi]. The presence of an intermediate phase was previously observed in chalcogenides and oxide glasses [@intermediate; @thorpe2000; @chuby2006; @briere2007]. In the case of shear jamming, the role and implications of the intermediate phase is not clear and merit further investigation. An appealing possibility is that fragile force networks form in the intermediate phase, see SI Fig. $S13$ and $S14$. To see the relation between force balance conditions and rigidity percolation analysis, we overlay the strong force network $f_c > \langle f_c \rangle $ onto the network of rigid and floppy regions, and observe that contacts with strong forces are mostly concentrated on discs that belong to the over-constrained regions, see Fig. \[figm5\](c) and SI Fig. $S15$. We further characterize the nature of the shear jamming transition by the cluster size distribution of rigid+stress percolation, see Fig. \[figm5\](d), which show features characteristic of a continuous percolation transition.
In summary, we develop a new approach to solving force balance conditions which improves the accuracy of such calculations, and show that sheared frictionless spheres evolve self-organized structures that can support external stress, and be jammed, should frictional forces also be present. We show convincingly that the random loose packing density of $0.55$ is the low density limit of shear jamming. We find that the mean contact number required for shear jamming is $Z = D + 1$, the isostaticity condition for frictional particles, independent of friction coefficient and shear jamming protocols. This result appears to be valid for shear jamming, but not in general for frictional jamming [@makse2008]. We also show that the stability criterion proposed by Wyart [@wyart2012] is valid for the shear jammed states we investigate. This is particularly interesting as the role of near contact neighbours in the analysis of Wyart [*et al.*]{} [@wyart2012; @lern2013] also appears to hold for shear jammed states. We compare our analysis of force balance conditions with rigidity percolation analysis and find that rigidity percolation precedes shear jamming in strain at any given density. More interestingly, we show that shear jamming corresponds to the percolation of over-constrained regions, implying also the presence of an [*intermediate phase*]{} in shear jamming systems, analogously to the case of covalent glass formers. Our results thus reveal many interesting geometric aspects of shear jamming in sharp detail, although the implications of some of these features require further investigation to elucidate.
[**Methods:**]{}
The starting point for our analysis is the specification of the contact network for athermally sheared sphere and disc configurations, which we generate using shear deformation of frictionless mono-disperse soft spheres (and binary soft discs, specified below) using the athermal quastistatic shearing (AQS) protocol, as detailed in previous work [@vinu2016; @vinu-sjperc], which we refer to for further details. The contact networks obtained from sheared frictionless soft spheres/discs are used to obtain force balance solutions. We study sphere packings for a wide range of densities \[$0.55 - 0.63$\] and system sizes $N=256, 2000$. The number of samples used to obtain Fig. \[figm1\] and Fig. \[figm2\] is between $5$ and $10$. For Fig. \[figm3\](a), the data for $N=256$ are averaged over all independent solutions of $5$ steady state (SS) configurations (by which we mean the large strain regime in which the properties of the packings, [*e. g.*]{} the mean contact number, do not statistically change with changes in strain) and for $N=2000$ independent solutions are obtained from $6$ configurations. The number of samples used to obtain Fig. \[figm3\](b) is above $5$. The number of samples used to obtain Fig. \[figm4\](a),(c) is $4000$ force configurations and $20$ contact geometries. Force distributions for each $Z$ window in Fig. \[figm4\](e) is obtained by averaging at least $20$ contact geometries and more than $50$ force configurations. In order to perform rigidity analysis, we analyze sheared frictionless packings in 2D of a $50:50$ binary mixture of soft discs, the diameter ratio being $1.4$, for densities $0.79 - 0.835$ and system sizes ($N=2000,20000,10^{5},10^{6}$). The number of configurations used to obtain percolation data in Fig. \[figm5\] are $300,75,10,10$ for $N=2000,20000,10^{5},10^{6}$ respectively.
[**Force Balance Solutions – The null space method:**]{} We develop a new method based on projecting the problem onto the null space of the contact matrix, described below. Various simulation techniques and numerical methods have been employed in previous work to obtain force balanced contact geometries, and force networks for a given contact geometry [@lerner2012; @lerner2013; @gendelman2016; @jean1999; @unger2003; @hurley2016; @snoeijer2004]. Our method vastly improves the accuracy of the solutions, see SI Fig. $S1$(b). To obtain contact forces for a given contact network, first we express the vector $\vec{r}_{ij}$ joining the center of two spheres $i$ and $j$ in spherical polar coordinates ($\hat{n}_{ij},\hat{\theta}_{ij}$,$\hat{\phi}_{ij}$). Let $\vec{f_i}$ and $\vec{\Gamma_i}$ denote the total force and the total torque on the $i^{th}$ particle and $\vec{f_{ij}}$ is the force exerted on particle $i$ from particle $j$. Then the force and torque balance conditions are written as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{f_i} = \Sigma _j (\hat{n}_{ij} f_{ij}^{n} + \hat{\theta}_{ij} f_{ij}^{\theta} + \hat{\phi}_{ij} f_{ij}^{\phi}) = 0 \\
\vec{\Gamma_i} = \Sigma_j \vec{R_i} \times \vec{f_{ij}} = 0 \\
\vec{\Gamma_i} = \Sigma_j R_i ( f_{ij}^{\theta} \hat{\phi}_{ij} - f_{ij}^{\phi} \hat{\theta}_{ij}) \end{aligned}$$ Where $R_i$ is the radius of particle $i$. The matrix $M$ is constructed from the unit vectors between particles in contact. For a single contact ( SI Fig. $S1$(a)) the matrix $M$ is shown below.
$$M= \left(
%\scalebox{0.71}{
\begin{array}{cccc}
n_{12}{}^x & \theta_{12}{}^x & \phi_{12}{}^x & \cdots \\
-n_{12}{}^x & -\theta_{12}{}^x & -\phi_{12}{}^x & \cdots \\
n_{12}{}^y & \theta_{12}{}^y & \phi_{12}{}^y & \cdots \\
-n_{12}{}^y & -\theta_{12}{}^y & -\phi_{12}{}^y & \cdots \\
n_{12}{}^z & \theta_{12}{}^z & \phi_{12}{}^z & \cdots \\
-n_{12}{}^z & -\theta_{12}{}^z & -\phi_{12}{}^z & \cdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & R_1 \phi_{12}{}^x & -R_1 \theta_{12}{}^x & \cdots \\
0 & R_2 \phi_{12}{}^x & -R_2 \theta_{12}{}^x & \cdots \\
0 & R_1 \phi_{12}{}^y & -R_1 \theta_{12}{}^y & \cdots \\
0 & R_2 \phi_{12}{}^y & -R_2 \theta_{12}{}^y & \cdots \\
0 & R_1 \phi_{12}{}^z & -R_1 \theta_{12}{}^z & \cdots\\
0 & R_2 \phi_{12}{}^z & -R_2 \theta_{12}{}^z & \cdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\end{array}
%}
\right)
\label{eq:M}$$
Then, we write down the force balance and torque balance conditions in the matrix form. $$M \mid F \rangle = 0$$ where $M$ is $((\frac{D(D+1)}{2})N \times DC)$ matrix, $D$ is the dimensionality of space, $C$ is the number of contacts and $\mid F\rangle$ is a vector of size $DC \times 1$, with $3$ (for $D=3$, 2 for $D=2$) force components ($f^n, f^{\theta}, f^{\phi}$) for each contact. The normal forces $f^n$, which form the first $C$ elements of the matrix, need to be positive, which is a constraint to be imposed on all solutions. Now, we construct a matrix $H = M^{T} M$, which is of dimension $DC \times DC$. Using the matrix $M$, we construct an energy function $E = \langle F\mid M^{T}M \mid F \rangle$ to directly obtain contact forces ([*Direct Minimization*]{} method). But the null space method we describe here offers a more accurate method. To implement this method, we diagonalize the matrix $H$ and obtain eigenvectors with zero eigenvalues, as they satisfy conditions of mechanical equilibrium, which form the basis of null space. Hence any vector (force solution) obtained from a linear combination of these eigenvectors in the null space also satisfies the force balance conditions. Let ${\bf X_j}$ represent eigenvector $j$ and has $DC$ elements. The first $C$ elements do not in general satisfy positivity constraints and hence are not physical forces. We obtain physical force solutions in the null space by finding the coefficients $x_j$ of the eigenvectors that will satisfy the positivity constraint on $f_n$. In other words: $$f_{i} : \Sigma_{j=1}^{D_{ns}} X_{ij} x_{j} - y_i = 0, y_i \geq 0$$ where $i$ represents the contact number, $D_{ns}$ is the number of eigenvectors in the null space, and $y_i$ are auxiliary variables introduced to impose positivity. The above set of equations can be written in a matrix form. $$M^{'} \mid x y \rangle = 0,$$ where the matrix $M^{'}$ has the dimension $C \times (D_{ns} + C)$, the vector $\mid xy \rangle$ has dimension $(D_{ns}+C) \times 1$ and are given by $$M^{'}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
X_{11} & X_{12} & \cdots & X_{1k} & -1 & 0 & \cdots \\
X_{21} & X_{22} & \cdots & X_{2k} & 0 & -1 & \cdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
X_{C1} & X_{C2} & \cdots & X_{Ck} & \cdots & 0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq:M'}$$ and $$\mid xy \rangle = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_{1} \\ : \\
: \\ x_{k} \\
y_{1} \\ : \\
: \\ y_{C}\\
\end{array}
\right )$$ By defining an energy function $E^{'} = \langle xy \mid M^{'T} M^{'} \mid xy \rangle$ which is a quadratic function with positivity constraints on $y_i$. The energy functions $E^{'}$ and $E$ are minimized using reflective Newton method for bound constraint minimization (BCM) [@coleman1996], and we use the label [BCM]{} to refer to either one of the methods above. We find that independent initial guesses generate independent (but not [*orthogonal*]{}) solutions. We use random forces as well as forces from DEM simulations as initial guesses. The force scale is set by the magnitude of the initial guess. For SS packings, using the null space method, we obtain all the independent solutions for different densities.\
We also implement the Coulomb criterion that restricts the magnitude of the tangential forces, in two and three dimensions. We show data for $\mu=1$, a physical value of the friction coefficient, in addition to solutions for the infinite friction case.\
In $2D$, the Coulomb criterion, $\mid f_t \mid \leq \mu f_n$, can be written as a set of linear constraints as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
f_t - \mu f_n \leq 0 \\
- f_t - \mu f_n \leq 0 \end{aligned}$$ We include these constraints in the matrix $M$ or $M^{'}$, by introducing auxiliary variables as above.
In 3D, the Coulomb criterion is a quadratic constraint, but can be expressed as linear constraints as follows. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert f_t \rVert \leq \mu f_n \\
(f_{\theta}^2 + f_{\phi}^2 ) \leq \mu^2 f_n^2 \\
f_{\phi}^2 \leq (\mu f_n - f_{\theta}) (\mu f_n + f_{\theta}) \end{aligned}$$ which can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mid f_{\theta}\mid \leq \mu f_n \\
\mid f_{\phi} \mid \leq (\mu f_n - f_{\theta})\\
\mid f_{\phi}\mid \leq (\mu f_n + f_{\theta}) \end{aligned}$$
The last three equations are implemented in a similar way as the $2D$ case. This increases the dimension of the matrix $M$ or $M^{'}$ by $2\times (3C)$ and hence it is computationally expensive. The quadratic constraint can be directly imposed and solved using interior point methods developed for solving quadratically constrained quadratic program (QCQP). Solutions for these constrained optimization problems are obtained using the optimization library in MATLAB.\
Using the above method, we first obtain force balance solutions using the forces obtained from DEM simulations [@cundall1979] for the same initial SS configurations. In SI Fig. $S2$, we show that force solutions obtained from the two methods match well.\
\
[**Stress anisotropy:**]{} Stress anisotropy is computed from the eigenvalues of the stress tensor. Stress tensor is defined as follows: $$\hat{\sigma} = \frac{1}{V}\Sigma_{i \neq j} \vec{r}_{ij} \otimes \vec{f}_{ij}$$ Where $\vec{r}_{ij}$ is the distance between the centers of spheres $i,j$. We diagonalize the stress tensor and obtain principal components of the stress tensor and the corresponding eigenvalues. Eigenvalues of the stress tensor are $P_1 > P_2 > P_3$, where $P_1$ is along the compressive direction, $P_2$ is along the transverse or vorticity direction, and $P_3$ is along the dilative direction. The stress anisotropy is defined as follows:
$$SA = (P_1 - P_3)/(P_1 + P_2 + P_3)$$
[**The pebble game algorithm:**]{} We implement a ($k=3,l=3$) pebble game [@jacobs1997; @henkes2016], which we describe briefly. The algorithm is based on Laman’s theorem, which states that the network of $N$ vertices is generically, minimally rigid in two dimensions if and only if it has $3N - 3$ bonds and no subgraph of $n$ vertices has more than $3n - 3$ bonds [@laman1970]. The pebble game is implemented as follows: Each disc (from now on called as a site) is assigned $k=3$ pebbles, each pebble corresponding to one degree of freedom, $2$ translational and $1$ rotational. The quantity $l=3$ corresponds to the total number of global translational and rotational degrees of freedom that are always present for a rigid body and must be accounted. Each contact represents one constraint for translational motion and one constraint for rotational motion. Hence, each contact in the contact network is replaced by two bonds, representing the two constraints. A series of steps are used to assign pebbles to bonds, such that each bond that is covered by a pebble is an independent constraint restricting one degree of freedom. When a pebble is assigned to a bond, it is assigned a direction, If the bond $E_{ab}$ is covered by a pebble from site $a$, then the bond is directed from $a$ to $b$. Pebbles that remain on the sites are free and can be used to cover other bonds, but once a bond is covered by a pebble, it continues to be covered, and a pebble covering a bond can be moved only with another pebble taking its place. A bond can be covered by a free pebble from one of the two sites at either end of it, if the total number of pebbles at its sites is $(l+1)$. If for a bond the total number of pebbles at its sites is less than $l+1$, we search for a free pebble to cover this bond, but the search is conducted only along bonds that are directed away from the sites adjacent to the bond ([i. e.]{}, we attempt to retract a pebble previously assigned to a bond, and replace it with another from elsewhere). From each site $v$, we can search along ($k=3$) bonds directed away from $v$. The search for a free pebble continues until a pebble is found and a sequence of swaps allows the bond under consideration to be covered and marked as an independent bond. If a free pebble is not found, due to the search process encountering a set of closed loops that takes the search back to the initial sites, then the bond is marked as redundant. The algorithm terminates when each bond is marked as an independent bond or a redundant bond. The presence of redundant bonds leads to over-constrained regions. The sites visited during the failed pebble search belongs to the over-constrained (rigid +stress) regions.
We map out rigid clusters from the network of redundant and independent bonds. Only the independent bonds are used to identify rigid clusters, and we seek to label them so that all the independent bonds belonging to a rigid cluster has the same cluster label. We start with an unlabelled bond $E_{ab}$ and we perform a pebble search to obtain $k=3$ pebbles (which can always be found) and pin the three pebbles at the sites $a$ and $b$ (i.e., these three pebbles are not free). Sites $a$ and $b$ are marked rigid and bond $E_{ab}$ is assigned a cluster label. Next, we inspect neighbours of sites $a$ and $b$ to mark them floppy or rigid with respect to $a$ and $b$. For $a_1$, a neighbour of site $a$, we perform a pebble search and attempt to free a pebble for the bond $E_{a,a_1}$. If a free pebble is found then site $a_1$ is marked floppy. If a free pebble is not found then the site $a_1$ is marked rigid and also all the sites that are visited during the failed search are marked as rigid with respect to the initial sites. The above procedure is repeated until all the neighbours of the rigid sites are marked floppy. All the bonds between pairs of sites marked rigid are given the same cluster label as $E_{ab}$. The procedure is repeated until all the bonds are assigned a cluster label, with the labelling as rigid or floppy being removed when a new cluster search is initiated each time. Clusters containing only two sites (one bond) belong to floppy regions. More details of the algorithm are in the reference [@jacobs1997].
After the pebble game, we have sites (or discs) belonging to the biggest rigid cluster and also sites that are identified as over-constrained, which we then test for percolation. The percolation probability is computed by first identifying the biggest cluster by connecting particles that are in contact using Lees-Edwards periodic boundary conditions. Then we check if the biggest cluster percolates not only in the simulation box (by inquiring whether it extends from one edge of the box to the other, as done in previous studied [@vinu-sjperc]), but also considering an extended system composed of the simulation box, surrounded by periodic copies of the system, and testing whether the largest cluster percolates across the extended area so defined. These two procedures do not produce significantly different results in cases studied before [@vinu2016; @vinu-sjperc], but we find that for rigidity percolation analysis, the thresholds depend more significantly on the definition used. We thus use the more restrictive definition of percolation across the extended area. Since the force network in the sheared systems we study are anisotropic, we study percolation independently along one direction ($x$ or $y$ or compressive (diagonal)) and all directions ($x$ and $y$ or compressive and dilative directions).
To obtain cluster size distributions, shown in Fig. \[figm5\], we first compute the percolation threshold value of the contact number $Z_c$ seperatly for each configuration as the value where where the rigid+stress particles percolate [*i.e.,*]{} cluster spans at least in one direction. The average value of $ \langle Z_c \rangle = 2.858$, is used in the plot shown.
**Force networks and jamming in shear deformed sphere packings(Supplementary Information)**\
[H. A. Vinutha and Srikanth Sastry]{}
Here we present additional information regarding various aspects of our analysis of force balance solutions, namely: (i) Accuracy of the null space method, (ii) Comparison with DEM forces, (iii) Dimensionality of the null space, (iv) Small force exponents and stability criteria, (v) Small force distributions as a function of strain, (vi) Spatial correlations of stress, (vii) Density-Strain phase diagram for the two dimensional system, (viii) Rigid and rigid+stress percolation in two dimensions, (ix) Intermediate phase in shear jamming and (x) Evolution of rigid, rigid+stress, and force networks.
Accuracy of the Null Space Method
=================================
In Fig. \[figmeths\], we show the average contact force $\langle f_c \rangle$ and the average of total force on a particle $ \langle F_t \rangle$, for SS configurations at different densities, for force solutions that are obtained using the null space method and from direct minimization. The magnitude of the average contact force is set by the initial guess used by the minimization protocol. Figure \[figmeths\] shows that force solutions obtained using the null space method are more accurate and are force balanced up to an accuracy of $\approx 10^{-14}$, whereas the force solutions obtained from direct minimization are force balanced up to an accuracy of $\approx 10^{-11}$.
Comparison with DEM forces
==========================
Using the BCM method, we first obtain force balance solutions and compare the solutions to the forces obtained from DEM simulations for the same initial SS configurations, obtained quasistatically with a small strain step to ensure there is a minimal change in the contact network during DEM [@vinu2016].The initial guess for forces is taken from DEM simulations, and the simulation details and DEM parameters are as mentioned in [@vinu-sjperc]. The normal and tangential components of the contact forces, $f_n$ and $f_t = \sqrt((f^{\theta})^2 + (f^{\phi})^2)$, are computed for densities $\phi=0.627,0.61$, and $0.58$, including in the matrix $M$ only those contacts that remain at the end of the DEM simulations. The forces at each contact estimated using BCM are compared with those obtained from DEM simulations in Fig. \[figp1\], demonstrating that they agree very well with each other. This analysis supports two conclusions: (i) Forces obtained by solving force balance conditions for SS configurations agree well with DEM forces, implying that the SS contact network can support the forces observed in the DEM simulations, which in turn correspond to shear jamming. (ii) The contact networks at the end of the DEM simulations, which support finite contact forces and stresses, are those that are present in the SS configurations. The only changes in the contact network is that some of the SS contacts are lost during the DEM simulations, and we can account for all of them. They are either contacts of rattlers, or contacts that require higher friction coefficients to be retained than what we employ during the DEM simulations.
Dimensionality of the Null Space
================================
In Fig. \[fig2\], we show the null space dimension as a function of density for $N=256$ and $2000$, averaged over $5$ initial SS configurations. Observe that the limiting density when the number of force solution is one is close to $\phi=0.55$, indicated by the green fit curve for the $D_ns/6N$ ($N=2000$) data. This is consistent with other indicators discussed in the paper.
Small Force Exponents and Stability Criteria
============================================
In Fig. $1$(d) of the paper, we showed force distributions obeying a power law distribution $P(f) \sim f^{\theta}$. The exponent $\theta$ and the power law exponent $\gamma_g$ of the near contact singularity of the pair correlation function $g(r)$ have been related through the stability criterion $\theta > \frac{1}{\gamma_g} - 2 $. In Fig. $3$(b) of the paper only the variation of small force exponent $\theta$ is shown, which corresponds to extended mode instabilities. In addition to extended modes, a small force distribution arising from buckling modes has also been discussed. We find in our force distributions that the smallest force regime is characterised by a smaller exponent, which we tentatively identify as the buckling mode exponent $\theta_b$, which is obtained by a fit to small contact forces (the fit curves in maroon, see Fig. \[figbm\] (a)). In Fig. \[figbm\], we show the variation of the small force exponent $\theta_b$, as the lower density limit is approached. Similar to the $\theta$ exponent, $\theta_b$ also shows that as the lower density limit of $\phi = 0.55$ is reached the system ceases to obey the stability criterion. In table $1$, we tabulate different exponent values corresponding to extended and buckling modes and the exponent values obtained from relations of marginal stability. Note that we do not have data to directly substantiate the association of forces as due to extended or buckling modes.
Small force distributions as a function of strain
=================================================
In Fig. $4$(c) of the paper, we showed force distributions obeying a power law distribution $P(f) \sim f^{\theta}$, as the jamming strain is approached. In Fig. \[figgofr\], we show $g(r)$ having a power law form near contact for different $Z$ (or $\gamma$) windows. Using the power law exponents of $g(r)$ ($\gamma_g$), we compute the force distribution exponent required for stability against extended modes. In Fig. \[figstb057\] and \[figstb058\], we show small force distributions and its exponents for $\phi=0.57$ and $\phi=0.58$. As we approach the shear jamming strain, the system loses its stability. Which also occurs when the low density limit is approached.
Spatial Correlations of Stress
==============================
The presence of non-zero shear stress and non-zero spatial stress correlation of bonds in the shear plane, even in the thermodynamic limit, distinguishes shear jammed packings from isotropically jammed packings, [@baity2016]. We compute spatial correlation of stresses in the shear plane ($xz$) for the SS configurations at different densities. The correlation is defined as follows: $$C_{\alpha\beta}^{(\sigma)} = \textlangle \sum_{k \neq 0} \sigma_{\alpha\beta}^{(0)} \sigma_{\alpha\beta}^{(k)} \delta([ X^{(0)} - X^{(k)}] - X ) \textrangle$$ where $\sigma^{k}$ is the stress on the bond $k$ and $X^{k}$ is the position of bond $k$. Along the shear plane $xz$, we observe that the correlation are finite and is zero in the other planes. Along the shear plane $xz$, we observe that at large $X$ the correlations are finite for densities above $\phi=0.55$, see Fig. \[figstre\](a). In Fig. \[figstre\](b), we show spatial stress correlation of bonds along different planes for $\phi=0.61$, which are finite at large $X$ for the shear plane $xz$ and zero in the other planes.
Density-Strain Phase Diagram for the Two Dimensional System
===========================================================
In this section, supporting plots for the 2D phase diagram discussed in the main text. In Fig. \[fig5\], we show supporting data for the BCM results shown in Fig. $5(a)$ of the paper. The average contact force and stress obtained from the BCM method are shown. The data is averaged over $5$ configurations. For $\phi=0.8$ average is done over $15$ configurations. The BCM jamming strain is obtained from the strain values marked by the vertical lines in plot of $<f_c>$, which is very close to $Z=D+1$. In Fig. \[fig6\], contact force data for the finite friction coefficient $\mu=1$ from BCM is shown along with DEM data for $\mu=1$, showing that the jamming strain values for BCM and DEM are close to each other and to $Z = 3 (= D+1)$.
Rigid and Rigid+Stress Percolation in Two Dimensions
====================================================
In Fig. \[fig3\], we show rigid and over-constrained (rigid+stress) percolation probabilities as a function of strain, for $N=2000$. The rigid and rigid+stress strain values in Fig. $5$(a) of the paper corresponds to percolation probability of $0.5$ of case [*all*]{} (where we require percolation to occur along both axes). The percolation along [*one*]{} and [*all*]{} directions occurs at different strain values. This separation is more apparent as a function of $Z$ rather than $\gamma$, as shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. To show the presence of an intermediate phase for different densities, we show the percolation of rigid clusters and over-constrained regions (rigid+stress) as a function of $Z$ (for the [*all*]{} case) in Fig. \[fig4\]. Since the configurations are anisotropic, the rigid and rigid+stress percolations along [*one*]{} and [*all*]{} directions are well separated, as shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. The percolation of rigid+stress clusters that percolate along one direction can support stress transmission along the direction of percolation. Propagation of stress along one direction is characteristic of the fragile force networks.
Intermediate phase in shear jamming
===================================
The possibility of fragile force networks to form in the intermediate phase is supported by two results below. In Fig. \[fig8\], we show rigid+stress percolation along [*one*]{} and [*all*]{} directions to occur at different values of $Z$ and $\gamma$ and the rigid+stress percolation along one direction occurs after the rigid percolation. In the intermediate window, the percolating clusters of over-constrained regions can support strong forces along one direction, which is the definition of fragile force network [@cates1998; @bi2011]. We characterize the anisotropy in the sheared two dimensional packings using fabric and stress anisotropy, defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{R} = \frac{1}{N}\Sigma_{i \neq j} \frac{\vec{r_{ij}}}{\mid r_{ij}\mid} \otimes \frac{\vec{r_{ij}}}{\mid r_{ij}\mid} \\
\hat{\sigma} = \frac{1}{V}\Sigma_{i \neq j} \vec{r_{ij}} \otimes \vec{f_{ij}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{r_{ij}}$ is the distance between the centers of pair $(ij)$. We diagonalize the fabric (stress) tensor and obtain principal components of fabric (stress) tensor and the corresponding eigenvalues. Eigenvalues of the fabric tensor are $C_1 > C_2$ and the stress tensor are $P_1 > P_2$. $C_1$ ($P_1$) is along the compressive direction and $C_2$($P_2$)is along dilative direction. The stress and fabric anisotropy are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
FA = (C_2 - C_1)/(C_1 + C_2) \\
SA = (P_2 - P_1)/(P_1+ P_2)\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fig7\], we show the stress anisotropy and fabric anisotropy as a function of strain for different densities. In the stress anisotropy plot, we mark the strain values corresponding to $Z=3$ and rigid percolation. We see that in this window of strain values the anisotropy of the force network starts to deviate from the linear behavior and to saturate, which supports the above idea. These ideas are speculative at the moment and require further investigation to validate them.
Evolution of Rigid, Rigid+Stress, and Force Networks
====================================================
In Fig. \[fig9\], we show the evolution of rigid clusters and the force network as a function of strain, for one initial configuration strained using the AQS protocol at $\phi=0.82$. The snapshots clearly show that there is a strong spatial correlation between the rigid cluster (red network, left panel) and the force network (right panel). Particularly, contacts with forces $f_c > \langle f_c \rangle$ are concentrated on the discs that belong to the over-constrained (or stressed) regions, the sites of which are marked with blue dots. Observe that the average contact force increases with increase in the number of over-constrained sites. Above the shear jamming transition, almost all the particles, except a few rattlers, are over-constrained and the system can have multiple force balance solutions for the same contact network. Hence the comparison becomes less revealing at larger strains.
----------------- ------------ -------------------------- ---------- ----------------- ------------
$\phi$ $\gamma_g$ $\frac{1}{\gamma_g} - 2$ $\theta$ $1 - 2\gamma_g$ $\theta_b$
\[1ex\] $0.55$ $0.4212$ $0.374$ – $0.1576$ –
\[1ex\] $0.56$ $0.4232$ $0.363 $ $0.404$ $0.1536$ –
\[1ex\] $0.57$ $0.4288$ $0.332$ $0.925$ $0.1424$ $0.366$
\[1ex\] $0.58$ $0.4341$ $0.304$ $1.199$ $0.1328$ $0.435$
\[1ex\] $0.59$ $0.443$ $0.2573$ $1.3654$ $0.114$ $0.571$
\[1ex\] $0.61$ $0.4574$ $0.1863$ $1.7242$ $0.0852$ $0.773$
\[1ex\] $0.627$ $0.46335$ $0.158$ $1.9782$ $0.0733$ $1.164$
\[1ex\]
----------------- ------------ -------------------------- ---------- ----------------- ------------
: Table of small force exponents ($\theta$, $\theta_b$ ) and $g(r)$ power law exponents ($\gamma_g$). The stability criteria require $\theta > \frac{1}{\gamma_g} - 2 $, $\theta_b > 1 - 2 \gamma_g$. The right hand sides of the inequalities are also shown.
![\[fig2\] The null space dimension $D_{ns}$, scaled with $6N$ (maximum dimension of the matrix $M$), as a function of density for two different system sizes. The green line is a fit to $N=2000$ data (black squares). The plot shows that the fit curve and the $Z$ data of SS configurations identifies $\phi=0.55$ as the lower density limit, as $Z$ approaches the isostatic limit at $\phi=0.55$, $Z_c = 4 (= D+1)$.](./fcomp_demnbcg_phi061n627n58_N2000_1.pdf)
![\[fig2\] The null space dimension $D_{ns}$, scaled with $6N$ (maximum dimension of the matrix $M$), as a function of density for two different system sizes. The green line is a fit to $N=2000$ data (black squares). The plot shows that the fit curve and the $Z$ data of SS configurations identifies $\phi=0.55$ as the lower density limit, as $Z$ approaches the isostatic limit at $\phi=0.55$, $Z_c = 4 (= D+1)$.](./dimnulls_phis_Ns_indsols.pdf)
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We explore physical properties of the shocked external medium (i.e., a shell) in 3C 84 associated with the recurrent radio lobe born around 1960. In the previous work of Ito et al., we investigated a dynamical and radiative evolution of such a shell after the central engine stops the jet launching and we found that a fossil shell emission overwhelms that of the rapidly fading radio lobe. We apply this model to 3C 84 and find the followings: (i) The fossil shell made of shocked diffuse ambient matter with the number density of $0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ radiates bright Inverse-Compton (IC) emission with the seed photons of the radio emission from the central compact region and the IC emission is above the sensitivity threshold of the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA). (ii) When the fossil shell is produced in a geometrically thick ionized plasma with the number density of $10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and the field strength in the shell may reach about $17$ mG in the presence of magnetic fields amplification and the radio emission becomes comparable to the sensitivity of deep imaging VLBI observations. A possible production of ultra high energy cosmic-rays (UHECRs) in the dense shocked plasma is also argued.'
author:
- 'M. Kino, H. Ito, K. Wajima, N. Kawakatu, H. Nagai, R. Itoh'
title: 'Fossil shell in 3C 84 as TeV $\gamma$-ray emitter and cosmic-ray accelerator'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are among the most powerful objects in the Universe. Interactions between jets and ambient medium drive strong collisionless shocks in the surrounding external medium. Therefore, AGN jets can provide us with a great variety of important information about fundamental physical processes in collisionless shocks (e.g., Marcowith et al. 2016 for a review). An AGN jet is thought to play an important role for radio-mode feedback against interstellar matter in its host galaxy (e.g., Fabian 2012 for review). According to the standard picture of jets in AGNs (e.g., Begelman et al. 1984), a jet is enveloped in a cocoon consisting of shocked jet material. The hot cocoon’s pressure drives the forward shocks and the forward-shocked external medium produces the shell structure. Although the shell is a fundamental ingredient, physical properties of the shell have not been well studied because they are faint radio-quiet emitters (Carilli et al. 1988) and still undetected at radio wavelengths.
Recent theoretical work on forward shocks have provided us with basic properties of forward shocks in AGNs such as predicted high energy $\gamma$-ray emission (e.g., Fujita et al. 2007; Ito et al. 2011; Kino et al. 2013; Ito et al. 2015 (hereafter I15)), possible cosmic-ray production and magnetic field amplification (e.g., Berezhko 2008). However, comparisons between these theoretical predictions and observations are poorly studied because of the paucity of information about the surrounding external medium in which forward shocks are driven.
The compact radio source 3C 84 (also known as NGC1275) is one of the nearby ($z=0.018$) best-studied radio galaxies. 3C 84 shows intermittent jet activity (e.g., Nagai et al. 2010). Once the jet activity stops, the radio emission of the lobes fades out rapidly making the shell dominate the radio emission (I15). For this reason, the intermittent radio activity observed in 3C 84 makes this source a good candidate for observational studying the shell emission. Comparison between model spectra and observed non-thermal emission generally provides us with straightforward limits of magnetic fields (hereafter $B$-fields) strength and number density, particle (electron) acceleration efficiency in the shell.
The goal of this paper is to explore basic properties of the fossil shell in 3C 84 and its detectability. We will examine whether we can constrain the magnetic field strength and particle acceleration efficiency in the shell by comparing the theoretical predictions with the observations.
The layout of this paper is as follows. In §2, we briefly review the model following the work of I15. In §3, physical quantities associated with 3C 84 radio lobe and surrounding environment are summarized. In §4, the shell emission spectra predicted by applying the model to 3C 84 using the quantities shown in §3. Summary is presented in §5. In this work, we define the radio spectral index $\alpha_{R}$ as $S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\alpha_{R}}$. The cosmological parameters used here are as follows; $H_{0} = 71~{\rm km/s/Mpc}$, $\Omega_{\lambda} = 0.73$ and $\Omega_{m} = 0.27$ (e.g., Komatsu et al. 2011). The redshift of 3C 84 ($z=0.018$) is located at the luminosity distance $D_{\rm L}=75$ Mpc and it corresponds to 0.35 pc mas$^{-1}$.
Model
=====
Details of the model of pressure-driven expanding jet-remnant system have already been well established (Ostriker & McKee 1988; I15 and references therein). In this paper, we simply follow it in the present work. In Figure \[fig:cartoon\], we take the specific case of 3C 84. The kinetic energy of the jets is dissipated via the termination shock at the hot spots and deposited into the cocoon (radio lobes) with its radius $R$ and the shell with its width $\delta R$. In the present work, we estimate $R_{\parallel} \approx 10$ pc in 2015 (see Table 1). The cocoon is inflated by its internal energy. The cocoon drives the forward shock propagating in the external medium and the forward-shocked region is identical to the shell. The C3 component near the nucleus is the well-known newborn component (hot spot/radio lobe) which propagates southward (Nagai et al. 2010; Suzuki et al. 2012). O’Dea et al. (1984) and Walker et al. (2000) clarified the existence of dense ionized gas which causes FFA of northern jet. In this picture, we describe the dense gas as a “ plasma torus” which is suggested in some of radio galaxies (e.g., Kameno et al. 2001 for NGC 1052). Since the actual jet axis viewing angle is not 90 degrees, the northern part of the jet and radio lobe are hidden by FFA due to the surrounding matter (Walker et al. 2000). In Figure \[fig:cartoon\], the surrounding matter is described as the ionized plasma torus. The outside of the plasma torus would match a dust torus region. Since a geometrical relation between the dust torus and the ionized plasma torus is highly uncertain and it is still under debate (e.g., Netzer & Laor 1993; Czerny & Hryniewicz2011), we do not display the dust torus in Figure \[fig:cartoon\].
Dynamics
--------
Here we briefly summarize the dynamics of the expanding cocoon. The cocoon radius ($R$) is determined by the momentum balance between the cocoon’s internal pressure and the ram pressure. The mass density of surrounding external matter ($\rho_{\rm ext}$) at $R$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rho_ext}
\rho_{\rm ext}(R)=\rho_{0} \left(\frac{R}{R_{0}}\right)^{-\alpha} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{0}$, $R_{0}$, and $\alpha$ are the reference mass density, the reference radius, and the power-law index of $\rho_{\rm ext}$, respectively. The shell width ($\delta R$) at $R$ satisfies the relation $\delta R=
(\hat{\gamma}_{\rm ext}-1)[(\hat{\gamma}_{\rm ext}+1)(3-\alpha)]^{-1} R$, where $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm ext}$ is the specific heat ratio of the external medium.
Following the previous work of I15, we consider two phases depending on the source age ($t$):
- \(i) the phase in which the jet energy injection into the cocoon continues ($t<t_{j}$)
- \(ii) the phase after the jet has switched off $(t>t_{j})$
where $t_{j}$ denotes the duration of the jet injection. Hereafter, we assume that the kinetic power of the jet ($L_{j}$) is constant in time when $t<t_{j}$ and $L_{j}=0$ for $t\ge t_{j}$. The bulk kinetic energy of the jet is dissipated and deposited as the internal energy of the cocoon and shell. As for the early phase with jet energy injection into the cocoon, the time evolution of $R$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R}
R(t)=C R_{0}^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-5}}
\left(\frac{L_{j}}{\rho_{0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{5-\alpha}}
t^{\frac{3}{5-\alpha}} \quad (t<t_{j}) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the numerical coefficient and the explicit form of $C$ is shown in I15. Note that $L_{j}/\rho_{0}$ is the key control parameter which governs the dynamical expansion of the bubble (Kawakatu et al. 2009a and reference therein).
After the energy injection from the jet stops, (i.e., $t>t_{j}$) the cocoon will rapidly lose its energy due to adiabatic expansion and give away most of its energy into the shell within a dynamical timescale. Hence, after $t\approx t_{j}$, the cocoon pressure becomes dynamically unimportant, and the energy of the shell becomes dominant. Therefore, the behavior of the cocoon asymptotically follows the Sedov-Taylor expansion and the expansion velocity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:v}
v(t) = \dot{R}(t) \propto t^{-(3-\alpha)/(5-\alpha)}
\quad (t>t_{j}) .\end{aligned}$$ During the Sedov-Taylor expansion phase, the adiabatic relation $P_{c} V_{c}^{\hat{\gamma}_{c}}=const$ holds where $P_{c}$, $V_{c}$, and $\hat{\gamma}_{c}$ are the pressure, volume, and the specific heat ratio of the cocoon, respectively. Then, we can approximately describe $R_{c}(t)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{c}(t)=
R(t_{j})
\left[\frac{P_{c}(t_{j})}{P_{c}(t)}\right]^{1/3\hat{\gamma}_{c}}
\quad (t>t_{j}) .\end{aligned}$$ Note that the cocoon expands slower than the propagation speed of the forward shock and the shell width correspondingly becomes slightly wider (e.g., Figure 1 of Reynolds & Begelman 1997). This behavior holds also for relativistic regime and it is known as an expanding-coasting phase (e.g., Piran 1999 for a review.) The time evolution of $P$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:P}
P_{c}(t)\approx P_{\rm shell}(t)=
\frac{3}{4}
\rho_{0}\dot{R}(t)^{2}
\left[\frac{R(t)}{R_{0}}\right]^{-\alpha}
\quad (t>t_{j}) ,\end{aligned}$$ by matching the pressures between the shell and cocoon at $t=t_{j}$. For the shock jump condition between the shell and external medium, the specific heat ratio of external medium is set as $5/3$ and it leads to $\delta R/R =1/12$.
Hereafter, the subscripts $\parallel$ and $\perp$ are used for $R$ and $v$ (see Figure \[fig:cartoon\]). The subscript $\parallel$ describes the direction parallel to the jet axis, while the subscript $\perp$ corresponds to the direction perpendicular to it.
Geometry of external medium
---------------------------
Various radio observations of 3C 84 suggest the existence of dense external ionized gas (i.e., plasma) in the central region (e.g., O’Dea et al. 1984; Walker et al. 2000; Plambeck et al. 2014). This circum-nuclear structure of dense ionized gas hides the northern radio lobe via free-free absorption (FFA) process (Walker et al. 2000). Hence, shocks driven by the cocoon propagate through both the diffuse ambient medium and the dense circum-nuclear structure of ionized gas. Geometry of the dense plasma is quite uncertain. If the dense plasma is a geometrically thin disk, then the volume of the shocked dense plasma may be negligibly small. On the other hand, if the plasma shows a torus-like geometry, the volume would not be that small. We introduce a free parameter which represents filling factors of the shocked plasma torus and ambient matter over the shell as $f_{\rm torus}$ and $f_{\rm amb}$. Since the cocoon expands quasi-spherically in all directions, $f_{\rm amb}+f_{\rm torus} \approx 1$ holds where $0< f_{\rm amb} \lesssim 1$, and $0\lesssim f_{\rm torus}<1$.
In the present work, we examine the case when the dense plasma has the torus-like geometry (Figure \[fig:cartoon\]). In the present work, we examine the case in which $f_{\rm amb} \approx f_{\rm torus} \approx 0.5$ is realized.
Non-thermal emission
--------------------
Since the details have been already explained in Kino et al. (2013) and I15, here we briefly review the basic treatment of non-thermal electrons and photons in a shell. We solve the kinetic equation of the non-thermal electrons including the back reaction of radiative and adiabatic coolings. First, as for the external photon field against IC process we consider (1) UV photons from a standard accretion disk, (2) IR photons from a dust torus, (3) synchrotron photons from the fading radio lobe, (4) synchrotron photons from the central compact region, and (5) synchrotron photons from the shell. Second, we include the effect of absorption via $\gamma \gamma$ interaction. Very high-energy (VHE) photons suffer from absorption via interaction with various soft photons (e.g., Coppi & Aharonian 1997). Here, we include the $\gamma \gamma$ absorption due to photons intrinsic to the source and photons from the extragalactic background light (EBL). The absorption opacity with respect to the intrinsic photons can be calculated by summing up all of the photons from (1) the shell, (2) the radio lobes, (3) the dusty torus, and (4) the accretion disk and we multiply the $\gamma \gamma$ absorption factor of $\exp(-\tau_{\gamma \gamma})$ with the unabsorbed flux. For simplicity, we deal with the absorption effect at the first order and we neglect cascading effect. For the cosmic $\gamma \gamma$ opacity, we adopt the standard model of Franceschini et al. (2008).
Physical quantities in 3C 84
============================
In this section, we discuss physical parameters of 3C 84. All of the quantities are summarized in Table 1.
Total power of the jet : $L_{j}$
--------------------------------
The mass of the black hole in NGC 1275 is estimated to be around $M_{\odot}\approx 8 \times 10^{8}M_{\odot}$ by gas kinematics (Schawachter et al. 2013). Correspondingly, the Eddington luminosity of NGC 1275 is $L_{\rm Edd}\approx 1 \times 10^{47}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. It is natural to suppose that the total power of the jet ($L_{j}$) satisfies the relation of $L_{\rm Edd}\ge L_{j}$ [^1]. Various estimates of the total power of the jet in 3C 84 at the central parsec region may be found in the literature. Heinz et al. (1998) argued that the time-averaged total power of the jet in NGC 1275 probably exceeds $L_{j}\sim 10^{46}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. They derived the conclusion based on the observed properties of X-ray cavities in the central region of the Perseus cluster, which is supposed to be inflated by relativistic particles of the shocked jet. They also suggested that the jet power in a quiescent state (corresponding to off-state mentioned in the paper of Reynolds and Begelman 1997) may be lower than $\sim 10^{46}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. Such a quiescent state case would correspond to the estimate of the power $L_{j}\sim 5\times10^{44}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ in Abdo et al. (2009). The observed luminosity at each energy band is of order of $\sim 10^{43}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ from radio to GeV $\gamma$-ray band (Abdo et al. 2009). Therefore, the bolometric luminosity is estimated to be $\sim 10^{44}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. Hence, a typical case of radiative efficiency of non thermal electrons with a few percent results in the electron kinetic power of the order of ${\rm a~few}\times10^{45}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. The proton component is also supposed to contribute to the total jet power. It is quite reasonable that $L_{\rm j}$ corresponds to a few percent of $L_{\rm Edd}$. These estimates are consistent with a jet luminosity of the order of ${\rm a~few}\times 10^{45}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$, in agreement with the range of values reported in the literature. Therefore, following Heinz et al. (1998), we adopt $ L_{j} = 5 \times10^{45}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}} $ (i.e., 5% of the Eddington power) as a fiducial value.
Fading radio lobe
-----------------
In the present work, we will focus on VLBA data at 15 GHz because there are sufficient archival data (MOJAVE project summarized by Lister et al. 2009, see also http://www.physics.purdue.edu/MOJAVE/) that enable us to explore basic properties of 3C 84 in detail and the spatial resolution is suitable for exploring shells.
### VLBA images of fading radio lobe at 15 GHz
In order to see basic characteristics of the radio lobe, we analyzed three epochs of relatively good quality VLBA archival data of 3C 84 at 15 GHz obtained in 1994, 2010, and 2015 (the project ID are BR003, BL149CX, and BL193AS, respectively). Two of them are adopted from MOJAVE data (http://www.physics.purdue.edu/MOJAVE/). The initial data calibration was performed with the Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS) developed at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. First, a priori amplitude calibration was applied using the measured system noise temperature and the elevation-gain curve of each antenna. We then calibrated the amplitude part of bandpass characteristics at each station using the auto-correlation data. We applied opacity correction due to the atmospheric attenuation, assuming that the time variation of the opacity is not significant during each observation. The visibility phase and delay offset between different sub-bands were solved by using 3C 84 itself. Fringe fitting was performed with the AIPS task [*“fring”*]{} on 3C 84 by averaging over all the IFs. Imaging and self-calibration were performed using the Difmap software package (Shepherd 1997). The final images were produced after iterations of CLEAN, phase, and amplitude self-calibration processes. We used a natural weighting scheme.
In Figure \[fig:15G\], we show the obtained intensity map of the fading radio lobe. The image root-mean-square (rms) of VLBA at 15 GHz in Figure \[fig:15G\] of each three epochs ($1~\sigma$) is, 18.5 mJy/beam (1994, ID BR003), 3.1 mJy/beam (2010, ID BL149CX), and 3.0 mJy/beam (2015, ID BL193AS), respectively. The high rms and large beam size for the observation performed in 1994( ID BR003) is due to problems at the SC station which cause the flagging of the data from that antenna. The total flux of the fading lobe in each epoch is shown in the figure caption. We define the source radius $R$ as the de-projected distance between the nucleus (C1 component) to the head of the radio lobe and it is a measured quantity. The projected angular distance is about 20 mas. The allowed de-projection distance is $R_{\parallel} \approx 9-16~ {\rm pc}$ based on the previous estimate of the jet viewing angle $\theta_{\rm view}=25^{\circ}$ and $\theta_{\rm view}=49^{\circ}$ derived by Tavecchio et al. (2014) and Fujita and Nagai (2017), respectively. At the center of each epoch, the bright central compact region consists of three sub-components: C1, likely hosting the source core, C2, a diffuse and faint component, and C3, a bright hot-spot-like component (see e.g., Nagai et al. 2010). The central region accounts for the majority of the source emission and its synchrotron photons play a dominant role as seed photons for IC scattering in the shell.
The long-term radio light curve of 3C 84 at 8 GHz shows the flux density increase started around 1960 (Nesterov et al. 1995). Therefore, the age of the dying radio lobe in 3C 84 is estimated as $t\sim 50-60~{\rm years}$ in 2015. In this work, we set $t=55$ [years]{}.
### on the duration of the jet injection
It is hard to estimate the duration of the jet injection ($t_{j}$) or equivalently the time when the jet stopped accurately, because it is not a direct observable. At least, the fading of the radio lobe clearly indicates that $t_{j}$ is shorter than $t$. In this work, we will examine the three cases of $t-t_{j}=$5, 10, and 30 [years]{}.
Shell
-----
Once we know the evolution of fading radio lobe, then we can derive the advancing velocities of the shell.
### Advancing velocity parallel to the jet: $v_{\parallel}$
The advancing velocity of the radio lobe head ($v_{\parallel}$) has been well constrained in the literatures and we simply follow it. In Asada et al. (2006), the authors measure it with the two epoch data (1998 August and 2001 August) of VSOP observations at 5 GHz and derived an advancing velocity as $v_{\parallel}\sim 0.5~c$. Lister et al. (2013) derived $v_{\parallel}\sim 0.3c$ in the framework of MOJAVE project. The lobe advancing velocity seen in Figure \[fig:15G\] is consistent with these $v_{\parallel}$ in the literature.
### Advancing velocity parallel to the jet: $v_{\perp}$
On the contrary to $v_{\parallel}$, little is known about propagation velocity of the shell perpendicular to the jet axis ($v_{\perp}$), since there is no observational constraint on the high-$n$ shell. In our model, same amount of internal energy is allocated the shocked torus and shocked ambient matter regions. Therefore, the pressure in the shocked torus is larger than that in the shocked ambient matter region because of the smaller volume.
The propagation speed of $v_{\perp}$ is governed by the balance between the ram pressure and the cocoon pressure in the perpendicular direction, i.e., $\rho_{\rm ext} v_{\perp}^{2} \propto P_{\rm c,\perp}$ where $P_{\rm c,\perp}$ is the pressure in the region behind the high-$n$ shell (see Figure \[fig:cartoon\]). The larger $\rho_{\rm ext}$ leads to (1) the smaller $v_{\perp}$ and correspondingly (2) the smaller radius for the region behind the high-$n$ shell ($R_{\perp}$). Then, the pressure $P_{\rm c,\perp}$ plays an important role for determining $v_{\perp}$ because $P_{\rm c, \perp}\propto E_{\rm c, \perp}/V_{c, \perp}\propto R_{\perp}^{-2}$ where $V_{c, \perp}\propto R_{\perp}^{3}$ and $E_{\rm c, \perp}\propto R_{\perp}$. The smaller $R_{\perp}$ leads to the larger $P_{\rm c, \perp}$. Therefore, the larger $\rho_{\rm ext}$ in the high-$n$ shell and the larger $P_{\rm c, \perp}$ are in the high-$n$ shell largely cancelled each other out. Then, $v_{\perp}$ does not slow down significantly. With the model parameters in the present study summarized in Table 1, we can obtain $v_{\perp}/v_{\parallel}
\approx R_{\perp}/R_{\parallel}
\approx 1/5$ for $t=55~{\rm years}$.
### Magnetic fields strength: $B_{\rm shell}$
Here we argue the viable range of magnetic field strength. First, we argue the lower limit of magnetic field strength averaged over the spatial scale $\sim 100$ pc. Silver et al. (1998) discovered the extended radio halo structure at 330 MHz (hereafter we call “milli-halo” according to their original naming) with its averaged diameter of $\sim 500$ mas which is slightly elongated along the orientation of the jet axis. Furthermore, the milli-halo has a brightness temperature $\sim 3\times 10^{7}$ K, it is surely non thermal. Thus the emission most probably originated in the jet remnant generated by the past activity of the central engine. Then Silver et al. (1998) estimate the magnetic field strength in the milli-halo as $B_{\rm ext}\approx 200~{\rm \mu G}$ by assuming equipartition condition together with the path length of 75 pc. Taylor et al. (2006) estimated the field strength in the central region ($<2$ kpc) of the Perseus cluster by using the equipartition assumption between the magnetic field and hot plasma which emit X-ray with a temperature of $5\times 10^{7}$ K and number density $\sim 0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and have obtained $B_{\rm ext}\approx 300~{\rm \mu G}$ which is comparable to the estimate obtained by Silver et al. (1998). Taylor et al. (2006) further estimated the field strength within the $10$ pc scale radio lobe as by measuring the rotation measure (RM) associated with the lobe’s tip, which can be regarded as the hotspot. The measured value shows $RM \sim 7\times 10^{3}~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$. By adopting the path length as 1 pc, they derived the value of $B_{\rm ext}\approx 50~{\rm \mu G}$. Based on these previous works, here we set the fiducial magnetic field strength in the shell as $ B_{\rm shell} \approx 0.1~{\rm mG}$.
External medium
---------------
Hereafter, we denote the number density of external medium as $n_{\rm ext}$. We assume that the external medium consists of both a diffuse gas with low number density ($n_{\rm amb}$) surrounding the radio source, and a circum-nuclear structure, e.g. a torus, of dense ionized gas ($n_{\rm torus}$). A sketch is shown in Figure \[fig:cartoon\].
### Number density of diffuse ambient medium: $n_{\rm amb}$
Taylor et al. (2006) estimated the number density by using the deep Chandra observation (Fabian et al. 2006). Within the central 0.8kpc, the density profile is severely affected by the nucleus. So, they estimated an average central density over the inner 2kpc to be $n_{\rm amb}\sim 0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}$. Regarding the upper limit of number density we adopt the value recently obtained by Fujita et al. (2016). They make two assumptions that (1) hot gas outside the Bondi radius is in nearly a hydrostatic equilibrium in a gravitational potential, and (2) the gas temperature near the galaxy centre is close to the virial temperature of the galaxy. Then, they obtain $n_{\rm amb}\sim 10~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ in the inner part of Perseus cluster. Then we obtain $0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}\le n_{\rm amb} \le 10~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ by regarding the value derived by Fujita et al. (2016) as the upper limit of $n_{\rm amb}$. In this work, we set $n_{\rm amb}\approx 0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ as a fiducial one based on Fabian et al. (2006).
### Number density of plasma torus: $n_{\rm torus}$
The existence of dense thermal gas surrounding 3C 84 was discovered by O’dea et al. (1984). They suggested that 3C 84 is embedded in a dense thermal gas with the number density $\sim 2\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ derived from the condition of depolarization by differential Faraday rotation in the external plasma. Walker et al. (2000) also confirm that the spectra are consistent with FFA by VLBA observations at 5, 8, 15, and 22 GHz and the northern radio lobe feature is on the far side of the system relative to the Earth. Therefore, the size of the plasma (ionized gas) should be spatially extended to the scale at least comparable to the radio lobe seen in Figure \[fig:15G\] since the northern lobe is still hidden by the FFA.
Although the geometrical details of the thermal gas are highly uncertain, it is clear that the required total power of the jet would be very large if the dense thermal gas with $\sim 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ completely envelopes the overall 3C 84 system. For this reason, we regard it as the dense ambient matter and as a geometrically thick plasma torus. Here, we set $n_{\rm torus} = 1\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ with the path length of about $10~{\rm pc}$ which is comparable to $R$ (see the next sub-sections.)
External photon field
---------------------
### Synchrotron emission from the central compact region
As already explained, it is well known that the central compact region consists of three sub-components: C1, likely hosting the source core, C2, a diffuse and faint component, and C3, a bright hot-spot-like component. Hereafter, synchrotron photons coming from the whole central component region are considered, with no distinction among those sub-components. This should make the method and results of this work easier and clearer to read and follow. In Figure \[fig:KaVA43GHz\], we show the recent image of the central compact region with KaVA at 43 GHz . KaVA is a combined VLBI array with KVN (Korean VLBI Network) and VERA (VLBI Exploration of Radio Astrometry) operated by KASI and NAOJ, respectively and its baseline lengths range from 305 to 2270 km (see Niinuma et al. 2014 for details). This is one of the epochs of a long-term KaVA monitoring of 3C 84 at 43GHz (http://radio.kasi.re.kr/kava/) and we conducted a data reduction in a standard way, already described in sub-section 3.2.1. The obtained total flux of the central compact region at 43 GHz is about 15 Jy in 2015 and thus we obtain $L_{43G}=4\pi D_{\rm L}^{2} S_{\nu}\nu \approx 4 \times 10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. The measured total flux density of the central compact region is consistent with the one obtained by the blazar monitoring project led by Boston university group (https://www.bu.edu/blazars/VLBAproject.html).
The long termVLBI monitoring of the central compact region at 22 GHz shows a gradual monotonic increase of the flux from $\sim$2006 (Nagai et al. 2010, 2012; Suzuki et al. 2012; Chida et al. 2015). The total flux of the central compact region at 14mm measured by VERA is $\sim$20 Jy and from this we obtain $L_{22G}=4\pi D_{\rm L}^{2} S_{\nu}\nu \approx 3 \times 10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. In the present work, we set an averaged spectral index as $\alpha_{R}\approx 0.3$ in $S_{\nu}$ of the central compact region (Chida et al. 2015). In §4, we will find that the synchrotron photons from the central compact region are the dominant seed photons for the IC scattering.
### Synchrotron emission from the fading radio lobe
Synchrotron photons from the fading radio lobe are also regarded as seed photons for IC in the shell although it does not play a dominant role. As shown in Figure \[fig:15G\], the total fluxes of the fading radio lobes at 15 GHz are 7.4, 2.0, 1.2 Jy in 1994, 2010 and 2015, respectively. Then the corresponding luminosity of the fading radio lobe in 2015 is $L_{\rm lobe} \approx 1\times 10^{41}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ and it is shown in Table 1. In §4, the synchrotron photons from the fading radio lobe will turn out to be less dominant as seed photons for the IC scattering.
### Thermal emission from accretion disk and dust torus
Here we estimate accretion disc luminosity ($L_{UV}$) in 3C 84 using the observed line spectra. Using the observation data obtained by Kanata telescope’s HOWPol (Hiroshima One-shot Wide-field Polarimeter) (Kawabata et al. 2008) , Yamazaki et al. (2013) addressed the variation of the line ratio of (H $\alpha$+\[NII\])/\[OII\] which reflects the activity of UV photons from accretion disc. The broad H $\alpha$ line shows no significant variability during 2010-2011. Although there is a possibility of a long-term ($\sim$10 year scale) change of the activity of the accretion disk, here we estimate $L_{UV}$ by regarding the flux obtained by Kanata as a conservative minimum value. Using the same data, we further revisited and evaluated the line spectra in 3C 84 and we estimate the UV luminosity as follows (Kino et al. 2016). The \[OII\] luminosity is derived as $L_{\rm [OII]}=1.9\times 10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ by Ho et al. (1997), while the H alpha plus \[NII\] line luminosity measured by KANATA HowPOL is $L_{H\alpha+[NII]}=1.2\times 10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. According to Ho et al. (1997), $L_{[NII]}$ typically contributes to $L_{H\alpha+[NII]}$ up to $\sim 20\%$. Adopting the value of \[OI\] luminosity from Ho et al. (1997) and the empirical relation by Greene and Ho (2005), we obtain $L_{\rm UV}\approx 5 \times 10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. [^2] In addition, the luminosity ratio of $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}\sim 4\times 10^{-3}$ where $L_{\rm bol}$ is the bolometric luminosity of 3C 84 (e.g., Levinson et al. 1995 and reference therein). Thus, the classification of the accretion flow in 3C 84 may settle down on the border between the standard Shakura-Sunyaev disk (Shakura and Sunyaev 1973) and Radiatively Inefficient Accretion Flow (RIAF). In the present work, however, we do not take the RIAF emission into account because it is negligibly small as seed photons for IC at the fossil shell.
The dust emission at the center of NGC 1275 has been investigated with [*Herschel*]{} data by Mittal et al. (2012) and they derived the total dust luminosity as $L_{\rm IR, total}\sim 5\times 10^{44}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. spatially- ntegrated over arcsec angular-size scale. Because of heavy absorption by dust torus in young compact radio sources (e.g., Kawakatu et al. 2009b; Ostorero et al. 2010), it is difficult to estimate the dust-torus luminosity accurately. Hence, we use the work of Calderone et al. (2012) to give us a better estimation of the dust torus luminosity ($L_{IR}$). Calderone et al. (2012) explore the fraction of torus re-emission of absorbed accretion disc radiation for about 4000 radio-quiet AGNs and they found that the dust torus reprocesses 1/3-1/2 of the accretion disk luminosity. Based on their work, we set $L_{\rm IR, torus} =\frac{L_{UV}}{2}$. The lower value of $L_{\rm IR, torus}$ compared to $L_{\rm IR, total}$ obtained by Mittal et al. (2012) can be consistent with each other, since the spatial resolution of [*Herschel*]{} is much larger than the size of dust-torus (sub-arcsec scale) and it probably contains galactic-dust emission.
Predicted shell spectra
=======================
In the previous section, we carefully discuss the observed quantities of 3C 84 and the physical quantities in the model, which are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Since 3C 84 is one of the best-studied radio sources, we have tight constraints of observational quantities. In this section, we show the non-thermal emission spectra from the fossil shell in 3C 84 after stopping the jet energy injection. Here, we conservatively set the total luminosity of the central compact region as constant in time. Since the central compact region still gets brighter, the resultant fossil shell spectra to be shown here would correspond to conservative lower limit cases.
As for treatment of fading radio lobes, we simply follow our previous work of I15. We set a large value of electron gyro-factor in the lobe as $\xi_{e, \rm lobe}=10^{7}$. In general, the gyro-factor is proportional to a particle acceleration timescale and thus it determines the maximum energy of those accelerated particles. Change of $\xi_{e, \rm lobe}$ value has no impact on the results of this work. We set the power-law index of injected electrons in the lobe as $p_{e,\rm lobe}=2.2$ corresponding to the standard value for relativistic shocks (e.g., Bednarz & Ostrowski 1998; Achterberg et al. 2001; Kirk 2000). As for energetics, we simply assume the equipartition between $B$-fields and electrons i.e., $\epsilon_{e}=\epsilon_{B}\approx 0.1-0.01$. For avoiding complexity of the figures, we do not overlay the fading radio lobe spectra. We find that the IC emission due to the synchrotron seed photons from the fading lobe are not dominant in the fossil shell spectra.
We also note that an actual total emission from the fossil shell should be the sum of the high-$n$ and low-$n$ spectra. Below, we separately discuss the spectra from high-$n$ and low-$n$ for better clearness.
The case of $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm amb}$
-------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig:low-n\], we show the emission spectrum from the shocked ambient medium (i.e., low-$n$ shell). Following the physical parameters reported in Tables \[table:lobe\] and \[table:environment\] and discussed in §3, we estimate the expected emission from the shell that is expanding in a low-density ambient medium, i.e., $n_{\rm amb}=0.3 ~{\rm cm^{-3}}$. The jet power, age, and the magnetic field strength in the shell are, respectively, $L_{\rm j}=5\times 10^{45}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$, $t=55~{\rm years}$ and $B_{\rm shell}=0.1~{\rm mG}$. By solving the evolution governed by Eq. (\[eq:R\]) with these $L_{\rm j}$, $t$ and $n_{\rm amb}$, we obtain $R_{\parallel} \approx 8~{\rm pc}$ which is similar to the minimum value of the estimated $R_{\parallel}\approx 9~{\rm pc}$. (Since a spherical symmetry is assumed Eq. (\[eq:R\]) for simplicity, all of the jet power is isotropically ejected. Hence, a slightly smaller $R_{\parallel}$ by the model is more consistent.) The corresponding advancing velocity of the shell is $v_{\perp}\sim 0.26~c$. In addition, we can readily find that a larger $R_{\parallel}$ requires a fairly large $L_{\rm j}$.
The shell spectrum is IC-cooling dominated and the IC peak occurs in the TeV $ \gamma$-ray energy band. The IC component of synchrotron photons from the central compact region in Figure \[fig:15G\]) is dominant in the shells. The distance from the seed photon source and the fossil shell is taken into account. Even though the distance from the central compact region and the fossil shell is about 10 pc and the photon energy density decrease as $R^{-2}$, the IC component of the central compact region is still more dominant than the IC component of the fading radio lobe simply because the synchrotron luminosity of the central compact region is much higher than that from the fading lobe.
The predicted shell spectra have a trend similar to the ones shown in our previous work of I15. The opacity for $\gamma \gamma$ interaction between EBL and TeV photons is sufficiently small because of its proximity and we find that the predicted TeV $\gamma$-ray flux can be comparable to the sensitivity of CTA (https://web.cta-observatory.org/science/cta-performance/) with the integration time 50 hours. As reported in the Astronomer’s telegram (http://www.astronomerstelegram.org), the data show variabilities in TeV $\gamma$-ray flux (e.g., Mirzoyan 2016, 2017; Mukherjee and VERITAS Collaboration 2016, 2017; Lucarelli et al. 2017; Ahnen et al. 2016). Such variabilities can be naturally explained by the emission from the blazar region (e.g., Tavecchio et al. 2014). On the other hand, the fossil-shell emission does not show such variabilities. Since the TeV $\gamma$-ray emission from a fossil-shell is less luminous than those from the blazar region, a low-activity phase of the blazar region is favored in search of the fossil shell emission.
It is well known that IC scattering process is divided into two regimes, i.e., Thomson and Compton regimes. Using the characteristic energy of the seed photons ($E_{\rm seed}$) and electrons ($E_{e}=\gamma_{e}m_{e}c^{2}$), the following relation is satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
2 E_{\rm seed}\times E_{e}\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\ll (m_{e}c^{2})^{2} & {\rm (Thomson~regime)}\\
\gtrsim (m_{e}c^{2})^{2} & {\rm (Compton~regime).}\\
\end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$ The maximum energy of IC spectrum ($h \nu_{\rm IC, max}$) in the case of the Thomson regime is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h \nu_{\rm IC, max} \approx \gamma_{e,\rm max}^{2} E_{\rm seed} ~{\rm (Thomson~regime)} ,\end{aligned}$$ while $h \nu_{\rm IC}$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
h \nu_{\rm IC, max} &\approx&
\gamma_{e,\rm max} m_{e}c^{2} \nonumber \\
&=& E_{e,\rm max} ~{\rm (Compton~regime),}\end{aligned}$$ for the Compton regime. Keeping this in mind, let us argue which scattering regime is realized for seed photons considered in this work. Against UV photons with the energy $E_{\rm UV}$ from an accretion disk, the IC scattering is taken place in Compton regime for electrons with their energy $$\begin{aligned}
E_{e}\gtrsim
\frac{(m_{e}c^{2})^{2}}{2E_{\rm UV}}
\approx 12~{\rm GeV}
\left(\frac{E_{\rm UV}}{10~{\rm eV}}\right)^{-1} .\end{aligned}$$ Thus we find that $h \nu_{\rm IC, max}$ is significantly limited by the Klein-Nishina effect although $E_{e,\rm max}/m_{e}c^{2}$ extends up to $\sim10^{7.5}$ in this case. From this, we can easily understand that IC scattering against IR photons from dusty torus is also in the range of Compton regime. On the other hand, the seed photons from the central compact region with its characteristic energy $E_{\rm mm}$ is IC scattered in the Thomson regime and thus we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
h \nu_{\rm IC, max} \approx
10^{12}~{\rm eV}
\left(\frac{\gamma_{e,\rm max}}{10^{7.5}}\right)^{2}
\left(\frac{E_{\rm mm}}{10^{-3}~{\rm eV}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ This well explains the IC spectra in Figure \[fig:low-n\].
In Figure \[fig:evolution-low-n\], we show the three epochs of the predicted shell spectra. As already explained in I15, the shell almost keeps its emission flux level because fresh electrons are continuously supplied into the shell via the forward shock driven by the cocoon/radio-lobes while the radio-lobes rapidly fade out without jet energy injection.
The case of $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm torus}$
---------------------------------------
### The case with B-amplification
Here, we take the process non-linear amplification of the magnetic fields into account (Lucek & Bell 2000; Bell & Lucek 2001), although little attention has been paid in the research field of AGN jets so far. Based on Lucek & Bell, it is expected that cosmic ray (CR) streaming in AGN jets would drive large-amplitude Alfvenic waves and the CR streaming energy is transferred to the perturbed magnetic field of the Alfven waves. Let us discuss the case when B-amplification is effective in the torus region (i.e., $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm torus}$). In this work, following the pioneering work of Berezhko (2008) which first introduces nonlinear amplification process of the magnetic field in AGN jets into account, we employ the empirical relation of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{B_{\rm shell}^{2}}{8\pi}
\approx 3 \times 10^{-3} \rho_{\rm torus}v_{\perp}^{2}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ obtained by Berezhko (2008) where $\rho_{\rm torus}=n_{\rm torus}m_{p}$. Then, we conservatively obtain the maximum value of the high-n shell’s field as $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\rm shell} \lesssim 17~{\rm mG},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\rm torus}=1\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and $v_{\perp}\sim v_{\parallel}/5\approx 0.05c$ are adopted here. This empirical relation by Berezhko (2008) is justified by recent studies of high-resolution Magneto-hydrodynamical (MHD) simulations. In particular, turbulence can significantly amplify $B$-field (e.g., Giacalone & Jokippi 2007; Inoue et al. 2009; Guo et al. 2012; Sano et al. 2012; Fraschetti 2013; Ji et al. 2016). For instance, the amplification factor of $B$-fields obtained by Ji et al. (2016) indeed reaches over $\sim 100$ which is consistent with the value discussed here. Note that a pile-up process of the $B$-field lines as the jet propagates sweeping the field lines in the torus could also help $B$-fields amplification (Rocha da Silva et al. 2015).
In Figure \[fig:high-n-Bamp\], we present the resultant fossil-shell emission spectra of dense fossil shell when the amplified B-fields become $ B_{\rm shell} \sim 17~{\rm mG}$. The bump at $10^{20}$ Hz corresponds to thermal bremsstrahlung emission from the fossil-shell. The temperature and number density in the fossil-shell are determined by Rankine-Hugoniot conditions (see I15 for details). In radio band, a bright synchrotron emission from the dense fossil shell is predicted. Here we estimate a typical detection-limit against a high-$n$ shell at 15 GHz for future VLBI observation. As already shown in Figure \[fig:15G\], the typical image rms is found as 3mJy/beam. Here, the case of 7-$\sigma$ detection is considered. A required number of the VLBA beam at 15 GHz which can fill the the shell-surface area on the sky plane can be approximately estimated as $\left[2\pi f_{\rm torus}\times 4~{\rm mas}(4~{\rm mas}\frac{\delta R}{R})\right]
/\left[((\pi/4)(0.7\times 0.4)~{\rm mas}\right] \sim 19$ where $20/5=4{\rm mas}$ as the angular size of $R_{\perp}$, $f_{\rm torus}=1/2$ and $\delta R/R= 1/12$ are used. Then we can get the typical detection-limit as $3~{\rm mJy/beam} \times 19~{\rm beam} \times 7\sigma
\approx 2 \times 10^{-14}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}}$. By comparing this detection-limit and the predicted shell spectra, we can argue a detectability of the shell emission at 15GHz. The predicted flux density is comparable with the detection-limit at 15 GHz. Therefore, performing deeper imaging observations of VLBA and/or other VLBIs in the future will generally give us meaningful constraints on fossil shell model parameters. For example, a usage of High Sensitivity Array (HSA), which is VLBA together with the Green Bank Telescope, phased VLA, and Effelsberg (https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vlba/proposing/HSA) would enable us to get better sensitivity by an order of magnitude and will increase the chance to detect the fossil shell emission in 3C 84. It is worth mentioning that the detectability of the shell might be limited not by the image thermal noise but the dynamic range. In such a case, better uv-coverage is essential for the detection. The total flux of the central compact region is about $\sim 10$ Jy level with a year-scale increase. Then, the required dynamic range is about a few times of 1000 if the flux density of the fossil shell is milli-Jy level. Hence, the required dynamic range can be attainable with typical/normal VLBA observations which can reach about a few times of 1000 (e.g., Perley 1999).
### Without B-amplification
In Figure \[fig:high-n\], we show the emission spectra for the case of high-$n$ shell with $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm torus}$. The number density of the torus is $n_{\rm torus}=1\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ which is based on the constraint obtained by O’Dea et al. (1984). The other values of model parameters and the observed quantities are the same as the ones in Figure \[fig:low-n\], i.e., $L_{\rm j}=5\times 10^{45}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ and $B_{\rm shell}=0.1~{\rm mG}$ and $\epsilon_{e}=0.1$.
Compared with the case of low-$n$ shell spectra, IC component is less luminous in TeV $\gamma$-ray energy band. This is due to the frequency-peak shift of the two IC components whose seed photons are the central compact region and the fading radio lobe. This is caused by (1) the shift of $E_{e,\rm max}\sim 10^{5.5}m_{e}c^{2}$ due to the IC cooling, and (2) decrease of the velocity which leads to the longer timescale of electron acceleration since $t_{e,\rm acc}\propto v^{-2}$. Then, the peak of IC against seed photons from the central compact region in this case is in the Thomson regime which can be written as $h \nu_{\rm IC, max} \approx
10^{9}~{\rm eV}
\left(\frac{\gamma_{e,\rm max}}{10^{5.5}}\right)^{2}
\left(\frac{E_{\rm mm}}{1~{\rm meV}}\right)$. As for IC scattering against UV and IR seed photons, $E_{e,\rm max} \gg 12~{\rm GeV}$ still realizes Compton regime at higher energy range.
Implication for cosmic-ray proton production
============================================
UHECR production in the dense plasma torus?
-------------------------------------------
The origin of ultra high-energy cosmic ray (UHECR) with energies above the ankle of $\gtrsim 10^{18.5}$ eV is still under debate (e.g., Nagano & Watson 2000; Kotera & Olinto 2011). A jet in AGN is generally expected as one of the most plausible sites for UHECR production (e.g., Takahara 1990; Rachen & Biermann 1993; Norman et al. 1995; Takami & Horiuchi 2011; Kino & Asano 2011; Murase et al. 2012). It is suggested that UHECR production at the nucleus regions of AGNs tends to cause problems due to various energy loss processes (e.g., Pe’er et al. 2009; Pe’er and Loeb 2012). Therefore, it is worthwhile discussing a new possibility away from the central nucleus regions of AGNs.
Since higher value of $B$-fields can be expected if $B$-field amplification process is in action in dense environments, here we discuss a feasibility of UHECR production in high-$n$ shells for the first time. For simplicity, (1) we assume the standard diffusive shock acceleration (e.g., Blandford and Eichler 1987), and (2) we neglect the possible existence of heavy nuclei. It is well known that the maximum accessible energy of UHECRs ($E_{p,\rm max}$) is governed by both the confinement condition and energy-loss/escape condition (e.g., Kotera and Orinto 2011 and references therein).
The Larmor radius of UHECRs ($r_{\rm L}\equiv E_{p}/e B_{\rm shell}$) should be smaller than the shell width i.e., $r_{\rm L}\gtrsim \delta R_{\perp}$. The typical $r_{\rm L}$ for high-$n$ fossil shell is given by $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\rm L}\approx
0.13~{\rm pc}
\left(\frac{E_{p}}{2 \times 10^{18}~{\rm eV}}\right)
\left(\frac{B_{\rm shell}}{17~{\rm mG}}\right)^{-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:E_max}
E_{p} \leq E_{p,\rm max} \approx
2 \times 10^{18}~{\rm eV}
\left(\frac{\delta R_{\perp}}{0.13~{\rm pc}}\right)
\left(\frac{B_{\rm shell}}{17~{\rm mG}}\right)^{+1} ,\end{aligned}$$ where we use $\delta R_{\perp} \sim 1.6~{\rm pc}/12\approx 0.13~{\rm pc}$. Essentially, the confinement condition governs the maximum energy of the UHECR ($E_{p,\rm max}$).
The acceleration timescale of protons ($t_{p,acc}$) generally satisfies $t_{p,acc}\lesssim {\rm min}[t, t_{\rm diff}, t_{\rm loss}]$ where $t_{\rm diff}$and $t_{\rm loss}$ are an diffusive escape timescale of UHECRs from the acceleration region and an energy-loss timescale of UHECRs in the acceleration region, respectively (e.g., Norman et al. 1995).
The acceleration timescale of protons at the high-$n$ fossil shell in the coasting phase is given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{p,acc} =
0.42~{\rm yr}
\left(\frac{E_{p}}{2\times 10^{18}~{\rm eV}}\right)
\left(\frac{B_{\rm shell}}{17~{\rm mG}}\right)^{-1}
\xi _{p} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_{p}$ is the gyro-factor for proton accelerations at the shell.
Following the study of Gabici et al. (2009), we adopt the diffusion coefficient (Eq. (13)) as $ D_{p} =
1\times 10^{28}
\chi
\left(\frac{E_{p}}{10^{10}~{\rm eV}}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{B}{3\mu G}\right)^{-1/2}
~{\rm cm^{2}~s^{-1}}$ where $\chi$ is a parameter which expresses deviations from the average Galactic diffusion coefficient. The value of $\chi$ is highly uncertain. The case of $\chi=1$ is identical to the case of the diffusion in Galactic interstellar medium. The case $\chi<1$ accounts for a possible suppression. The value of $\chi$ will depend on the power spectrum of magnetic field turbulence (e.g., Gabici et al. 2009 and reference therein). Then, a typical diffusion timescale of the UHECRs can be estimated as $ t_{\rm diff} =
\frac{\delta R_{\perp}^{2}}{6D_{p}}
\approx 4.7\times 10^{-4}~ {\rm yr}
\left(\frac{\delta R_{\perp}}
{0.13~{\rm pc}}\right)^{2}
\chi^{-1}
\left(\frac{E_{p}}{2\times 10^{18}~{\rm eV}}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{B_{\rm shell}}{17~{\rm mG}}\right)^{1/2}$ (Eq. (3) in Gabici et al. 2009). In order to satisfy the condition of $t_{p,acc}\le t_{\rm diff}$, the value of $\chi\sim 10^{-3}$ is required. Although little is known about $\chi$ in AGN torus, highly turbulent condition in AGN torus of magneto-ionized gas is expected (e.g., Wada et al. 2002). Thus, a much slower diffusion compared with the ordinary interstellar medium could be realized because of turbulence in the torus.
It is readily found that $t_{\rm loss}$ is not competitive to $t_{p, acc}$. The timescales of proton synchrotron and $pp$ collisions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{p,\rm syn}\approx 2.5\times 10^{5}~{\rm yr}
\left(\frac{B_{\rm shell}}{17~{\rm mG}}\right)^{-2}
\left(\frac{E_{p}}{2\times 10^{18}~{\rm eV}}\right)^{-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
t_{pp}\approx 5\times 10^{4}~{\rm yr}
\left(\frac{n_{\rm shell}}{10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}}\right)^{-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. These are significantly longer than $t_{p,acc}$. Therefore, we conclude that the high-$n$ shell can be a candidate of CR generator at least up to $\sim 2\times 10^{18}$ eV.
The case in shocks in circum-nuclear matter
-------------------------------------------
What about a further possibility of production of UHECRs in such high-$n$ shells up to $\sim 10^{20}~{\rm eV}$ in circum-nuclear matter which extends at larger scale? Here, we briefly discuss it. Schrwachter et al. (2013) reported the existence of the molecular hydrogen accretion flow in the inner 50 pc of NGC1275 by the Gemini North telescope observation. The accretion flow is oriented perpendicular to the radio jet axis. They interpret it as the outer part of a collisionally excited turbulent accretion flow with a number density of electron of $\sim 4\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$. If a strong shock drives this turbulent hydrogen accretion flow, then a geometrically thick shell with its width $\delta R\sim 5~{\rm pc}$ is expected. Then, such high-$n$ shells could produce UHECRs with the energy of a few$\times 10^{19}~{\rm eV}$ together with the assumption that the $B$-field strength is averaged by turbulence in the hydrogen accretion flow. However, it seems natural to suppose that $B$-field strength and the shock propagation velocity may decrease at large scale. Therefore, it is not clear whether the molecular hydrogen accretion flow observed by Schrwachter et al. (2013) is really a good site for producing UHECRs.
So far, we conservatively adopt the Berezhko’s amplification factor (Berezhko 2008). However, some previous work seems to indicate higher amplification rate of the $B$-fields. For example. Fraschetti (2013) examined the magnetic field amplification driven by the motion of vortical eddies and the amplification factor of the field can reach $\sim 10^{3}$ using reasonable parameters. If this is the case in 3C 84, then there is a possibility of production of UHECRs up to $\sim 10^{20}~{\rm eV}$.
Summary
=======
In the present work, we explored the physical properties of a fossil shell associated with fading radio lobe in 3C 84. In our recent work presented in I15, we have modeled the dynamical and spectral evolution of fossil shells that are identical to the forward shocks propagating in the external medium and found that the fossil shell emission overwhelms the fading radio lobe after the injection of energy and fresh particles from the jet has swathed off. In fact, the forward shock still continues to supply fresh electrons into the shell, while the radio lobe rapidly fades away. We apply this model to 3C 84. Below we summarize the results.
- The low-$n$ fossil shell made of shocked ambient matter with the number density of $\sim 0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ shows IC-dominated spectrum and it can be compatible to the sensitivity of CTA. Presumable TeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the central compact region may compete with the fossil shell emission. The brightness of TeV $\gamma$-ray depends on the activity of the central compact region in which blazar region is included. Hence we need to choose a low-activity phase of the blazar region for exploring the fossil shell emission in TeV $\gamma$-ray band. The predicted radio emission from this low-$n$ fossil shell is much below the typical sensitivity of VLBI.
- The high-$n$ shell made of shocked torus with the density of $\sim 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ shows a brighter synchrotron spectrum in general peaking at higher frequency and reaching a higher luminosity than in the case of a low-$n$ fossil shell. In particular, if magnetic field amplification is effective in the high-$n$ shell, then the field strength conservatively reaches $\sim 17$ mG order. Interestingly, the theoretical prediction of this fossil shell and detection threshold at radio band is comparable in this case. Hence, performing VLBI observations with higher dynamic range is important for a first detection of fossil shell with high-$n$.
- We propose that the high-$n$ shell with $B$-fields amplification is a possible site for UHECRs. The predicted $E_{p,\rm max}$ in the high-$n$ shell in 3C 84 is about $2\times 10^{18}$ eV when a slow diffusion in the plasma torus takes place. The value of $E_{p,\rm max}$ is proportional to the $B$-field strength, which is determined by non-linear process of field amplification. If the field amplification factor in 3C 84 is higher than that derived by Berezhko (2008), which is suggested by Fraschetti (2013), then 3C 84 can be a possible site for UHECR with the energy $\sim 10^{20}$ eV.
- An actual spectrum should be the sum of high-$n$ and low-$n$ shells. Therefore, cooperative observations between VLBI and CTA would be more effective and highly encouraged for exploring physical properties of the fossil shells in 3C 84 in great detail.
We thank the anonymous referee for the review and suggestions for improving the paper. We sincerely thank M. Orienti for fruitful discussions and useful comments. This research has made use of data from the MOJAVE database that is maintained by the MOJAVE team (Lister et al. 2009). The VLBA is operated by the US National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This work is partly based on observations made with the KaVA, which is operated by the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI) and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ). Data analysis was in part carried out on PC cluster and computers at Center for Computational Astrophysics, NAOJ. HI acknowledges the financial support of a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B:16K21630). NK acknowledges the financial support of Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B:25800099). HN is supported by MEXT KAKENHI Grant Number 15K17619. Part of this work was done with the contribution of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and University and Research for the collaboration project between Italy and Japan.
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, , 699, 31
Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, , 589, A33
Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2014, , 564, A5
Asada, K., Kameno, S., Shen, Z.-Q., et al. 2006, , 58, 261
Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y. A., Kirk, J. G., & Guthmann, A. W. 2001, , 328, 393
Bednarz, J., & Ostrowski, M. 1998, Physical Review Letters, 80, 3911
Berezhko, E. G. 2008, , 684, L69
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255
Bell, A. R., & Lucek, S. G. 2001, , 321, 433
Blandford, R., & Eichler, D. 1987, , 154, 1
Calderone, G., Sbarrato, T., & Ghisellini, G. 2012, , 425, L41
Chida, H., Nagai, H., Akiyama, K., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the 12th European VLBI Network Symposium and Users Meeting (EVN 2014), 73
Carilli, C. L., Perley, R. A., & Dreher, J. H. 1988, , 334, L73
Coppi, P. S., & Aharonian, F. A. 1997, , 487, L9
Czerny, B., & Hryniewicz, K. 2011, , 525, L8
Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, , 487, 837
Fabian, A. C. 2012, , 50, 455
Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2006, , 366, 417
Fraschetti, F. 2013, , 770, 84
Fujita, Y., Kohri, K., Yamazaki, R., & Kino, M. 2007, , 663, L61
Fujita, Y., Kawakatu, N., Shlosman, I., & Ito, H. 2016, , 455, 2289
Fujita, Y., & Nagai, H. 2017, , 465, L94
Gabici, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Casanova, S. 2009, , 396, 1629
Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, , 515, 376
Giacalone, J., & Jokipii, J. R. 2007, , 663, L41
Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, , 630, 122
Guo, F., Li, S., Li, H., et al. 2012, , 747, 98
Gupta, M., Sikora, M., & Nalewajko, K. 2016, , 461, 2346
Heinz, S., Reynolds, C. S., & Begelman, M. C. 1998, , 501, 126
Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W., & Peng, C. Y. 1997, , 112, 391
Inoue, T., Yamazaki, R., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2009, , 695, 825
Ito, H., Kino, M., Kawakatu, N., & Orienti, M. 2015, , 806, 241 (I15)
Ito, H., Kino, M., Kawakatu, N., & Yamada, S. 2011, , 730, 120
Ji, S., Oh, S. P., Ruszkowski, M., & Markevitch, M. 2016, , 463, 3989
Kameno, S., Sawada-Satoh, S., Inoue, M., Shen, Z.-Q., & Wajima, K. 2001, , 53, 169
Kawabata, K. S., Nagae, O., Chiyonobu, S., et al. 2008, , 7014, 70144L
Kawakatu, N., Kino, M., & Nagai, H. 2009a, , 697, L173
Kawakatu, N., Nagao, T., & Woo, J.-H. 2009b, , 693, 1686
Kino, M., Ito, H., Kawakatu, N., et al. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 47
Kino, M., Ito, H., Kawakatu, N., & Orienti, M. 2013, , 764, 134
Kino, M., & Asano, K. 2011, , 412, L20
Kirk, J. G., Guthmann, A. W., Gallant, Y. A., & Achterberg, A. 2000, , 542, 235
Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, , 192, 18
Kotera, K., & Olinto, A. V. 2011, , 49, 119
Levinson, A., Laor, A., & Vermeulen, R. C. 1995, , 448, 589
Lister, M. L., Aller, H. D., Aller, M. F., et al. 2009, , 137, 3718
Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2013, , 146, 120
Lucarelli, F., Pittori, C., Verrecchia, F., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9934
Lucek, S. G., & Bell, A. R. 2000, , 314, 65
Marcowith, A., Bret, A., Bykov, A., et al. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 046901
Mittal, R., Oonk, J. B. R., Ferland, G. J., et al. 2012, , 426, 2957
Mirzoyan, R. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9929
Mirzoyan, R. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9689
Mukherjee, R., & VERITAS Collaboration 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9931
Mukherjee, R., & VERITAS Collaboration 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9690
Murase, K., Dermer, C. D., Takami, H., & Migliori, G. 2012, , 749, 63
Nagai, H., Orienti, M., Kino, M., et al. 2012, , 423, L122
Nagai, H., Suzuki, K., Asada, K., et al. 2010, , 62, L11
Nagano, M., & Watson, A. A. 2000, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72, 689
Nesterov, N. S., Lyuty, V. M., & Valtaoja, E. 1995, , 296, 628
Netzer, H., & Laor, A. 1993, , 404, L51
Niinuma, K., Lee, S.-S., Kino, M., et al. 2014, , 66, 103
Norman, C. A., Melrose, D. B., & Achterberg, A. 1995, , 454, 60
O’Dea, C. P., Dent, W. A., & Balonek, T. J. 1984, , 278, 89
Ostorero, L., Moderski, R., Stawarz, [Ł]{}., et al. 2010, , 715, 1071
Ostriker, J. P., & McKee, C. F. 1988, Reviews of Modern Physics, 60, 1
Perley, R. A. 1999, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, 180, 275
Pe’er, A., & Loeb, A. 2012, JCAP, 3, 007
Pe’er, A., Murase, K., & M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. 2009, , 80, 123018
Piran, T. 1999, , 314, 575
Plambeck, R. L., Bower, G. C., Rao, R., et al. 2014, , 797, 66
Rachen, J. P., & Biermann, P. L. 1993, , 272, 161
Reynolds, C. S., & Begelman, M. C. 1997, , 487, L135
Rocha da Silva, G., Falceta-Gon[ç]{}alves, D., Kowal, G., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. 2015, , 446, 104
Sano, T., Nishihara, K., Matsuoka, C., & Inoue, T. 2012, , 758, 126
Scharw[ä]{}chter, J., McGregor, P. J., Dopita, M. A., & Beck, T. L. 2013, , 429, 2315
Shepherd, M. C. 1997, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, 125, 77
Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, , 24, 337
Silver, C. S., Taylor, G. B., & Vermeulen, R. C. 1998, , 502, 229
Suzuki, K., Nagai, H., Kino, M., et al. 2012, , 746, 140
Takahara, F. 1990, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 83, 1071
Takami, H., & Horiuchi, S. 2011, Astroparticle Physics, 34, 749
Taylor, G. B., Gugliucci, N. E., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2006, , 368, 1500
Tavecchio, F., & Ghisellini, G. 2014, , 443, 1224
Taylor, G. B., Gugliucci, N. E., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2006, , 368, 1500
Walker, R. C., Dhawan, V., Romney, J. D., Kellermann, K. I., & Vermeulen, R. C. 2000, , 530, 233
Yamazaki, S., Fukazawa, Y., Sasada, M., et al. 2013, , 65,
Wada, K., Meurer, G., & Norman, C. A. 2002, , 577, 197
[fig1.eps]{}
![The comparison of the three epochs overall 3C 84 radio lobe images with VLBA at 15 GHz in 1994, 2010, and 2015 (data are adopted from the VLBA archival data with the project ID BR003, BL149CX, and BL193AS, respectively). The central compact lobe and a pair of fading radio lobes are seen in each epoch. The total fluxes of the northern lobe, the central compact region (composed of C1, C2 and C3 components), and the southern lobe are respectively, 0.75, 13.89, 6.66 Jy (in 1994), 0.52, 20.56, 1.44 Jy (in 2010), and 0.40, 28.06, 0.76 Jy (in 2015). Note that the brightness peak (phase-center) in the image coincides with C1 in 1994 while the peak is at C3 in 2010 and 2015. The image rms is $\sim 3$ mJy/beam (1 $\sigma$) for the epoch in 2015. []{data-label="fig:15G"}](fig2.eps){width="16cm"}
[fig3.eps]{}
![Low-$n$ shell spectrum in 3C 84 (predicted in 2015 and evolution after that) with $n_{\rm amb}=0.3 ~{\rm cm^{-3}}$, $L_{\rm j}=5\times 10^{45}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$, $t=55~{\rm yr}$ and $B_{\rm shell}=0.1~{\rm mG}$. Further model parameter values and the observed quantities are completely summarized in Tables \[table:lobe\] and \[table:environment\]. The shell spectrum is IC-cooling dominated and the IC component of synchrotron photons from the central compact region (gray line) is dominant. []{data-label="fig:low-n"}](fig4.eps){width="15cm"}
![Spectral evolution of the fossil shell where $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm amb}=0.3~{\rm cm^{-3}}$. Three epochs with the durations after the jet stopping as 5, 10 and 30 years are shown here. The spectra are almost constant in time because of continuous injection of fresh electrons in the shell via the forward shock.[]{data-label="fig:evolution-low-n"}](fig5.eps){width="15cm"}
![Same as Figure \[fig:low-n\] but with $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm torus}=1\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and $B$-field amplification. This case is defined as high-$n$ shell. The bump at $10^{20}$ Hz corresponds to thermal bremsstrahlung emission.[]{data-label="fig:high-n-Bamp"}](fig6.eps){width="15cm"}
![Same as Figure \[fig:low-n\] but with $n_{\rm ext}=n_{\rm torus}=1\times 10^{3}~{\rm cm^{-3}}$., i.e., without $B$-field amplification. []{data-label="fig:high-n"}](fig7.eps){width="15cm"}
[^1]: see however Ghiselleni et al. (2014)
[^2]: Ho et al. (1997) did not explicitly mention the value of $H_{0}$ in their paper. If they adopted $H_{0} = 50~{\rm km/s/Mpc}$, then they underestimated of line luminosities by a factor of $\sim 2$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A $k$-orbit maniplex is one that has $k$ orbits of flags under the action of its automorphism group. In this paper we extend the notion of symmetry type graphs of maps to that of maniplexes and polytopes and make use of them to study $k$-orbit maniplexes, as well as fully-transitive 3-maniplexes. In particular, we show that there are no fully-transtive $k$-orbit 3-mainplexes with $k > 1$ an odd number, we classify 3-orbit mainplexes and determine all face transitivities for 3- and 4-orbit maniplexes. Moreover, we give generators of the automorphism group of a polytope or a maniplex, given its symmetry type graph. Finally, we extend these notions to oriented polytopes, in particular we classify oriented 2-orbit maniplexes and give generators for their orientation preserving automorphism group.'
author:
- |
Gabe Cunningham[^1]\
[University of Massachusetts Boston, USA]{};\
María del Río-Francos[^2]\
[Institute of Mathematics Physics and Mechanics]{}\
[University of Ljubljana, Slovenia]{};\
Isabel Hubard[^3] and Micael Toledo[^4]\
[Instituto de Matemáticas]{}\
[Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México]{}
title: Symmetry Type Graphs of Polytopes and Maniplexes
---
Introduction
============
While abstract polytopes are a combinatorial generalisation of classical polyhedra and polytopes, maniplexes generalise maps on surfaces and (the flag graph of) abstract polytopes. The combinatorial structure of maniplexes, maps and polytopes is completely determined by a edge-coloured $n$-valent graph with chromatic index $n$, often called the flag graph. The symmetry type graph of a map is the quotient of its flag graph under the action of the automorphism group. In this paper we extend the notion of symmetry type graphs of maps to that of maniplexes (and polytopes). Given a maniplex, its symmetry type graph encapsulates all the information of the local configuration of the flag orbits under the action of the automorphism group of the maniplex.
Traditionally, the main focus of the study of maps and polytopes has been that of their symmetries. Regular and chiral ones have been extensively studied. These are maps and polytopes with either maximum degree of symmetry or maximum degree of symmetry by rotation. Edge-transitive maps were studied in [@edge-trans] by Siran, Tucker and Watkins. Such maps have either 1, 2 or 4 orbits of flags under the action of the automorphism group. More recently Orbanić, Pellicer and Weiss extend this study and classify $k$-orbit maps (maps with $k$ orbits of flags under the automorphism group) up to $k\leq4$ in [@k-orbitM]. Little is known about polytopes that are neither regular nor chiral. In [@tesisisa] Hubard gives a complete characterisation of the automorphism group of 2-orbit and fully-transitive polyhedra (i.e. polyhedra transitive on vertices, edges and faces) in terms of distinguished generators of them. Moreover, she finds generators of the automorphism group of a 2-orbit polytope of any given rank.
Symmetry type graphs of the Platonic and Archimedean Solids were determined in [@Archim]. In [@medial] Del Río-Francos, Hubard, Orbanić and Pisanski determine symmetry type graphs of up to 5 vertices and give, for up to 7 vertices, the possible symmetry type graphs that a properly self-dual, an improperly self-dual and a medial map might have. The possible symmetry type graphs that a truncation of a map can have is determined in [@trunc]. One can find in [@CompSymTypeGraph] a strategy to generate symmetry type graphs.
By making use of symmetry type graphs, in this paper we classify 3-orbit polytopes and give generators of their automorphism groups. In particular, we show that 3-orbit polytopes are never fully-transitive, but they are $i$-face-transitive for all $i$ but one or two, depending on the class. We extend further the study of symmetry type graphs to show that if a 4-orbit polytope is not fully-transitive, then it is $i$-face-transitive for all $i$ but at most three ranks. Moreover, we show that a fully-transitive 3-maniplex (or 4-polytope) that is not regular cannot have an odd number of orbits of flags, under the action of the automorphism group.
The main result of the paper is stated in Theorem \[auto\]. Given a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ in Theorem \[auto\] we give generators for the automorphism group of ${\mathcal{M}}$ with respect to some base flag.
The paper is divided into six sections, organised in the following way. In Section \[sec:PolyMani\], we review some basic theory of polytopes and maniplexes, and describe their respective flag graphs. In Section \[sec:stg\], we define and give some properties of the symmetry type graphs of polytopes and maniplexes, extending the concept of symmetry type graphs of maps. In Section \[sec:stg-highly\], we study symmetry type graphs of highly symmetric maniplexes. In particular, we classify symmetry type graphs with 3 vertices, determine the possible transitivities that a 4-orbit mainplex can have and study some properties of fully-transitive maniplexes of rank 3. In Section \[Gen-autG\] we give generators of the automorphism group of a polytope or a maniplex. In the last section of the paper we define oriented and orientable maniplexes. Further on, we define the oriented flag di-graph which emerge from a flag graph if this is bipartite. The oriented symmetry type di-graph of an oriented maniplex is then a quotient of the oriented flag di-graph, just as the symmetry type graph was a quotient of the flag graph. Using these graphs we classify oriented 2-orbit maniplexes and give generators for their orientation preserving automorphism group.
Abstract Polytopes and Maniplexes {#sec:PolyMani}
=================================
Abstract Polytopes
------------------
In this section we briefly review the basic theory of abstract polytopes and their monodromy groups (for details we refer the reader to [@arp] and [@d-auto]).
An (*abstract*) *polytope of rank* $n$, or simply an *$n$-polytope*, is a partially ordered set $\mathcal{P}$ with a strictly monotone rank function with range $\{-1,0, \ldots, n\}$. An element of rank $j$ is called a *$j$-face* of $\mathcal{P}$, and a face of rank $0$, $1$ or $n-1$ is called a *vertex*, *edge* or *facet*, respectively. A [*chain of ${\mathcal{P}}$*]{} is a totally ordered subset of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The maximal chains, or *flags*, all contain exactly $n + 2$ faces, including a unique least face $F_{-1}$ (of rank $-1$) and a unique greatest face $F_n$ (of rank $n$). A polytope $\mathcal{P}$ has the following homogeneity property (diamond condition): whenever $F \leq G$, with $F$ a $(j-1)$-face and $G$ a $(j+1)$-face for some $j$, then there are exactly two $j$-faces $H$ with $F \leq H \leq G$. Two flags are said to be *adjacent* ($i$-*adjacent*) if they differ in a single face (just their $i$-face, respectively). The diamond condition can be rephrased by saying that every flag $\Phi$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ has a unique $i$-adjacent flag, denoted $\Phi^i$, for each $i=0, \dots, n-1$. Finally, $\mathcal{P}$ is *strongly flag-connected*, in the sense that, if $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are two flags, then they can be joined by a sequence of successively adjacent flags, each containing $\Phi \cap \Psi$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be an abstract $n$-polytope. The [*universal*]{} string Coxeter group $W := [\infty,\ldots,\infty]$ of rank $n$, with distinguished involutory generators $r_0,$ $r_1,\ldots,r_{n-1}$, acts transitively on the set of flags ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ in such a way that $\Psi^{r_i} = \Psi^i$, the $i$-adjacent flag of $\Psi$, for each $i=0,\dots,n-1$ and each $\Psi$ in ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$. In particular, if $w=r_{i_1}\ldots r_{i_k} \in W$ then $$\Psi^w =\Psi^{r_{i_{1}} r_{i_2}\ldots r_{i_{k-1}}r_{i_k}}
=: \Psi^{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k-1},i_k}.$$ The [*monodromy or connection group*]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$ (see for example [@d-auto]), denoted ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$, is the quotient of $W$ by the normal subgroup $K$ of $W$ consisting of those elements of $W$ that act trivially on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$ (that is, fix every flag of ${\mathcal{P}})$. Let $$\pi: W \to {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})=W/K$$ denote the canonical epimorphism. Clearly, ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ acts on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$ in such a way that $\Psi^{\pi(w)}=\Psi^w$ for each $w$ in $W$ and each $\Psi$ in ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$, so in particular $\Psi^{\pi(r_i)}=\Psi^{i}$ for each $i$. We slightly abuse notation and also let $r_i$ denote the $i$-th generator $\pi(r_i)$ of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$. We shall refer to these $r_i$ as the [*distinguished*]{} generators of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$.
Since the action of $W$ is transitive on the flags, the action of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ on the flags of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is also transitive; moreover, this action is faithful, since only the trivial element of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ fixes every flag. Thus ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ can be viewed as a subgroup of the symmetric group on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$. Note that for every flag $\Phi$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and $i, j \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ such that $|i-j|\geq 2$, we have that $\Phi^{r_ir_j}=\Phi^{i,j}=\Phi^{j,i}=\Phi^{r_jr_i}$. Since the action of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is faithful in ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$, this implies that $r_ir_j=r_jr_i$, whenever $|i-j|\geq 2$.
An [*automorphism*]{} of a polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a bijection of ${\mathcal{P}}$ that preserves the order. We shall denote by ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{P}})$ the group of automorphisms of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Note that any automorphism of ${\mathcal{P}}$ induces a bijection of its flags that preserves the $i$-adjacencies, for every $i \in \{0, 1, \dots, n-1\}$. A polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$ is said to be [*regular*]{} if the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is regular on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$. If ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{P}})$ has exactly 2 orbits on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$ in such a way that adjacent flags belong to different orbits, ${\mathcal{P}}$ is called a [*chiral polytope*]{}. We say that a polytope is a [*$k$-orbit polytope*]{} if the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{P}})$ has exactly $k$ orbits on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$. Hence, regular polytopes are 1-orbit polytopes and chiral polytopes are 2-orbit polytopes.
Given an $n$-polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$, we define the [*graph of flags*]{} ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ as follows. The vertices of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ are the flags of ${\mathcal{P}}$, and we put an edge between two of them whenever the corresponding flags are adjacent. Hence ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ is $n$-valent (i.e. every vertex of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ has exactly $n$ incident edges; to reduce confusion we avoid the alternative terminology ‘$n$-regular’). Furthermore, we can colour the edges of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ with $n$ different colours as determined by the adjacencies of the flags of ${\mathcal{P}}$. That is, an edge of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ has colour $i$, if the corresponding flags of ${\mathcal{P}}$ are $i$-adjacent. In this way every vertex of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ has exactly one edge of each colour (see Figure \[fig:baricentic\]).
![The graph of flags of a cubeoctahedron[]{data-label="fig:baricentic"}](flaggraphcubocta.pdf){width="5cm"}
It is straightforward to see that each automorphism of ${\mathcal{P}}$ induces an automorphism of the flag graph ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ that preserves the colours. Conversely, every automorphism of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ that preserves the colours is a bijection of the flags that preserves all the adjacencies, inducing an automorphism of ${\mathcal{P}}$. That is, the automorphism group ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{P}})$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the colour preserving automorphism group ${\mathrm{Aut}}_p({\mathcal{G_P}})$ of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$.
Note that the connectivity of ${\mathcal{P}}$ implies that the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{P}})$ on ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is free (or semiregular). Hence, the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}_p({\mathcal{G_P}})$ is free on the vertices of the graph ${\mathcal{G_P}}$.
One can re-label the edges of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ and assign to them the generators of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$. In fact, since for each flag $\Phi$, the action of $r_i$ takes $\Phi$ to $\Phi^{r_i}$, by thinking of the edge of colour $i$ of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ as the generator $r_i$, one can regard a walk along the edges of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ as an element of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$. That is, if $w$ is a walk along the edges of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ that starts at $\Phi$ and finishes at $\Psi$, then we have that $\Phi^w=\Psi$. Hence, the connectivity of ${\mathcal{P}}$ also implies that the action of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is transitive on the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$. Furthermore, since the $i$-faces of ${\mathcal{P}}$ can be regarded as the orbits of flags under the action of the subgroup $H_i=\langle r_j \mid j\neq i \rangle$, the $i$-faces of ${\mathcal{P}}$ can be also regarded as the connected components of the subgraph of ${\mathcal{G_P}}$ obtained by deleting all the edges of colour $i$.
Maniplexes
----------
Maniplexes were first introduced by Steve Wilson in [@mani], aiming to unify the notion of maps and polytopes. In this section we review the basic theory of them.
An *$n$-complex* $\mathcal{M}$ is defined by a set of [*flags*]{} ${\mathcal{F}}$ and a sequence $(r_0,$ $ r_1, \dots, r_n)$, such that each $r_i$ partitions the set ${\mathcal{F}}$ into sets of size 2 and the partitions defined by $r_i$ and $r_j$ are disjoint when $i\neq j$. Furthermore, we ask for ${\mathcal{M}}$ to be [*connected*]{} in the following way. Thinking of the $n$-complex $\mathcal{M}$ as the graph $\mathcal{G}$ with vertex set ${\mathcal{F}}$, and with edges of colour $i$ corresponding to the matching $r_i$, we ask for the graph $\mathcal{G}$ indexed by ${\mathcal{M}}$ to be connected. An *$n$-maniplex* is an $n$-complex such that the elements in the sequence $(r_0, r_1, \dots, r_n)$ correspond to the distinguished involutory generators of a Coxeter string group. In terms of the graph $\mathcal{G}$, this means that the connected components of the induced subgraph with edges of colours $i$ and $j$, with $| i - j | \geq 2$ are 4-cyles. We shall refer to the [*rank*]{} of an $n$-maniplex, precisely to $n$.
A 0-maniplex must be a graph with two vertices joined by an edge of colour 0. A 1-maniplex is associated to a 2-polytope or $l$-gon, which graph contains $2l$ vertices joined by a perfect matching of colours 0 and 1, and each of size $l$. A 2-maniplex can be considered as a map and vice versa, so that maniplexes generalise the notion of maps to higher rank. Regarding polytopes, the flag graph of any $(n+1)$-polytope can be associated to an $n$-maniplex, generalising in such way the notion of polytopes.
One can think of the sequence $(r_0, r_1, \dots, r_n)$ of a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ as permutations of the flags. In fact, if $\Phi, \Psi \in {\mathcal{F}}$ are flags of ${\mathcal{M}}$ belonging to the same part of the partition induced by $r_i$, for some $i$, we say that $\Phi^{r_i} = \Psi$ and $\Psi^{r_i} = \Phi$. In this way each $r_i$ acts as a involutory permutation of ${\mathcal{F}}$. In analogy with polytopes, we let $K = \{ w \in \langle r_0, \dots, r_n \rangle \mid \Phi^w = \Phi, \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{all} \ \Phi \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$ and define the [*connection group*]{} ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$ as the quotient of $\langle r_0, \dots, r_n \rangle$ over $K$. As before, we abuse notation and say that ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is generated by $r_0, \dots, r_n$ and define the action of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ on the flags inductively, induced by the action of the sequence $(r_0, r_1, \dots, r_n)$. In this way, the action of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ on ${\mathcal{F}}$ is faithful and transitive.
Note further that since the sequence $(r_0, r_1, \dots, r_n)$ induces a string Coxeter group, then, as elements of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$, $r_ir_j=r_jr_i$ whenever $|i-j|\geq 2$. This implies that given a flag $\Phi$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$ and $i, j \in \{0, \dots, n\}$ such that $|i-j|\geq 2$, we have that $\Phi^{i,j}=\Phi^{r_ir_j}=\Phi^{r_jr_i}=\Phi^{j,i}$.
An [*automorphism*]{} $\alpha$ of an $n$-maniplex is a colour-preserving automorphism of the graph $\mathcal{G}$. In a similar way as it happens for polytopes, the connectivity of the graph $\mathcal G$ implies that the action of the automorphism group ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}}$) of ${\mathcal{M}}$ is free on the vertices of $\mathcal G$. Hence, $\alpha$ can be seen as a permutation of the flags in ${\mathcal{F}}$ that commutes with each of the permutations in the connection group.
To have consistent concepts and notation between polytopes and maniplexes, we shall say that an $i$-face (or a face of rank $i$) of a maniplex is a connected component of the subgraph of $\mathcal G$ obtained by removing the $i$-edges of $\mathcal G$. Furthermore, we say that two flags $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are $i$-adjacent if $\Phi^{r_i}= \Psi$ (note that since $r_i$ is an involution, $\Phi^{r_i}= \Psi$ implies that $\Psi^{r_i}= \Phi$, so the concept is symmetric).
To each $i$-face $F$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$, we can associate an $(i-1)$-maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}_F$ by identifying two flags of $F$ whenever there is a $j$-edge between them, with $j > i$. Equivalently, we can remove from $F$ all edges of colours $\{i+1, \ldots,
n-1 \}$, and then take one of the connected components. In fact, since $\langle r_0, \ldots, r_{i-1} \rangle$ commutes with $\langle r_{i+1}, \ldots, r_n \rangle$, the connected components of this subgraph of $F$ are all isomorphic, so it does not matter which one we pick.
If $\Phi$ is a flag of ${\mathcal{M}}$ that contains the $i$-face $F$, then it naturally induces a flag $\overline{\Phi}$ in ${\mathcal{M}}_F$. Similarly, if $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ fixes $F$, then $\varphi$ induces an automorphism $\overline{\varphi} \in {\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}}_F)$, defined by $\overline{\Phi} \overline{\varphi} = \overline{\Phi \varphi}$. To check that this is well-defined, suppose that $\overline{\Phi} = \overline{\Psi}$; we want to show that $\overline{\Phi \varphi} = \overline{\Psi \varphi}$. Since $\overline{\Phi} = \overline{\Psi}$, it follows that $\Psi = \Phi^w$ for some $w \in \langle r_{i+1}, \ldots, r_n \rangle$. Then $\Psi \varphi = (\Phi^w) \varphi = (\Phi \varphi)^w$, so that $\overline{\Psi \varphi} = \overline{\Phi \varphi}$.
By definition, the edges of $\mathcal G$ of one given colour form a perfect matching. The 2-factors of the graph $\mathcal G$ are the subgraphs spanned by the edges of two different colours of edges.
Since the automorphisms of ${\mathcal{M}}$ preserve the adjacencies between the flags, it is not difficult to see that the following lemma holds.
\[orbitTOorbit\] Let $\Phi$ be a flag of ${\mathcal{M}}$ and let $a \in {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$. If ${\mathcal O}_1$ and ${\mathcal O}_2$ denote the flag orbits of $\Phi$ and $\Phi^a$ (under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$), respectively, then $\Psi \in {\mathcal O}_1$ if and only if $\Psi^a \in {\mathcal O}_2$.
We say that a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is [*$i$-face-transitive*]{} if ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is transitive on the faces of rank $i$. We say that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is [*fully-transitive*]{} if it is $i$-face-transitive for every $i =0, \dots, n-1$.
If ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ has $k$ orbits on the flags of ${\mathcal{M}}$, we say that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a $k$-orbit maniplex. A 1-orbit maniplex is also called a [*reflexible*]{} maniplex. A 2-orbit maniplex with adjacent flags belonging to different orbits is a [*chiral*]{} maniplex. If a maniplex has at most 2 orbits of flags and ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ is a bipartite graph, then the maniplex is said to be [*rotary*]{}.
Symmetry type graphs of polytopes and maniplexes {#sec:stg}
================================================
In this section we shall define the symmetry type graph of a polytope or a maniplex. To this end, we shall make use of quotient of graphs. Therefore, we now consider pregraphs; that is, graphs that allow multiple edges and semi-edges. As it should be clear, it makes no difference whether we consider an abstract $n$-polytope or an $(n-1)$-maniplex. Hence, though we will consider maniplexes throughout the paper, similar results will apply to polytopes.
Given an edge-coloured graph $\mathcal G$, and a partition $\mathcal B$ of its vertex set $V$, the [*coloured quotient with respect to $\mathcal B$*]{}, $\mathcal G_{\mathcal B}$, is defined as the pregraph with vertex set $\mathcal B$, such that for any two vertices $B,C \in {\mathcal B}$, there is a dart of colour $a$ from $B$ to $C$ if and only if there exists $u \in B$ and $v \in C$ such that there is a dart of colour $a$ from $u$ to $v$. Edges between vertices in the same part of the partition $\mathcal B$ quotient into semi-edges.
Throughout the remainder of this section, let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be an $(n-1)$-maniplex and ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ its coloured flag graph.
As we discussed in the previous section, ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ acts semiregularly on the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$. We shall consider the orbits of the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ under the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ as our partition ${\mathcal B}$, and denote ${\mathcal B:=O}rb$. Note that since the action is semiregular, every two orbits $B,C \in {\mathcal O}rb$ have the same number of elements. The [*symmetry type graph*]{} $T({\mathcal{M}})$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$ is the coloured quotient graph of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ with respect to ${\mathcal O}rb$.
Since the flag graph ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ is an undirected graph, then $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is a pre-graph without loops or directed edges. Furthermore, as we are taking the coloured quotient, and ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ is edge-coloured with $n$ colours, then $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is an $n$-valent pre-graph, with one edge or semi-edge of each colour at each vertex. It is hence not difficult to see that if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a reflexible maniplex, then $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is a graph consisting of only one vertex and $n$ semi-edges, all of them of different colours. In fact, the symmetry type graph of a $k$-orbit maniplex has precisely $k$ vertices. Figure \[STGrank3A\] shows the symmetry type graph of a reflexible 2-maniplex (on the left), and the symmetry type graph of the cuboctahedron: the quotient graph of the flag graph in Figure \[fig:baricentic\] with respect to the automorphism group of the cubocahedron.
![Symmetry type graphs of a reflexible 2-maniplex (on the left) and of the cuboctahedron (on the right).[]{data-label="STGrank3A"}](STGrank3A.pdf){width="10cm"}
Note that by the definition of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, there exists a surjective function $$\psi: V({\mathcal{G_M}}) \to V(T({\mathcal{M}}))$$ that assigns, to each vertex of $V({\mathcal{G_M}})$ its corresponding orbit in $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Hence, given $\Phi, \Psi \in V({\mathcal{G_M}})$, we have that $\psi(\Phi)=\psi(\Psi)$ if and only if $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are in the same orbit under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$.
Given vertices $u,v$ of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, if there is an $i$-edge joining them, we shall denote such edge as $(u,v)_i$. Similarly, $(v,v)_i$ shall denote the semi-edge of colour $i$ incident to the vertex $v$.
Because of Lemma \[orbitTOorbit\], we can define the action of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ on the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. In fact, given $v \in T({\mathcal{M}})$ and $a \in {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$, then $v^a:=\psi(\Phi^a)$, where $\Phi\in \psi^{-1}(v)$. Note that the definition of the action does not depend on the choice of $\Phi\in \psi^{-1}(v)$; in fact, we have that $\Phi, \Psi, \in \psi^{-1}(v)$ if and only if $\psi(\Phi)=\psi(\Psi)$ and this in turn is true if and only if $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are in the same orbit under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$. By Lemma \[orbitTOorbit\], the fact that $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are in the same orbit under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ implies that, for any $a \in {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$, the flags $\Phi^a$ and $\Psi^a$ are also in the same orbit under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$. Hence $\psi(\Phi^a)=\psi(\Psi^a)$ and therefore the definition of $v^a$ does not depend on the choice of the element $\Phi\in \psi^{-1}(v)$.
Since ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is transitive on the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$, then it is also transitive on the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, implying that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is a connected graph. Furthermore, the action of each generator $r_i$ of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ on a vertex $v$ of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ corresponds precisely to the (semi-)edge of colour $i$ incident to $v$. Hence, the orbit $v^{ \langle r_j \mid j \neq i \rangle}$ corresponds to the orbit under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ of an $i$-face $F$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$ such that $F \in \Psi$, for some $\Psi \in \psi^{-1}(v)$ (as before, different choices of flag $\Psi\in \psi^{-1}(v)$ induce the same orbit of $i$-faces). Therefore, the connected components of the subgraph $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ with edges of colours $\{0, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i\}$ correspond to the orbits of the $i$-faces under ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$. In particular this implies the following proposition.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a maniplex, $T({\mathcal{M}})$ its symmetry type graph and let $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ be the subgraph resulting by erasing the $i$-edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Then ${\mathcal{M}}$ is $i$-face-transitive if and only if $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ is connected.
We shall say that a symmetry type graph $T$ is $i$-face-transitive if $T^i$ is connected, and that $T$ is a fully-transitive symmetry type graph if it is $i$-face-transitive for all $i$.
Recall that to each $i$-face $F$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$, there is an associated $(i-1)$-maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}_F$. The symmetry type graph $T({\mathcal{M}}_F)$ is related in a natural way to the connected component of $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ that corresponds to $F$:
\[STGofFaces\] Let $F$ be an $i$-face of the maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$, and let ${\mathcal{M}}_F$ be the corresponding $(i-1)$-maniplex. Let $\mathcal C$ be the connected component of $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ corresponding to $F$. Then there is a surjective function $\pi: V(\mathcal C) \to V(T({\mathcal{M}}_F))$. Furthermore, if $j < i$ then each $j$-edge $(u, u^j)_j$ of $\mathcal C$ yields a $j$-edge $(\pi(u), \pi(u^j))_j$ in $T({\mathcal{M}}_F)$, and if $j > i$, then $\pi(u) = \pi(u^j)$.
First, let $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ be flags of ${\mathcal{M}}$ that are both in the connected component $F$, and suppose that they lie in the same flag orbit, so that $\Psi = \Phi \varphi$ for some $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$. Then the induced automorphism $\overline{\varphi}$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_F$ sends $\overline{\Phi}$ to $\overline{\Psi}$, and therefore $\overline{\Phi}$ and $\overline{\Psi}$ lie in the same orbit. Furthermore, every flag of ${\mathcal{M}}_F$ is of the form $\overline{\Phi}$ for some $\Phi$ in $F$. Thus, each orbit of ${\mathcal{M}}$ that intersects $F$ induces an orbit of ${\mathcal{M}}_F$, and it follows that there is a surjective function $\pi: V(\mathcal C) \to V(T({\mathcal{M}}_F))$.
Consider an edge $(u, u^j)_j$ in $\mathcal C$. Then $u = \psi(\Phi)$ for some flag $\Phi$ in $F$, and we can take $u^j = \psi(\Phi^j)$. Both $\Phi$ and $\Phi^j$ induce flags in ${\mathcal{M}}_F$. If $j < i$, then $\overline{\Phi^j} = \overline{\Phi}^j$. Therefore, there must be a $j$-edge from the orbit of $\overline{\Phi}$ to the orbit of $\overline{\Phi^j}$; in other words, a $j$-edge from $\pi(u)$ to $\pi(u^j)$. On the other hand, if $j > i$, then $\overline{\Phi^j} = \overline{\Phi}$, and so $\overline{\Phi}$ and $\overline{\Phi^j}$ lie in the same orbit and thus $\pi(u) = \pi(v)$.
Note that the edges of a given colour $i$ of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ form a perfect matching (where, of course, we are allowing to match a vertex with itself by a semi-edge). Given two colours $i$ and $j$, the subgraph of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ consisting of all the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ and only the $i$- and $j$-edges shall be called a $(i,j)$ 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Because $r_ir_j=r_jr_i$ whenever $| i-j |\geq 2$, in ${\mathcal{G_M}}$, the alternating cycles of colours $i$ and $j$ have length 4. By Lemma \[orbitTOorbit\] each of these 4-cycles should then factor, in $T({\mathcal{M}})$, into one of the five graphs in Figure \[4cyclequotient\]. Hence, if $| i-j |\geq 2$, then the connected components of the $(i,j)$ 2-factors of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ are precisely one of these graphs.
![Possible quotients of $i-j$ coloured 4-cycles.[]{data-label="4cyclequotient"}](4cyclequotient.pdf){width="8cm"}
In light of the above observations we state the following lemma.
\[2factors4vertices\] Let $T({\mathcal{M}})$ be the symmetry type graph of a maniplex. If there are vertices $u,v,w \in V(T({\mathcal{M}}))$ such that $(u,v)_i, (v,w)_j \in E(T({\mathcal{M}}))$ with $| i - j | \geq 2$, then the connected component of the $(i,j)$ 2-factor that contains $v$ has four vertices.
Symmetry type graphs of highly symmetric maniplexes {#sec:stg-highly}
===================================================
One can classify maniplexes with small number of flag orbits (under the action of the automorphism group of the maniplex) in terms of their symmetry type graphs. The number of distinct possible symmetry types of a $k$-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex is the number of connected pre-graphs on $k$ vertices that are $n$-valent and that can be edge-coloured with exactly $n$ colours. Furthermore, given a symmetry type graph, one can read from the appropriate coloured subgraphs the different types of face transitivities that the maniplex has.
As pointed out before, the symmetry type graph of a reflexible $(n-1)$-maniplex consists of one vertex and $n$ semi-edges. The classification of two-orbit maniplexes (see [@2-orbit]) in terms of the local configuration of their flags follows immediately from considering symmetry type graphs. In fact, for each $n$, there are $2^{n}-1$ symmetry type graphs with 2 vertices and $n$ (semi)-edges, since given any proper subset $I$ of the colours $\{0,1, \dots, n-1\}$, there is a symmetry type graph with two vertices, $| I |$ semi-edges corresponding to the colours of $I$, and where all the edges between the two vertices use the colours not in $I$ (see Figure \[2orbitSTG\]). This symmetry type graph corresponds precisely to polytopes in class $2_I$, see [@2-orbit].
![The symmetry type graph of a maniplex in class $2_I$.[]{data-label="2orbitSTG"}](2orbSTGmaniplex.pdf){width="8cm"}
Highly symmetric maniplexes can be regarded as those with few flag orbits or those with many (or all) face transitivities. In [@medial] one can find the complete list of symmetry type graphs of $2$-maniplexes with at most 5 vertices. In this section we classify symmetry type graphs with 3 vertices and study some properties of symmetry type graphs of 4-orbit maniplexes and fully-transitive 3-maniplexes.
\[stg\_3-orbit\] There are exactly $2n-3$ different possible symmetry type graphs of 3-orbit maniplexes of rank $n-1$.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a 3-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex and $T({\mathcal{M}})$ its symmetry type graph. Then, $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is an $n$-valent well edge-coloured graph with vertices $v_1, v_2$ and $ v_3$. Recall that the set of colours $\{0,1, \dots, n-1\}$ correspond to the distinguished generators $r_0, r_1, \dots, r_{n-1}$ of the connection group of ${\mathcal{M}}$, and that by $(u,v)_i$ we mean the edge between vertices $u$ and $v$ of colour $i$.
Since $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is a connected graph, without loss of generality, we can suppose that there is at least one edge joining $v_1$ and $v_2$ and another joining $v_2$ and $v_3$. Let $j,k \in \{0,1, \dots, n-1\}$ be the colours of these edges, respectively. That is, without loss of generality we may assume that $(v_1,v_2)_j$ and $(v_2,v_3)_k$ are edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. By Lemma \[2factors4vertices\], we must have that $k = j \pm 1$, as otherwise $T({\mathcal{M}})$ would have to have at least 4 vertices. This implies that the only edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ are either $(v_1,v_2)_j$ and $(v_2,v_3)_{j+1}$, $(v_1,v_2)_j$ and $(v_2,v_3)_{j-1}$ or $(v_1,v_2)_j$, $(v_2,v_3)_{j+1}$ and $(v_2,v_3)_{j-1}$, with $j \in \{1, 2, \dots, n-2\}$. (See Figure \[i-transitive3\]).
![Possible symmetry type graphs of 3-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplexes with edges of colours $j-1$, $j$, and $j+1$, with $j \in \{1, 2, \dots, n-2\}$.[]{data-label="i-transitive3"}](i-transitive3.pdf){width="12cm"}
An easy computation now shows that there are $2n-3$ possible different symmetry type graphs of 3-orbit maniplexes of rank $n-1$.
Given a 3-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ with symmetry type graph having exactly two edges $e$ and $e'$ of colours $j$ and $j+1$, respectively, for some $j \in \{0, \dots, n-2\}$, we shall say that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is in class $3^{j,j+1}$. If, on the other hand, the symmetry type graph of ${\mathcal{M}}$ has one edge of colour $j$ and parallel edges of colours $j-1$ and $j+1$, for some $j \in \{1, \dots, n-2\}$, then we say that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is in class $3^j$. From Figure \[i-transitive3\] we observe that a maniplex in class $3^{j, j+1}$ is $i$-face-transitive whenever $i \neq j, j+1$, while a maniplex in class $3^j$ if $i$-face-transitive for every $i \neq j$.
A $3$-orbit maniplex is $j$-face-transitive if and only if it does not belong to any of the classes $3^j$, $3^{j,j+1}$ or $3^{j-1,j}$.
\[no3-orbitfully\] There are no fully-transitive 3-orbit maniplexes.
Using Proposition \[STGofFaces\], we get some information about the number of flag orbits that the $j$-faces have:
A $3$-orbit maniplex in class $3^j$ or $3^{j,j+1}$ has reflexible $j$-faces.
If ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a $3$-orbit maniplex, then the orbits of the $j$-faces correspond to the connected components of $T^j({\mathcal{M}})$. Assuming that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is in class $3^j$ or $3^{j,j+1}$, the graph $T^j({\mathcal{M}})$ has two connected components; an isolated vertex, and two vertices that are connected by a $(j+1)$-edge (and a $(j-1)$-edge, if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is in class $3^{j,j+1}$. Then by Proposition \[STGofFaces\], the $j$-faces that correspond to the isolated vertex are reflexible (that is, 1-orbit), and the edge with label $j+1$ forces an identification between the two vertices of the second component, so the $j$-faces in that component are also reflexible.
On the symmetry type graphs of 4-orbit maniplexes {#sec:4notfully}
-------------------------------------------------
It does not take long to realise that counting the number of symmetry type graphs with $k\geq4$ vertices, and perhaps classifying them in a similar fashion as was done for 2 and 3 vertices, becomes considerably more difficult. In this section, we shall analyse symmetry type graphs with 4 vertices and determine how far a 4-orbit maniplex can be from being fully-transitive. The following lemma is a consequence of the fact that by taking away the $i$-edges of a symmetry type graph $T({\mathcal{M}}$), the resulting $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ cannot have too many components.
\[4orbMi-faceorb\] Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a 4-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex and let $i \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$. Then ${\mathcal{M}}$ has one, two or three orbits of $i$-faces.
If an $(n-1)$-maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is not fully-transitive, there exists at least one $i \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ such that $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ is disconnected. We shall divide the analysis of the types in three parts: when $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$ has three connected components (two of them of one vertex and one with two vertices), when $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ has a connected component with one vertex and another connected component with three vertices, and finally when $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$ has two connected components with two vertices each. Before we start the case analysis, we let $v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4$ be the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$.
Suppose that $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$ has three connected components with $v_2$ and $v_3$ in the same component. Without loss of generality we may assume that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has edges $(v_1,v_2)_{i}$ and $(v_3,v_4)_{i}$. Let $k\in\{0,1, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i\}$ be the colour of an edge between $v_2$ and $v_3$. Since there is no edge of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ between $v_1$ and $v_4$, Lemma \[2factors4vertices\] implies that there are at most two such possible $k$, namely $k = i-1$ and $k = i+1$. If $i \neq 0, n-1$, $T({\mathcal{M}})$ can have either both edges or exactly one of them, while if $i\in \{0, n-1\}$ there is one possible edge (see Figure \[3components4\]).
![Symmetry type graphs of an $(n-1)$-maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ with four orbits on its flags, and three orbits on its $i$-faces.[]{data-label="3components4"}](3_4-i-1,i,i+1.pdf){width="10cm"}
Let us now assume that $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$ has two connected components, one consisting of the vertex $v_1$ and the other one containing vertices $v_2, v_3$ and $v_4$. This means that the $i$-edge incident to $v_1$ is the unique edge that connects this vertex with the rest of the graph and, without loss of generality, $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has the edge $(v_1,v_2)_{i}$. As with the previous case, Lemma \[2factors4vertices\] implies that an edge between $v_2$ and $v_3$ has colour either $i-1$ or $i+1$.
First observe that having either $(v_2,v_3)_{i-1}$ or $(v_2,v_3)_{i+1}$ in $T({\mathcal{M}})$ immediately implies (by Lemma \[2factors4vertices\]) that there is no edge between $v_2$ and $v_4$. Now, if both edges $(v_2,v_3)_{i-1}$ and $(v_2,v_3)_{i+1}$ are in $T({\mathcal{M}})$, then an edge between $v_3$ and $v_4$ would have to have colour $i$, contradicting the fact that $T^i({\mathcal{M}})$ has two connected components. Hence, there is exactly one edge between $v_2$ and $v_3$. It is now straightforward to see that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ should be as one of the graphs in Figure \[2components4\], implying that there are exactly four symmetry type graphs with these conditions for each $i\neq 0,1,n-2, n-1$, but only two symmetry type graph of this kind when $i=0, 1, n-2,$ or $n-1$.
![Symmetry type graphs of $(n-1)$-maniplexes with four orbits on its flags, and two orbits on its $i$-faces such that one contains three flag orbits and the other contains a single flag orbit.[]{data-label="2components4"}](1-3_4_i-face.pdf){width="7cm"}
It is straightforward to see from Figure \[2components4\] that the next lemma follows.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a 4-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex with two orbits of $i$-faces such that $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$ has a connected component consisting of one vertex, and another one consisting of three vertices. Then either $T^{i-1}({\mathcal{M}})$ or $T^{i+1}({\mathcal{M}})$ has two connected components, each with two vertices.
Finally, we turn out our attention to the case where $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$ has two connected components, with two vertices each. Suppose that $v_1$ and $v_2$ belong to one component, while $v_3$ and $v_4$ belong to the other. As the two components must be connected by the edges of colour $i$, we may assume that $(v_1,v_3)_{i}$ is an edge of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. If the vertices $v_2$ and $v_4$ have semi-edges of colour $i$, Lemma \[2factors4vertices\] implies that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ is one of the graphs shown in Figure \[2-2components4\].
![Six of the symmetry type graphs of $(n-1)$-maniplexs with four orbits on its flags, and two orbits on its $i$-faces such that each contains two flag orbits.[]{data-label="2-2components4"}](i-face-trans4-orb.pdf){width="10cm"}
On the other hand, if $(v_1,v_3)_{i}$ and $(v_2,v_4)_{i}$ are both edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, given $j \in \{0,1, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i-1, i, i+1\}$, we use again Lemma \[2factors4vertices\] to see that $(v_1,v_2)_j$ is an edge of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ if and only if $(v_3,v_4)_j$ is also an edge of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. By contrast, $T({\mathcal{M}})$ can have either two edges of colour $i\pm1$ (each joining the vertices of each connected component of $T^{i}({\mathcal{M}})$), four semi-edges or an edge and two semi-edges of colour $i\pm1$. Hence, if $i \neq 0, n-1$, for each $J \subset \{0, 1, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i-1, i, i+1\}$ there are ten symmetry type graph with semi-edges of colours in $J$ and edges of colours not in $J$, as shown in Figures \[3(n-2)\_2compA\] and \[3(n-2)\_2compB\], while for $J=\{0,1, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i-1, i, i+1\}$ there are six such graphs (shown in Figure \[3(n-2)\_2compB\]). On the other hand if $i \in\{0, n-1\}$, for each $J \subset \{0, 1, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i-1, i, i+1\}$ there are two graphs as in Figure \[3(n-2)\_2compA\] and one as in Figure \[3(n-2)\_2compB\], while for $J=\{0,1, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i-1, i, i+1\}$, there is only one of the graphs in Figure \[3(n-2)\_2compB\].
![Four families of possible symmetry type graphs of $(n-1)$-maniplexes with four orbits on its flags, and two orbits on its $i$-faces such that each contains two flag orbits.[]{data-label="3(n-2)_2compA"}](4-orb2compA.pdf){width="7cm"}
![The remaining six families of possible symmetry type graphs of $(n-1)$-maniplexes with four orbits on its flags, and two orbits on its $i$-faces such that each contains two flag orbits.[]{data-label="3(n-2)_2compB"}](4-orb2compB.pdf){width="12cm"}
We summarize our analysis of the transitivity of 4-orbit maniplexes below.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a 4-orbit maniplex. Then, one of the following holds.
1. ${\mathcal{M}}$ is fully-transitive.
2. There exists $i \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ such that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is $j$-face-transitive for all $j\neq i$.
3. There exist $i, k \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$, $i \neq k$, such that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is $j$-face-transitive for all $j\neq i, k$.
4. There exists $i \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ such that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is $j$-face-transitive for all $j\neq i, i \pm 1$.
On fully-transitive $n$-maniplexes for small $n$
------------------------------------------------
Every 1-maniplex is reflexible and hence fully-transitive. Fully-transitive 2-maniplexes correspond to fully-transitive maps. It is well-known (and easy to see from the symmetry type graph) that if a map is edge-transitive, then it should have one, two or four orbits. Moreover, a fully-transitive map should be regular, a two-orbit map in class 2, $2_0$, $2_1$ or $2_2$, or a four-orbit map in class $4_{Gp}$ or $4_{Hp}$ (see, for example, [@medial]).
When considering fully-transitive $n$-maniplexes, $n \geq 3$, the analysis becomes considerably more complicated. In [@2-orbit] Hubard shows that there are $2^{n+1} - n -2$ classes of fully-transitive two-orbit $n$-maniplexes. By Theorem \[no3-orbitfully\], there are no 3-orbit fully-transitive $n$-maniplexes. We note that there are 20 symmetry type graphs of 4-orbit 3-maniplexes that are fully transitive (see Figure \[4orbitfully\]).
![Symmetry type graphs of 4-orbit fully-transitive 3-maniplexes[]{data-label="4orbitfully"}](fully-trans4-orb.pdf){width="9cm"}
The following theorem shall be of great use to show that a fully-transitive 3-maniplex must have an even number of flag orbits unless it is reflexible.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a fully-transitive 3-maniplex and let $T({\mathcal{M}})$ be its symmetry type graph. Then either ${\mathcal{M}}$ is reflexible or $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has an even number of vertices.
On the contrary suppose that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has an odd number of vertices, different than 1. Whenever $|i-j|>1$, the connected components of the $(i,j)$ 2-factor of a symmetry type graph are as in Figure \[4cyclequotient\]. Hence, there is a connected component of the $(0,2)$ 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ with exactly one vertex $v$ (and, hence, semi-edges of colours 0 and 2). The connectivity of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ implies that there is a vertex $v_1$ adjacent to $v$ in $T({\mathcal{M}})$.
If $v_1$ is the only neighbour of $v$, then $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has the edges $(v,v_1)_1$ and $(v,v_1)_3$ as otherwise ${\mathcal{M}}$ is not fully-transitive. Since the connected components of the $(0,3)$ 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ are as in Figure \[4cyclequotient\], $v_1$ has a 0 coloured semi-edge. Because $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has more than two vertices, the edge of $v_1$ of colour 2 joins $v_1$ to another vertex, say $u$. But removing the edge $(v_1,u)_2$ disconnects the graph contradicting the fact that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is 2-face-transitive.
On the other hand, if $v$ has more than one neighbour it has exactly two, say $v_1$ and $u$ and $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has the two edges $(v,v_1)_1$ and $(v,u)_3$. This implies that the connected component of the $(1,3)$ 2-factor containing $v$ has four vertices: $v, v_1, u$ and $v_2$. (Therefore $(v_1,v_2)_3$ and $(u,v_2)_1$ are edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$.) Using the $(0,3)$ 2-factor one sees that $u$ has a semi-edge of colour 0.
Now, if $(v_1,v_2)_0$ is an edge of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, then the vertices $v, v_1, v_2$ and $u$ are joined to the rest of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ by the edges of colour 2, implying that removing them shall disconnect $T({\mathcal{M}})$ (there exists at least another vertex in $T({\mathcal{M}})$ as it has an odd number of vertices), which is again a contradiction. On the other hand, if $v_1$ (or $v_2$) has an edge of colour 0 to a vertex $v_3$, then by Lemma \[2factors4vertices\] $v_2$ (or $v_1$) has a 0-edge to a vertex $v_4$. Again, if $(v_3, v_4)_1$ is an edge of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, since the number of vertices of the graph is odd, removing the edges of colour 2 will leave only the vertices $u,v,v_1,\dots, v_4$ in one component, which is a contradiction. Proceeding now by induction on the number of vertices one can conclude that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ cannot have an odd number of vertices
Generators of the automorphism group of a $k$-orbit maniplex {#Gen-autG}
============================================================
It is well-known among polytopists that the automorphism group of a regular $n$-polytope can be generated by $n$ involutions. In fact, given a base flag $\Phi \in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{P}})$, the distinguished generators of ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ with respect to $\Phi$ are involutions $\rho_0, \rho_1, \dots, \rho_{n-1}$ such that $\Phi \rho_i = \Phi^i$.
Generators for the automorphism group of a two-orbit $n$-polytope can also be given in terms of a base flag (see [@2-orbit]). In this section we give a set of distinguished generators (with respect to some base flag) for the automorphism group of a $k$-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex in terms of the symmetry type graph $T({\mathcal{M}})$, provided that $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has a hamiltonian path.
Given two walks $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$ along the edges and semi-edges of $T(\mathcal{M})$ such that the final vertex of $w_{1}$ is the starting vertex of $w_{2}$, we define the sequence $w_{1}w_{2}$ as the walk that traces all the edges of $w_{1}$ and then all the edges of $w_{2}$ in the same order; the inverse of $w_{1}$, denoted by $w_{1}^{-1}$, is the walk which has the final vertex of $w_{1}$ as its starting vertex, and traces all the edges of $w_{1}$ in reversed order. Since each of the elements of $\mathrm{Mon}(\mathcal{M})$ associated to the edges of $T(\mathcal{M})$ is its own inverse, we shall forbid walks that trace the same edge two times consecutively (or just remove the edge from such walk, shortening its length by two). Given a set of walks in $T(\mathcal{M})$, we say that a subset ${\mathcal{W}}'\subseteq {\mathcal{W}}$ is [*a generating set of ${\mathcal{W}}$*]{} if each $w\in {\mathcal{W}}$ can be expressed as a sequence of elements of ${\mathcal{W}}'$ and their inverses. Now, let ${\mathcal{W}}$ be the set of closed walks along the edges and semi-edges of $T(\mathcal{M})$ starting at a distinguished vertex $v_0$. Recall that the walks along the edges and semi-edges of $T(\mathcal{M})$ correspond to permutations of the flags of $\mathcal{M}$; moreover, each closed walk of ${\mathcal{W}}$ corresponds to an automorphism of $\mathcal{M}$. Thus, by finding a generating set of ${\mathcal{W}}$, we will find a set of automorphisms of $\mathcal{M}$ that generates ${\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathcal{M})$. (However, the converse is not true, as an automorphism of ${\mathcal{M}}$ may be described in more than one way as a closed walk of $T({\mathcal{M}})$.) Given $T(\mathcal{M})$, we may easily find such generating set. The construction goes as follows:
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a $k$-orbit maniplex of rank $n-1$ such that $\mathcal{C}=(v_{0},v_{1},v_{2},...,v_{q})$ is a walk of minimal length that visits all the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. The sets of vertices and edges (and semi-edges) of $T(\mathcal{M})$ will be denoted by $V$ and $E$, respectively. The set of edges visited by $\mathcal{C}$ will be denoted by $E_{\mathcal{C}}$. In this section, the edges joining two vertices $v_{i}$ and $v_{j}$ will be denoted by $(v_{i},v_{j})_{1}$, $(v_{i},v_{j})_{2}$, $(v_{i},v_{j})_{3}$,...,$(v_{i},v_{j})_{h}$; if $j=i+1$ then $(v_{i},v_{j})_{1}\in E_{\mathcal{C}}$. (Note that in order to not start carrying many subindices, we modify the notation of the edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ that we had used throughout the paper. If one wants to be consistent with the notation of the edges used in the previous sections, one would have to say that the edges between $v_i$ and $v_j$ are $(v_i,v_j)_{a_1}$, $(v_i,v_j)_{a_2}, \dots (v_i,v_j)_{a_h}$). Similarly, we denote all semi-edges incident to a vertex $v_{i}$ by $(v_{i},v_{i})_{1}$, $(v_{i},v_{i})_{2}$, $(v_{i},v_{i})_{3}$,...,$(v_{i},v_{i})_{l}$. For the sake of simplicity, $(v_{i},v_{j})_{1}$ will be just called $(v_{i},v_{j})$. Let ${\mathcal{W}}$ be the set of all closed walks in $T(\mathcal{M})$ with $v_{0}$ as its starting vertex. We shall now construct $G({\mathcal{W}})\subseteq {\mathcal{W}}$, a generating set of ${\mathcal{W}}$.
For each edge $(v_{i},v_{j})_{m}\in E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$ we shall define the walk $w_{i,j,m}=((v_{0},v_{1}),(v_{1},v_{2}),...,(v_{i-1},v_{i}),(v_{i},v_{j})_{m},(v_{j},v_{j-1}),(v_{j-1},v_{j-2}),...,(v_{1},v_{0})).$ That is, we walk from $v_0$ to $v_i$ in $E_{\mathcal{C}}$, and then we take the edge $(v_{i},v_{j})_{m}$, and then we walk back from $v_j$ to $v_0$ in $E_{\mathcal{C}}$. Let ${\mathcal{W}}_{e}\subseteq {\mathcal{W}}$ be the set of all such walks.
For each semi-edge $(v_{i},v_{i})_{l}\in E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$ we shall define the walk $w_{i,i,l}=((v_{0},v_{1}),(v_{1},v_{2}),...,(v_{i-1},v_{i}),(v_{i},v_{i})_{l},(v_{i},v_{i-1}),(v_{i-1},v_{i-2}),...,(v_{1},v_{0}))$. That is, we walk from $v_0$ to $v_i$ in $E_{\mathcal{C}}$, and then we take the semi-edge $(v_{i},v_{i})_{l}$, and then we walk back from $v_i$ to $v_0$ in $E_{\mathcal{C}}$. Let ${\mathcal{W}}_{s}\subseteq {\mathcal{W}}$ be the set of all such walks.
We define $G({\mathcal{W}})={\mathcal{W}}_{e}\cup {\mathcal{W}}_{s}$.
\[generatingwalks\] With the notation from above, $G({\mathcal{W}})$ is a generating set for ${\mathcal{W}}$.
We shall prove that any $w\in {\mathcal{W}}$ can be expressed as a sequence of elements of $G({\mathcal{W}})$ and their inverses. Let $w\in {\mathcal{W}}$ be a closed walk among the edges and semi-edges of $T(\mathcal{M})$ starting at $v_0$. From now on, semi-edges will be referred to simply as “edges”.
We shall proceed by induction over $n$, the number of edges in $E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$ visited by $w$. If $w$ visits only one edge in $E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$, then $w\in G({\mathcal{W}})$ or $w^{-1}\in G({\mathcal{W}})$. Let us suppose that, if a closed walk among the edges of $T(\mathcal{M})$ visits $m$ different edges in $E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$, with $m<n$, then it can be expressed as a sequence of elements of $G({\mathcal{W}})$ and their inverses.
Let $w\in {\mathcal{W}}$ be a walk that visits exactly $n$ edges in $E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$. Let $(v_{a},v_{b})_{l}\in E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$ be the last edge of $E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$ visited by $w$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the vertex $v_{b}$ was visited after $v_{a}$, so let $(v_c, v_a)_m$ be the edge that $w$ visits just before $(v_a,v_b)_l$ (note that $(v_c, v_a)_m$ may or may not be in $E_{\mathcal{C}}$). Let $w_{1}\in {\mathcal{W}}$ be the closed walk that traces the same edges (in the same order) as $w$ until reaching $(v_{c},v_{a})_{m}$ and then traces the edges $(v_{a},v_{a-1})$, $(v_{a-1},v_{a-2})$, ...,$(v_{1},v_{0})$, and let $w_{2}\in {\mathcal{W}}$ be the closed walk that traces the edges $(v_{0},v_{1}),(v_{1},v_{2}),...,(v_{a-1},v_{a})$ and then traces $(v_a,v_b)_l$ and continues the way $w$ does to return to $v_0$. It is clear that $w_{1}$ visits exactly $n-1$ edges in $E\setminus E_{\mathcal{C}}$ and that $w_{2}$ visits only one. By inductive hypothesis both $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$ can be expressed as a sequence of elements of $G({\mathcal{W}})$, and therefore so does $w$ since $w=w_{1}w_{2}$.
Let $\Phi$ be a base flag of ${\mathcal{M}}$ that projects to the initial vertex of a walk that contains all vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ of a symmetry type graph. Following the notation of [@d-auto], given $w \in {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ such that $\Phi^w$ is in the same orbit as $\Phi$ (that is, $ w \in \mathrm{Norm(Stab (\Phi))}$), we denote by $\alpha_w$ the automorphism taking $\Phi$ to $\Phi^w$. Moreover, if $w=r_{i_1}r_{i_2}\dots r_{i_k}$ for some $i_1, \dots i_k \in \{0, \dots, n-1\}$, then we may also denote $\alpha_w$ by $\alpha_{i_1,i_2, \dots i_k}$.
The following theorem gives distinguished generators (with respect to some base flag) of the automorphism group of a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ in terms of a distinguished walk of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, that travels through all the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Its proof is a consequence of the previous lemma.
\[auto\] Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a $k$-orbit $n$-maniplex and let $T({\mathcal{M}})$ its symmetry type graph. Suppose that $v_1, e_1, v_2, e_2 \dots, e_{q-1}, v_q$ is a distinguished walk that visits every vertex of $T({\mathcal{M}})$, with the edge $e_i$ having colour $a_i$, for each $i= 1, \dots q-1$. Let $S_i \subset \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ be such that $v_i$ has a semi-edge of colour $s$ if and only if $s \in S_i$. Let $B_{i,j}\subset \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ be the set of colours of the edges between the vertices $v_i$ and $v_j$ (with $i<j$) that are not in the distinguished walk and let $\Phi \in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{M}})$ be a base flag of ${\mathcal{M}}$ such that $\Phi$ projects to $v_1$ in $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Then, the automorphism group of ${\mathcal{M}}$ is generated by the union of the sets $$\{\alpha_{a_1, a_2, \dots, a_i, s, a_i, a_{i-1}, \dots, a_1} \mid i=1, \dots, k-1, s \in S_i \},$$ and $$\{ \alpha_{a_1, a_2, \dots, a_i, b, a_j, a_{j-1}, \dots, a_1} \mid i,j \in \{1, \dots, k-1\}, i<j, b \in B_{i,j} \}.$$
We note that, in general, a set of generators of ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ obtained from Theorem \[auto\] can be reduced since there might be more than one element of $G({\mathcal{W}})$ representing the same automorphism. For example, the closed walk $w$ through an edge of colour $2$, then a $0$-semi-edge and finally a 2-edge corresponds to the element $r_2r_0r_2 = r_0$ of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$. Hence, the group generator induced by the walk $w$ is the same as that induced by the closed walk consisting only of the semi-edge of colour $0$.
The following two corollaries give a set of generators for 2- and 3-orbit polytopes, respectively, in a given class. The notation follows that of Theorem \[auto\], where if the indices of some $\alpha$ do not fit into the parameters of the set, we understand that such automorphism is the identity.
[**[@tesisisa]**]{} Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a 2-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex in class $2_I$, for some $I \subset \{0, \dots, n-1\}$ and let $j_0 \notin I$. Then $$\big\{ \alpha_i, \alpha_{j_0, i, j_0}, \alpha_{k,j_0} \mid i \in I, \ k \notin I \big\}$$ is a generating set for ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a 3-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex.
1. If ${\mathcal{M}}$ is in class $3^{i}$, for some $i \in \{1, \dots, n-2\}$, then $$\big\{ \alpha_j, \alpha_{i,i-1,i+1,i}, \alpha_{i,i+1,i+2,i+1,i}, \alpha_{i,i+1,i,i+1,i} \mid j \in \{0, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i\} \big\}$$ is a generating set for ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$.
2. If ${\mathcal{M}}$ is in class $3^{i,i+1}$, for some $i \in \{0, \dots, n-2\}$, then $$\big\{ \alpha_j, \alpha_{i,i-1,i}, \alpha_{i,i+1,i+2,i+1,i}, \alpha_{i,i+1,i,i+1,i} \mid j \in \{0, \dots, n-1\} \setminus \{i\} \big\}$$ is a generating set for ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$.
Oriented and orientable maniplexes {#sec:orient}
==================================
A maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is said to be [*orientable*]{} if its flag graph ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ is a bipartite graph. Since a subgraph of a bipartite graph is also bipartite, all the sections of an orientable maniplex are orientable maniplexes themselves. An [*orientation*]{} of an orientable maniplex is a colouring of the parts of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$, with exactly two colours, say black and white. An [*oriented maniplex*]{} is an orientable maniplex with a given orientation. Note that any oriented maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ has an enantiomorphic maniplex (or mirror image) ${\mathcal{M}}^{en}$. One can think of the enantiomorphic form of an oriented maniplex simply as the orientable maniplex with the opposite orientation.
If the connection groups ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$ is generated by $r_0, r_1, \dots, r_{n-1}$, for each $i \in \{0, \dots, n-2\}$ let us define the element $t_i:= r_{n-1}r_i \in {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$. Then, $t_i^2=1$, for $i=0, \dots n-3$. The subgroup ${\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ generated by $t_0, \dots t_{n-2}$ is called [*even connection group of ${\mathcal{M}}$*]{}. Note that ${\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ has index at most two in ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$. In fact $({\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}}))^{r_{n-1}} = {\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}}^{en})$. It should be clear then that any maniplex and its enantiomorphic form are in fact isomorphic as maniplexes.
An [*oriented flag di-graph*]{} ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ of an oriented maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is constructed in the following way. The vertex set of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ consists of one of the parts of the bipartition of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$. That is, the black (or white) vertices of the flag graph of ${\mathcal{M}}$. The darts of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ will be the 2-arcs of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ of colours $n-1,i$, for each $i \in\{0,\dots, n-2\}$. We then identify two darts to obtain an edge if they have the same vertices, but go in opposite directions. Note that for $i = 0, \dots, n-3$ and each flag $\Phi$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$, the 2-arc starting at $\Phi$ and with edges coloured $n-1$ and $i$ has the same end vertex than the 2-arc starting at $\Phi$ and with edges coloured $i$ and $n-1$. Hence, all the darts corresponding to 2-arcs of colours ${n-1}$ and $i$, with $i=0, \dots n-3$ will have both directions in ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ giving us, at each vertex, $n-2$ different edges. On the other hand, the 2-arcs on edges of two colours ${n-1}, {n-2}$ will in general be directed darts of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$. An example of an oriented flag di-graph is shown in Firgure \[orientedgraphflag\]. We note that the oriented flag di-graph of ${\mathcal{M}}^{en}$ can be obtained from ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ by reversing the directions of the $n-2, n-1$ darts.
![The oriented flag di-graph of an oriented cuboctahedron from its flag graph.[]{data-label="orientedgraphflag"}](orientgraphflagcubocta.pdf){width="10cm"}
Note that the 2-arcs of colours $r_{n-1}, r_i$ correspond to the generators $t_i$ of ${\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$. In fact, as ${\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ consists precisely of the even words of ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$, a maniplex is orientable if and only if the index of ${\mathrm{Mon}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ in ${\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is exactly two. We can then colour the edges and darts of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ with the elements $t_i$. The fact that $t_i^2=1$ for every $i=0, \dots, n-3$ indeed implies that the edges of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ are labelled by these first $n-2$ elements, while the darts are labelled by $t_{n-2}$.
We can see now that for each $i \in \{0, \dots, n-2\}$, the $i$-faces of ${\mathcal{M}}$ are in correspondence with the connected components of the subgraph of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ with edges of colours $\{0, \dots, n-2\}\setminus \{i\}$. To identify the facets of ${\mathcal{M}}$ as subgraphs of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$, we first consider some oriented paths on the edges of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$. We shall say that an oriented path on the edges of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ is [*facet-admissible*]{} if no two darts of colour $t_{n-2}$ are consecutive on the path. Then, two vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ are in the same facet of ${\mathcal{M}}$ if there exists a facet admissible oriented path from one of the vertices to the other.
For the remainder of this section, by a maniplex we shall mean an oriented maniplex, with one part of the flags coloured with black and the other one in white.
An [*orientation preserving automorphism*]{} of an (oriented) maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is an automorphism of ${\mathcal{M}}$ that sends black flags to black flags and white flags to white flags. An [*orientation reversing automorphism*]{} is an automorphism that interchanges black and white flags. A [*reflection*]{} is an orientation reversing involutory automorphism. The group of orientation preserving automorphisms of ${\mathcal{M}}$ shall be denoted by ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$.
The orientation preserving automorphism ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ of a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a subgroup of index at most two in ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$. In fact, the index is exactly two if and only if ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$ contains an orientation reversing automorphism. Note that in this case, there exists an orientation reversing automorphism that sends ${\mathcal{M}}$ to its enantiomorphic form ${\mathcal{M}}^{en}$.
Pisanski [@tomo] defines a maniplex to be [*chiral-a-la-Conway*]{} if ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}}) = {\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathcal{M}})$. If a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is chiral-a-la-Conway, then its enantiomorphic maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}^{en}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{M}}$, but there is no automorphism of the maniplex sending one to the other. It follows from the definition that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is chiral-a-la-Conway if and only if the automorphisms of ${\mathcal{M}}$ preserve the bipartition of ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ and therefore we have the following proposition.
\[oddcycles\] Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be an oriented maniplex and let $T({\mathcal{M}})$ its symmetry type graph. Then, ${\mathcal{M}}$ is chiral-a-la-Conway if and only if $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has no odd cycles.
Similarly as before, the orientation preserving automorphisms of a maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ correspond to colour preserving automorphism of the bipartite graph ${\mathcal{G_M}}$ that preserves the two parts. But these correspond to colour preserving automorphisms of the di-graph ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$, implying that ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}}) \cong {\mathrm{Aut}}_p({\mathcal{G_M}}^+)$. Note that the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ on the set $\mathcal{B({\mathcal{M}})}$ of all the black flags of ${\mathcal{M}}$ is semiregular, and hence, the action on ${\mathrm{Aut}}_p({\mathcal{G_M}}^+)$ is semiregular on the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$.
An oriented maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ is said to be [*rotary (or orientably regular)*]{} if the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ is regular on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$. Equivalently, ${\mathcal{M}}$ is rotary if the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}_p({\mathcal{G_M}}^+)$ is regular on its vertices. We say that ${\mathcal{M}}$ is [*orientably $k$-orbit*]{} if the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}_p({\mathcal{G_M}}^+)$ has exactly $k$ orbits on the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$. The following lemma is straightforward.
\[orientablekorbit\] Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a chiral-a-la-Conway maniplex. Then $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has no semi-edges and if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is an orientably $k$-orbit maniplex, then ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a $2k$-orbit maniplex.
Oriented symmetry type di-graphs of oriented maniplexes
-------------------------------------------------------
We now consider the semiregular action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$ on the vertices of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$, and let ${\mathcal B}= {\mathcal O}rb^+$ be the partition of the vertex set of ${\mathcal{G_M}}^+$ into the orbits with respect to the action of ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+({\mathcal{M}})$. (As before, since the action is semiregular, all orbits are of the same size.) The [*oriented symmetry type di-graph*]{} $T^+({\mathcal{M}})$ of ${\mathcal{M}}$ is the quotient colour di-graph with respect to ${\mathcal O}rb^+$. Similarly as before, if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is rotary, then the oriented symmetry type di-graph of ${\mathcal{M}}$ consists of one vertex with one loop and $n-2$ semi-edges. Note that for oriented symmetry type di-graphs we shall not identify two darts with the same vertices, but different directions.
If we now turn our attention to oriented symmetry type di-graphs with two vertices, one can see that for each $I\subset \{0, \dots, n-2\}$, there is an oriented symmetry type di-graphs with two vertices having semi-edges (or loops) of colours $i$ at each vertex for every $i \in I$, and having edges (or both darts) of colour $j$, for each $j \notin I$. An oriented maniplex with such oriented symmetry type di-graph shall be say to be in class $2_I^+$. Hence, there are $2^{n-2}-1$ classes of oriented 2-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplexes.
Note that if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a $k$-orbit maniplex, then $T^+({\mathcal{M}})$ has either $k$ or $\frac{k}{2}$ vertices. The next result follows from Proposition \[oddcycles\] and Lemma \[orientablekorbit\].
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be an oriented maniplex. Then, $T({\mathcal{M}})$ and $T^+({\mathcal{M}})$ have the same number of vertices if and only if $T({\mathcal{M}})$ has a semi-edge or an odd cycle.
It is not difficult to see that if we are to consider for a moment an oriented symmetry type di-graph $T^+$ with an (undirected) hamiltonian path, then the construction of Section \[Gen-autG\] gives us a way to construct a generating set of the closed walks based at the starting vertex of the path (and Lemma \[generatingwalks\] implies that the set actually generates.) Hence, one can find generators for the group of orientation preserving automorphisms of an oriented maniplex, provided that it has an (undirected) hamiltonian path. In particular we have the following theorem.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be an oriented 2-orbit $(n-1)$-maniplex in class $2_I^+$, for some $I\subset \{0, \dots, n-2\}$. Then
1. If $n-2 \in I$, let $j_0 \notin I$, then $$\big\{
\alpha_{i,n-1}, \alpha_{j_0, n-1, i, j_0}, \alpha_{k, n-1, j_0, n-1} \mid i \in I \ k \notin I
\big\}$$ is a generating set for $Aut^+({\mathcal{M}})$.
2. If $n-2 \notin I$ but there exists $j_0 \notin I$, $j_0 \neq n-2$, then $$\big\{
\alpha_{i,n-1}, \alpha_{j_0, n-1, i, j_0}, \alpha_{k, n-1, j_0, n-1} , \alpha_{n-1, n-2, j_0, n-1}\mid i \in I \ k \notin I
\big\}$$ is a generating set for $Aut^+({\mathcal{M}})$.
3. If $I =\{0, \dots, n-3\}$, then $$\big\{
\alpha_{i,n-1}, \alpha_{n-2, n-1, i, n-1, n-2}, \alpha_{n-1, n-2, n-1, n-2} \mid i \in I
\big\}$$ is a generating set for $Aut^+({\mathcal{M}})$.
Given an oriented maniplex ${\mathcal{M}}$ and its symmetry type graph $T({\mathcal{M}})$, we shall say that $T^+({\mathcal{M}})$ is the associated oriented symmetry type di-graph of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Hence, given a symmetry type graph $T$ one can find its associated oriented symmetry type di-graph $T^+$ by erasing all edges of $T$ and replacing them by the $n-1,i$ paths of $T$. Note that this replacement of the edges may disconnect the new graph. If that is the case, we take $T^+$ to be one of the connected components.
Oriented symmetry type graphs with three vertices
-------------------------------------------------
In a similar way as one can classify maniplexes with small number of flag orbits (under the action of the automorphism group of the maniplex) in terms of their symmetry type graph, one can classify oriented maniplexes with small number of flags (under the action of the orientation preserving automorphism group of the maniplex) in terms of their oriented symmetry type di-graph.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a $6$-orbit Chiral-a-la-Conway $(n-1)$-maniplex, with $n\geq4$. Let $T(\mathcal{M})$ be its symmetry type graph and $T^{+}(\mathcal{M})$ be its oriented symmetry type di-graph. Recall that $T(\mathcal{M})$ is a graph with 6 vertices and no semi-edges or odd cycles, and that $T^{+}(\mathcal{M})$ is a di-graph with 3 vertices. Let $V=\{v_{1},v_{2},..,v_{6}\}$ be the vertex set of $T(\mathcal{M})$. We may label the vertices of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ in such a way that the edges $(v_{1},v_{2})$, $(v_{3},v_{4})$, $(v_{5},v_{6})$ are coloured with the colour $(n-1)$, and that no two vertices of the set $\{v_{1},v_{3},v_{5}\}$ are adjacent. Let ${\mathcal{W}}=\{w_{1},w_{3},w_{5}\}$ be the vertex set of $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$. Each $w_{i}\in {\mathcal{W}}$ corresponds to the vertex $v_{i}\in V$, $i\in\{1,3,5\}$. In what follows, in the same way as in Section \[sec:stg\], $(v_{i},v_{j})_{k}$ denotes the $k$-coloured edge joining the vertices $v_{i}$ and $v_{j}$, $v_{i},v_{j}\in V$, $k\in\{0,1,...,n-1)$; and $(w_{i},w_{j})_{k}$ denotes the $(k,n-1)$-coloured edge joining the vertices $w_{i}$ and $w_{j}$, $w_{i},w_{j}\in {\mathcal{W}}$ and $k\in\{0,1,...,n-3)$.
Since there are no semi-edges in $T({\mathcal{M}})$, for each colour $i\in\{0,...,n-3\}$ there is one edge (and one semi-edge) of colour $(i,n-1)$ in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ if and only if the 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ of colours $i$ and $(n-1)$ consists of one 4-cycle and one 2-cycle of alternating colours. Likewise, there are three semi-edges of colour $(i,n-1)$ in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ if and only if the 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ of colours $i$ and $(n-1)$ consist of three 2-cycles. It is straightforward to see that there are two consecutive edges of colour $(i,n-1)$ and $(j,n-1),$ $i\neq j$, in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ if and only if the 2-factor of colours $i$ and $j$ consists of a single 6-cycle. It follows that if there are two consecutive edges of colour $(i,n-1)$ and $(j,n-1)$ in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$, then $\left|i-j\right|<2$.
Notice that the possible 2-factors of colour $(n-1)$ and $(n-2)$ in $T({\mathcal{M}})$ are either a single 6-cycle of alternating colours, a 4-cycle along with a 2-cycle, or three separate 2-cycles. Hence, the darts in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ are arranged in either a 3-cycle, a 2-cycle along with a loop, or three separate loops. We proceed case by case.
Consider the case when there are three loops in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$. Since oriented symmetry type di-graphs are connected, then without loss of generality $(w_{1},w_{3})_{i}$ and $(w_{3},w_{5})_{i+1}$ must be edges of $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$. We may suppose that $(w_{1},w_{3})_{i}$ is the only edge joining $w_{1}$ and $w_{3}$. If there is a third edge in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$, then it is necessarily $(w_{3},w_{5})_{i-1}$. Note that, since the edges coloured by $(n-1)$ and $(n-2)$ do not lie on a 6-cycle in $T({\mathcal{M}})$, there are no restrictions on the semi-edges of $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$. Thus, there is one oriented symmetry type di-graph for each pair of colours $i$ and $i+1$, with $i\in\{0,...,n-3\}$ and one for each triple $i-1$, $i$ and $i+1$, $i\in\{1,...,n-3\}$. Therefore, there are $2n-7$ oriented symmetry type di-graphs with 3 loops.
Consider the case when $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ has only one loop. We may suppose that the loop is in $w_{5}$ and the vertices $w_{1}$ or $w_{3}$ are joined by darts. This implies that $(v_{1},v_{4})_{(n-2)}$, $(v_{2},v_{3})_{(n-2)}$ and $(v_{5},v_{6})_{(n-2)}$ are edges of $T({\mathcal{M}})$. As $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ is connected, there must be an edge joining $w_{3}$ and $w_{5}$ of colour $(i,n-1).$ Necessarily $i=n-3$, since the edges $(v_{1},v_{2})_{i}$, $(v_{2},v_{3})_{(n-2)}$, $(v_{3},v_{6})_{i}$, $(v_{6},v_{5})_{n-2}$, $(v_{5},v_{4})_{i}$, $(v_{4},v_{1})_{n-2}$ form a 6-cycle in $T({\mathcal{M}})$. Notice that there are no restrictions on the semi-edges of $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$. Hence, there are exactly two oriented symmetry type di-graph with a single loop: one with a single edge of colour $(n-3,n-1)$ between $w_3$ and $w_5$, and one with two edges of colours $(n-3,n-1)$ and $(n-4,n-1)$ between them.
Consider the case when the darts in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ are arranged in a 3-cycle. It is clear that the 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ of colours $(n-2)$ and $(n-1)$ is a single 6-cycle. Therefore, if $i\in\{0,...,n-4\}$, the 2-factor of $T({\mathcal{M}})$ of colours $i$ and $(n-1)$ cannot consist of three 2-cycles, as this implies the existence of a 6-cycle of alternating colours $i$ and $(n-2)$ such that $\left|i-(n-2)\right|\geq2$. That is, $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ has one edge (and one semi-edge) of colour $(i,n-1)$ for each $i\in\{0,...,n-4\}$ and either one edge and a semi-edge, or three semi-edges for colour $(n-3,n-1).$ Note that if $n\geq7$, the set $\{0,...,n-4\}$ has more than three elements and thus all edges of colour $(i,n-1)$ in $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$, $i\in\{0,...,n-4\}$, must be joining the same pair of vertices. Otherwise, there would be at least two consecutive edges of colours $(i,n-1)$ and $(j,n-1)$, with $\left|i-j\right|\geq2$. Figure \[3orient\] below shows the only four possible oriented symmetry type di-graphs with a 3-cycle of darts and at least two consecutive edges. Two correpond to 4-maniplexes, one to 3-maniplexes and one to 5-maniplexes. These will be treated as special cases.
![Oriented symmetry type di-graphs with 3 vertices and one directed 3-cylce, of 3-, 4- and 5-maniplexes[]{data-label="3orient"}](Oriented3orbitSTG.pdf){width="10cm"}
We may suppose that $T^{+}({\mathcal{M}})$ has no consecutive edges. It follows that here are exactly two oriented symmetry type di-graph with a 3-cycle of darts: one with an edge joining the same pair of vertices for each colour $i\in\{0,...,n-3\},$ and one with three semi-edges of colour $(n-3,n-1)$ and an edge joining the same pair of vertices for each colour $i\in\{0,...,n-4\}$.
Considering all the cases above, there are $(n-3)+(n-4)+2+2=2n-3$ oriented symmetry type graphs with three vertices for oriented maniplexes of rank $n\geq6$; $2n-2=6$ for oriented maniplexes of rank 3; $2n-1=9$ for oriented maniplexes of rank 4; and $2n-2=10$ for oriented maniplexes of rank 5.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was done with the support of ”Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT) de la UNAM, IB101412 [*Grupos y gráficas asociados a politopos abstractos*]{}“. The second author was partially supported by Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) and the third author was partially supported by CONACyT under project 166951 and by the program ”Para las mujeres en la ciencia L’Oreal-UNESCO-AMC 2012”
[99]{}
Brinkmann, G., Van Cleemput, N., Pisanski, T. [*Generation of various classes of trivalent graphs*]{}. Theoretical Computer Science. (2012). In press.
Del Río-Francos, M. [*Truncation symmetry type graphs*]{}. In preparation.
Del Río-Francos, M., Hubard I., Orbanic A., Pisanski T. [*Medial symmetry type graphs.*]{} arXiv:1301.7637 \[math.CO\]
Hubard I. [*Two-orbit polyhedra from groups*]{} European Journal of Combinatorics, **31 (39** (2010), 943–960
Hubard I. [*From geometry to groups and back: The study of highly symmetric polytopes*]{}, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2007, Thesis (Ph.D.)�York University (Canada). MR 2712832
Hubard I., Orbanic A., Weiss A.I, [*Monodromy groups and self-invariance*]{}, Canadian Journal of Mathematics [**61**]{} (2009), 1300–1324.
Kocič, J. [*Symmetry-type graphs of Platonic and Archimedean solids*]{}, Mathematical Communications [**16**]{} (2011), 491�507.
McMullen P., Schulte E. [*Abstract Regular Polytopes*]{}, Cambridge University Press, (2002).
Orbanić A., Pellicer D., Weiss A. I. [*Map operation and $k$-orbit maps*]{}. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A **117 (4)** (2009) 411–429.
Pisanski T. [*Personal communication*]{}
Širáň J., Tucker T. W., Watkins M.E., [*Realizing finite edge-transitive orientable maps*]{}, Journal of Graph Theory [**37**]{} (2001), 1–34.
Wilson S. [*Maniplexes: Part 1: Maps, Polytopes, Symmetry and Operators*]{}, Symmetry, [**4**]{} (2012), 265–275
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider a cooperative two-user multiaccess channel in which the transmission is controlled by a random state. Both encoders transmit a common message and, one of the encoders also transmits an individual message. We study the capacity region of this communication model for different degrees of availability of the states at the encoders, causally or strictly causally. In the case in which the states are revealed causally to both encoders but not to the decoder we find an explicit characterization of the capacity region in the discrete memoryless case. In the case in which the states are revealed only strictly causally to both encoders, we establish inner and outer bounds on the capacity region. The outer bound is non-trivial, and has a relatively simple form. It has the advantage of incorporating *only one auxiliary random variable*. In particular, it *suggests* that there is none, or at best only little, to gain from having the encoder that transmits both messages also sending an individual description of the state to the receiver, in addition to the compressed version that is sent cooperatively with the other encoder. We then introduce a class of cooperative multiaccess channels with states known strictly causally at both encoders for which the inner and outer bounds agree; and so we characterize the capacity region for this class. In this class of channels, the state can be obtained as a deterministic function of the channel inputs and output. We also study the model in which the states are revealed, strictly causally, in an asymmetric manner, to only one encoder. Throughout the paper, we discuss a number of examples; and compute the capacity region of some of these examples. The results shed more light on the utility of delayed channel state information for increasing the capacity region of state-dependent cooperative multiaccess channels; and tie with recent progress in this framework.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'manuscript.bib'
title: 'On Cooperative Multiple Access Channels with Delayed CSI at Transmitters\'
---
Introduction {#secI}
============
In this paper, we study a two-user state-dependent multiple access channel with the channel states revealed – depending on the scenario, only strictly-causally or causally, to both or only one of the encoders. Both encoders transmit a common message and, in addition, one of the encoders also transmits an individual message. More precisely, let $W_c$ and $W_1$ denote the common message and the individual message to be transmitted in, say, $n$ uses of the channel; and $S^n=(S_1,\hdots,S_n)$ denote the state sequence affecting the channel during the transmission. In the causal setting, at time $i$ both encoders know the channel states up to and including time $i$, i.e., the sequence $S^i=(S_1,\hdots,S_{i-1},S_i)$. In the strictly causal setting, at time $i$ the encoders know the channel states only up to time $i-1$, i.e., the sequence $S^{i-1}=(S_1,\hdots,S_{i-1})$. We study the capacity region of this state-dependent MAC model under both causal and strictly causal settings.
For the model with causal states, we characterize the capacity region in the discrete memoryless case. We show that a cooperative scheme that is based on Shannon strategies [@Sh58] is optimal. This is to be opposed to the case of MAC with independent inputs in which it has been shown in [@LS13a Section III] that Shannon strategies are suboptimal in general.
For the model with strictly causal states at both encoders, while building on the recent related work [@LS13a] (see also [@LS13b; @LSY13; @ZPS13]), it can be shown that the knowledge of the states strictly causally at the encoders is generally helpful, characterizing the capacity region of this model does not seem to be easy to obtain, even though one of the encoders knows both messages. In particular, while it can be expected that gains can be obtained by having the encoders cooperate in sending a description of the state to the receiver through a block Markov coding scheme, it is not easy to see how the compression of the state should be performed optimally. For instance, it is not clear whether sending an individual layer of state compression by the encoder that transmits both messages increases the transmission rates beyond what is possible with only the cooperative layer. Note that for the non-cooperative MAC of [@LS13a] it is beneficial that each encoder sends also an individual description of the state to the receiver, in addition to the description of the state that is sent cooperatively by both encoders; and this is reflected therein through that the inner bound of [@LS13a Theorem 2] strictly outperforms that of [@LS13a Theorem 1] – the improvement comes precisely from the fact that, for both encoders, in each block a part of the input is composed of an individual compression of the state and the input in the previous block.
In this paper, for the model with states known strictly causally at both encoders we establish inner and outer bounds on the capacity region. The outer bound is non trivial, and has the advantage of having a relatively simple form that incorporates directly the channel inputs $X_1$ and $X_2$ from the encoders and *only one auxiliary random variable*. To establish this outer bound, we first derive another outer bound on the capacity region whose expression involves two auxiliary random variables. We then show that this outer bound can be recast into a simpler form which is more insightful, and whose expression depends on only one auxiliary random variable. This is obtained by showing that the second auxiliary random variable can be chosen optimally to be a constant. In addition to its simplicity, the resulting expression of the outer bound has the advantage of suggesting that, by opposition to the MAC with independent inputs of [@LS13a], for the model that we study there is no gain, or at best only little, to expect from having the encoder that transmits both messages also sending an individual compression of the state to the receiver, in addition to the cooperative compression. Note, however, that optimal forms of compressions are still to be found, since the tightness of the outer bound is still to be shown in general. Next, using the insights that we gain from the obtained outer bound, we establish an inner bound on the capacity region. This inner bound is based on a Block-Markov coding scheme in which the two encoders collaborate in both transmitting the common message and also conveying a lossy version of the state to the decoder. In this coding scheme, the encoder that transmits both messages does *not* send any individual compression of the state beyond what is performed cooperatively with the other encoder.
The inner and outer bounds differ only through the associated joint measures; and, for instance, a Markov-chain relation that holds for the inner bound and not for the outer bound. Next, by investigating a class of channels for which the state can be obtained as a deterministic function of the channel inputs and output, we show that the inner and outer bounds agree; and, so, we characterize the capacity region in this case.
Furthermore, we also study the case in which the state is revealed (strictly causally) to only one encoder. In this case, we show that revealing the state to the encoder that sends only the common message can increase the capacity region, whereas revealing it to the encoder that sends both messages does not increase the capacity region. In the former case, we show that there is dilemma at the informed encoder among exploiting the available state and creating message-cooperation with the other encoder. We develop a coding scheme that resolves this tension by splitting the codeword of the informed encoder into two parts, one that is meant to carry only the description of the state and is independent of the other encoder’s input and one which is sent cooperatively with the other encoder and is generated independently of the state. We also show that this scheme is optimal in some special cases. Throughout the paper, we also discuss a number of examples; and compute the capacity for some of these examples.
Related Work {#secI_subsecA}
------------
There is a connection between the role of states that are known strictly causally at an encoder and that of output feedback given to that encoder. In single-user channels, it is now well known that strictly causal feedback does not increase the capacity [@Sh56]. In multiuser channels or networks, however, the situation changes drastically, and output feedback can be beneficial — but its role is still highly missunderstood. One has a similar picture with strictly causal states at the encoder. In single-user channels, independent and identically distributed states available only in a strictly causal manner at the encoder have no effect on the capacity. In multiuser channels or networks, however, like feedback, strictly causal states in general increase the capacity.
The study of networks with strictly causal, or delayed, channel state information (CSI) has spurred much interest over the few recent years, due to its importance from both information-theoretic and communications aspects. Non-cooperative multiaccess channels with delayed state information are studied in [@LS13a] in the case in which the transmission is governed by a common state that is revealed with delay to both transmitters, and in [@LS13b; @LSY13] in the case in which the transmission is governed by independent states each revealed with delay to a different transmitter. The capacity region of a multiaccess channel with states known strictly causally at the encoder that sends only the common message and noncausally at the other encoder is established in [@ZPS13] (see also [@ZPS11a] and [@ZPS12a]).
A related line of research, initiated with the work of Maddah-Ali and Tse [@M-AT12], investigates the usefulness of stale or outdated channel state information - typically outdated values of fading coefficients, in wireless networks. In such communication problems, the CSI is learned at the transmitters typically through output CSI feedback; and the utility of the outdated CSI at the transmitters is demonstrated typically by investigating gains in terms of the degrees of freedom or multiplexing [@ZT03] offered by the network. In this regard, the availability of outdated CSI at the transmitters is generally exploited through coding schemes that rely on some sorts of interferences alignment [@J10]. Examples include multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) broadcast channels [@VV11a; @AGK11; @XAJ12], MIMO interference channels [@VV11b; @VM-AA13] and MIMO X channels with [@ZASV13a] and without [@GMK11; @YZ12] security constraints.
A growing body of work studies multi-user state-dependent models. The problem of joint communication and state estimation, initiated in [@SCCK05], has been studied recently in [@CH-KM12] for the causal state case and in [@CSW12] in the presence of a helper node. Relay channels with states are studied in [@ZKLV10; @ZKLV08a; @ZSPV10a; @ZSPV10b; @ZV07b; @ZV09b; @AMA09; @KE-GS13; @LSY11]. Recent advances in the study of broadcast channels with states can be found in [@LW13; @OS13] (see also the references therein); and other related contributions on multiaccess channels with noncausal states at the encoders can be found in [@K-FM11a; @SCYA11a; @ZVD07a; @ZS13a; @ZS14a], among other works. Finally, for related works on the connected area of multiuser information embedding the reader may refer to [@ZPD05b] and [@ZV09a] and the references therein.
Outline and Notation {#secI_subsecB}
--------------------
An outline of the remainder of this paper is as follows. Section \[secII\] describes in more details the problem setup. In Section \[secIII\] we study the setting in which the states are revealed (strictly causally) to both encoders; and in Section \[secIV\] we study the setting in which the states are revealed (strictly causally) to only one encoder. Section \[secV\] characterizes the capacity region of the cooperative multiaccess channel with states revealed causally to both encoders. Section \[secVI\] provides some concluding remarks.
Throughout the paper we use the following notations. Upper case letters are used to denote random variables, e.g., $X$; lower case letters are used to denote realizations of random variables, e.g., $x$; and calligraphic letters designate alphabets, i.e., ${\mathcal}X$. The probability distribution of a random variable $X$ is denoted by $P_X(x)$. Sometimes, for convenience, we write it as $P_X$. We use the notation $\mathbb{E}_{X}[\cdot]$ to denote the expectation of random variable $X$. A probability distribution of a random variable $Y$ given $X$ is denoted by $P_{Y|X}$. The set of probability distributions defined on an alphabet ${\mathcal}X$ is denoted by ${\mathcal}P({\mathcal}X)$. The cardinality of a set ${\mathcal}X$ is denoted by $|{\mathcal}X|$. For convenience, the length $n$ vector $x^n$ will occasionally be denoted in boldface notation ${\mathbf}x$. For integers $i \leq j$, we define $[i:j]:=\{i,i+1,\hdots,j\}$. Throughout this paper, we use $h_2(\alpha)$ to denote the entropy of a Bernoulli$(\alpha)$ source, i.e., $h_2(\alpha) = - \alpha \log(\alpha) - (1-\alpha)\log(1-\alpha)$ and $p * q$ to denote the binary convolution, i.e., $p * q = p(1-q)+q(1-p)$. Finally, throughout the paper, logarithms are taken to base $2$, and the complement to unity of a scalar $u \in [0,1]$ is sometimes denoted by $\bar{u}$, i.e., $\bar{u}=1-u$.
Problem Setup {#secII}
=============
We consider a stationary memoryless two-user state-dependent MAC $W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}$ whose output $Y \in {\mathcal}Y$ is controlled by the channel inputs $X_1 \in {\mathcal}X_1$ and $X_2 \in {\mathcal}X_2$ from the encoders and the channel state $S \in {\mathcal}S$ which is drawn according to a memoryless probability law $Q_S$. The state is revealed – depending on the scenario – strictly causally or causally, to only one or both encoders. If the state is revealed causally to Encoder $k$, $k=1,2$, at time $i$ this encoder knows the values of the state sequence up to and including time $i$, i.e., $S^{i}=(S_1,\hdots,S_{i-1},S_i)$. If the state is revealed only strictly causally to Encoder $k$, $k=1,2$, at time $i$ this encoder knows the values of the state sequence up to time $i-1$, i.e., $S^{i-1}=(S_1,\hdots,S_{i-1})$.
![State-dependent MAC with degraded messages sets and states known, strictly causally, to both the encoders.[]{data-label="ModelForMACwithAsymmetricCSI"}](./fig1.eps){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Encoder 2 wants to send a common message $W_c$ and Encoder 1 wants to send an independent individual message $W_1$ along with the common message $W_c$. We assume that the common message $W_c$ and the individual message $W_1$ are independent random variables drawn uniformly from the sets ${\mathcal}W_c=\{1,\cdots,M_c\}$ and ${\mathcal}W_1=\{1,\cdots,M_1\}$, respectively. The sequences $X_{1}^n$ and $X_{2}^n$ from the encoders are sent across a state-dependent multiple access channel modeled as a memoryless conditional probability distribution $W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}$. The laws governing the state sequence and the output letters are given by $$\begin{aligned}
W^n_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}(y^n| x^n_1, x^n_2, s^n) &= \prod_{i=1}^n W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}(y_i|x_{1i},x_{2i},s_i)\\
Q^n_S(s^n) &= \prod_{i=1}^n Q_S(s_i).\end{aligned}$$ The receiver guesses the pair $(\hat{W}_c,\hat{W}_1)$ from the channel output $Y^n$.
In Figure \[ModelForMACwithAsymmetricCSI\], the state may model some common information which is received, with delay, only by authorized (or connected) entities. Also, in a wireless context, while fading state variations are often measured at the receivers and then possibly fed back to the transmitters, certain interfering signals occurring at the vicinity of the transmitters may be measured or estimated more effectively directly by these, due to proximity, rather than at the end nodes.
\[basic-definitions-strictly-causal-case\] For positive integers $n$, $M_c$ and $M_1$, an $(M_c,M_1,n,\epsilon)$ code for the cooperative multiple access channel with states known strictly causally to both encoders consists of a sequence of mappings $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1,i}: {\mathcal}W_c{\times}{\mathcal}W_1{\times}{\mathcal}S^{i-1} \longrightarrow {\mathcal}X_1, , \quad i=1,\hdots,n
\label{encoding-function-encoder1-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$ at Encoder 1, a sequence of mappings $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{2,i}: {\mathcal}W_c{\times}{\mathcal}S^{i-1} \longrightarrow {\mathcal}X_2, \quad i=1,\hdots,n
\label{encoding-function-encoder2-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$ at Encoder 2, and a decoder map $$\begin{aligned}
\psi : {\mathcal}Y^n \longrightarrow {\mathcal}W_c{\times}{\mathcal}W_1
\label{decoding-function}\end{aligned}$$ such that the average probability of error is bounded by $\epsilon$, $$P_e^n = \mathbb{E}_{S}\big[\mathrm{Pr}\big(\psi(Y^n)\neq (W_c,W_1)|S^n=s^n\big)\big] \leq \epsilon.
\label{definition-probability-of-error}$$ The rate of the common message and the rate of the individual message are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&R_c = \frac{1}{n}\log M_c \qquad \text{and} \qquad R_1 = \frac{1}{n}\log M_1,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. A rate pair $(R_c,R_1)$ is said to be achievable if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists an $(2^{nR_c},2^{nR_1},n,\epsilon)$ code for the channel $W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}$. The capacity region ${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}$ of the state-dependent MAC with strictly causal states is defined as the closure of the set of achievable rate pairs.
\[basic-definitions-causal-case\] For positive integers $n$, $M_c$ and $M_1$, an $(M_c,M_1,n,\epsilon)$ code for the cooperative multiple access channel with states known causally to both encoders consists of a sequence of mappings $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1,i}: {\mathcal}W_c{\times}{\mathcal}W_1{\times}{\mathcal}S^{i} \longrightarrow {\mathcal}X_1, , \quad i=1,\hdots,n
\label{encoding-function-encoder1-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$ at Encoder 1, a sequence of mappings $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{2,i}: {\mathcal}W_c{\times}{\mathcal}S^{i} \longrightarrow {\mathcal}X_2, \quad i=1,\hdots,n
\label{encoding-function-encoder2-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$ at Encoder 2, and a decoder map such that the probability of error is bounded as in .
The definitions of a rate pair $(R_c,R_1)$ to be achievable as well as the capacity region, which we denote by ${\mathcal}C_{\text{c}}$ in this case, are similar to those in the strictly-causal states setting in Definition \[basic-definitions-strictly-causal-case\].
Similarly, in the case in which the states are revealed strictly causally to only one encoder, the definitions of a rate pair $(R_c,R_1)$ to be achievable as well as the capacity region can be obtained in a way that is similar to that in Definition \[basic-definitions-strictly-causal-case\].
Strictly Causal States at Both Encoders {#secIII}
=======================================
In this section, it is assumed that the alphabets ${\mathcal}S, {\mathcal}X_1, {\mathcal}X_2$ are finite.
Outer Bound on the Capacity Region {#secIII_subsecA}
----------------------------------
Let $\tilde{{\mathcal}P}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ stand for the collection of all random variables $(S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y)$ such that $U$, $V$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ take values in finite alphabets ${\mathcal}U$, ${\mathcal}V$, ${\mathcal}X_1$ and ${\mathcal}X_2$, respectively, and satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2,y) &= P_{S,U,V,X_1X_2}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2)W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}(y|x_1,x_2,s)\\
P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2) &= Q_S(s)P_{X_2}(x_2)P_{X_1|X_2}(x_1|x_2)P_{V|S,X_1,X_2}(v|s,x_1,x_2)P_{U|S,V,X_1,X_2}(u|s,v,x_1,x_2).
$$
\[measure-temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
and $$0 \leq I(V,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_2;S).
\label{nonnegativity-constraint-temporary-outer-bound}$$
The relations in imply that $(U,V) \leftrightarrow (S,X_1,X_2) \leftrightarrow Y$ is a Markov chain, and $X_1$ and $X_2$ are independent of $S$.
Define $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ to be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 \: &\leq \: I(U,X_1;Y|V,X_2)-I(U,X_1;S|V,X_2) \nonumber\\
R_c+ R_1 \: &\leq \: I(U,V,X_1,X_2;Y)-I(U,V,X_1,X_2;S)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm} \text{for some}\:\: (S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y) \in \tilde{{\mathcal}P}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}.
\label{temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$
As stated in the following theorem, the set $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ is an outer bound on the capacity region of the state-dependent discrete memoryless MAC with strictly-causal states.
\[theorem-temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The capacity region of the multiple access channel with degraded messages sets and strictly causal states known only at the encoders satisfies $${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq \tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}.$$
**Proof:** The proof of Theorem \[theorem-temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
We now recast the outer bound $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}$ into a form that will be shown to be more convenient (see Remark \[remark1-outer-bounds-strictly-causal-states-setting\] and Remark \[remark2-outer-bounds-strictly-causal-states-setting\] below). This is done by showing that the maximizing auxiliary random variable $U$ in $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}$ is a constant, i.e., $U=\emptyset$; and can be formalized as follows. Let ${\mathcal}P^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ be the collection of all random variables $(S,V,X_1,X_2,Y)$ such that $V$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ take values in finite alphabets ${\mathcal}V$, ${\mathcal}X_1$ and ${\mathcal}X_2$, respectively, and satisfy $$P_{S,V,X_1,X_2,Y} = Q_SP_{X_2}P_{X_1|X_2}P_{V|S,X_1,X_2}W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}
\label{measure-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$ and the constraint . Also, define ${{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ to be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting-individual-rate}
R_1 \: &\leq \: I(X_1;Y|V,X_2)\\
R_c+ R_1 \: &\leq \: I(V,X_1,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_1,X_2;S)\\
\label{outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting-sum-rate}
&\hspace{2cm} \text{for some}\:\: (S,V,X_1,X_2,Y) \in {{\mathcal}P}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
It is easy to see that ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq \tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$, as ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ can be obtained from $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ by setting $U=\emptyset$. As shown in the proof of the theorem that will follow, $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq {\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$; and so ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}} = \tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$. Thus, by Theorem \[theorem-temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}$ is an outer bound on the capacity region of the state-dependent discrete memoryless MAC model with strictly-causal states.
\[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The capacity region of the multiple access channel with degraded messages sets and strictly causal states known only at the encoders satisfies $${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq {\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}.$$
**Proof:** The proof of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
The outer bound can be expressed equivalently using $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ or ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$, since the two sets coincide. However, the form ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ of the outer bound is more convenient and insightful. The following remarks aim at reflecting this.
\[remark1-outer-bounds-strictly-causal-states-setting\] As we already mentioned, some recent works have shown the utility of strictly causal states at the encoders in increasing the capacity region of multiaccess channels in certain settings. For example, this has been demonstrated for a MAC with independent inputs and states known strictly causally at the encoders [@LS13a; @LS13b; @LSY13], and for a MAC with degraded messages sets with the states known strictly causally to the encoder that sends only the common-message and noncausally at the encoder that sends both messages [@ZPS13; @ZPS11a; @ZPS12a]. Also, in these settings, the increase in the capacity region is created by having the encoders cooperate in each block to convey a lossy version of the state of the previous block to the receiver. Furthermore, in the case of the MAC with independent inputs of [@LS13a], it is shown that additional improvement can be obtained by having each encoder also sending a compressed version of the pair (input, state) of the previous block, in addition to the cooperative transmission with the other encoder of the common compression of the state. (This is reflected in [@LS13a] through the improvement of the inner bound of Theorem 2 therein over that of Theorem 1). In our case, since one encoder knows the other encoder’s message, it is not evident à-priori whether a similar additional improvement could be expected from having the encoder that transmits both messages also sending another compression of the state, in addition to that sent cooperatively. [$\Box$]{}
\[remark2-outer-bounds-strictly-causal-states-setting\] A direct proof of the outer bound in its form ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ does not seem to be easy to obtain because of the necessity of introducing two auxiliary random variables in typical outer bounding approaches that are similar to that of Theorem \[theorem-temporary-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. In addition to that it is simpler comparatively, the form ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ of the outer bound is more convenient and insightful. It involves only one auxiliary random variable, $V$, (which, in a corresponding coding scheme, would represent intuitively the lossy version of the state that is to be sent by the two encoders cooperatively). Because the auxiliary random variable $U$ (which, in a corresponding coding scheme, would represent intuitively the additional compression of the state that is performed by the encoder that transmits both messages) can be set optimally to be a constant, the outer bound ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ suggests implicitly that there is no gain to be expected from additional compression at Encoder 1. That is, by opposition to the case of the non-cooperative MAC of [@LS13a], for our model, for an efficient exploitation of the knowledge of the states strictly causally at the encoders it *seems*[^1] enough to compress the state only cooperatively. We should mention that, although somewhat intuitive given known results on the role of feedback and strictly causal states at the encoder in point-to-point channels, a formal proof of the aforementioned fact for the model that we study does not follow directly from these existing results. [$\Box$]{}
We now state a proposition that provides an alternative outer bound on the capacity region of the multiaccess channel with degraded messages sets and states known only strictly causally at both encoders that we study. This proposition will turn out to be useful in Section \[secIII\_subsecD\].
Let $\breve{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &\leq I(X_1;Y|X_2,S)\nonumber\\
R_c + R_1 &\leq I(X_1,X_2;Y)
\label{alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$ for some measure $$P_{S,X_1,X_2,Y} = Q_SP_{X_1,X_2}W_{Y|S,X_1,X_2}.
\label{measure-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$
\[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The capacity region ${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}$ of the multiple access channel with degraded messages sets and strictly causal states known only at the encoders satisfies $${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq \breve{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}.$$
**Proof:** The proof of Proposition \[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
The bound on the sum rate of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is at least as tight as that of Proposition \[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. This can be seen through the following inequalities.
$$\begin{aligned}
I(V,X_1,X_2;Y)-&I(V,X_1,X_2;S)\nonumber\\\
\label{comparison-theorem2-theorem3-proof-step1}
&= I(X_1,X_2;Y) + I(V;Y|X_1,X_2) - I(V;S|X_1,X_2)\\
\label{comparison-theorem2-theorem3-proof-step2}
&= I(X_1,X_2;Y) + I(V;Y|S,X_1,X_2) - I(V;S|X_1,X_2,Y)\\
&= I(X_1,X_2;Y) - I(V;S|X_1,X_2,Y) + H(Y|S,X_1,X_2) - H(Y|V,S,X_1,X_2)\\
\label{comparison-theorem2-theorem3-proof-step3}
&= I(X_1,X_2;Y) - I(V;S|X_1,X_2,Y) + H(Y|S,X_1,X_2) - H(Y|S,X_1,X_2)\\
&= I(X_1,X_2;Y)-I(V;S|X_1,X_2,Y)\\
&\leq I(X_1,X_2;Y)\end{aligned}$$
where: follows since $X_1$ and $X_2$ are independent of the state $S$; follows since for all random variables $A$, $B$ and $C$, we have $I(A;B)-I(A;C)=I(A;B|C)-I(A;C|B)$; and follows since $V \leftrightarrow (S,X_1,X_2) \leftrightarrow Y$ is a Markov chain.
For some channels, the sum-rate constraint of outer bound of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is *strictly* tighter than that of the outer bound of Proposition \[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. The following example, illustrates this.
\[example-comparison-of-outer-bounds\] Consider the following discrete memoryless channel, considered initially in [@LS13a], $$Y = X_S$$ where ${\mathcal}X_1={\mathcal}X_2={\mathcal}Y=\{0,1\}$, and the state $S$ is uniformly distributed over the set ${\mathcal}S=\{1,2\}$ and acts as a random switch that connects a randomly chosen transmitter to the output.
For this channel, the rate-pair $(R_c,R_1)=(1/2,1/2)$ is in the outer bound of Proposition \[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], but not in that of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], i.e., $(1/2,1/2) \in \breve{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ and $(1/2,1/2) \notin {\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$.
**Proof:** The analysis of Example \[example-comparison-of-outer-bounds\] appears in Appendix \[appendix-analysis-example-comparison-of-outer-bounds\].
Inner Bound on the Capacity Region {#secIII_subsecB}
----------------------------------
Let ${\mathcal}P^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ stand for the collection of all random variables $(S,V,X_1,X_2,Y)$ such that $V$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ take values in finite alphabets ${\mathcal}V$, ${\mathcal}X_1$ and ${\mathcal}X_2$, respectively, and satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{S,V,X_1,X_2,Y}(s,v,x_1,x_2,y) &= P_{S,V,X_1,X_2}(s,v,x_1,x_2)W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}(y|x_1,x_2,s)\\
P_{S,V,X_1,X_2}(s,v,x_1,x_2) &= Q_S(s)P_{X_2}(x_2)P_{X_1|X_2}(x_1|x_2)P_{V|S,X_2}(v|s,x_2)
$$
\[measure-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
and $$0 \leq I(V,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_2;S).
\label{nonnegativity-constraint-inner-bound}$$ The relations in imply that $V \leftrightarrow (S,X_1,X_2) \leftrightarrow Y$ and $X_1 \leftrightarrow X_2 \leftrightarrow V$ are Markov chains; and $X_1$ and $X_2$ are independent of $S$.
Define ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ to be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting-individual-rate}
R_1 \: &\leq \: I(X_1;Y|V,X_2)\\
\label{inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting-sum-rate}
R_c+ R_1 \: &\leq \: I(V,X_1,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_1,X_2;S)\\
&\hspace{2cm} \text{for some}\:\: (S,V,X_1,X_2,Y) \in {\mathcal}P^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
As stated in the following theorem, the set ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ is an inner bound on the capacity region of the state-dependent discrete memoryless MAC with strictly-causal states.
\[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The capacity region of the multiple access channel with degraded messages sets and strictly causal states known only at the encoders satisfies $${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq {\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}.$$
**Proof:** An outline proof of the coding scheme that we use for the proof of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] will follow. The associated error analysis is provided in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
The following proposition states some properties of ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ and ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$.
\[proposition-bounds-auxiliary-random-variables-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
[ (properties of inner and outer bounds)]{}
- The sets ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ and ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ are convex.
- To exhaust ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ and ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$, it is enough to restrict ${\mathcal}V$ to satisfy $$|{\mathcal}V| \leq |{\mathcal}S||{\mathcal}X_1||{\mathcal}X_2|+2.$$ \[bounds-auxiliary-random-variables-inner-and-temporary-outer-bounds-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
**Proof:** The proof of Proposition \[proposition-bounds-auxiliary-random-variables-strictly-causal-states-setting\] appears in Appendix \[appendix-proposition-bounds-auxiliary-random-variables-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
\[remark-tightness-of-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The inner bound ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ differs from the outer bound ${\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ only through the Markov chain $X_1 \leftrightarrow X_2 \leftrightarrow V$. The outer bound requires arbitrary dependence of the auxiliary random variable $V$ on the inputs $X_1$ and $X_2$ by the encoders. For achievability results, while in block $i$ the dependence of $V$ on the input $X_2$ by the encoder that sends only the common message can be obtained by generating the covering codeword ${\mathbf}v$ on top of the input codeword ${\mathbf}x_2$ from the previous block $i-1$ and performing conditional compression of the state sequence from block $i-1$, i.e., conditionally on the input ${\mathbf}x_2$ by Encoder 2 in the previous block $i-1$, the dependence of $V$ on the input $X_1$ by the encoder that transmits both messages is not easy to obtain. Partly, this is because i) the codeword ${\mathbf}v$ can not be generated on top of ${\mathbf}x_1$ (since Encoder 2 does not know the individual message of Encoder 1), and ii) the input ${\mathbf}x_1$ by Encoder 1 has to be independent of the state sequence ${\mathbf}s$. [$\Box$]{}
![Block Markov coding scheme employed for the inner bound of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], for $B=4$.[]{data-label="fig-example-block-markov-scheme"}](./fig2.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
\[remark-main-idea-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The proof of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is based on a Block-Markov coding scheme in which the encoders collaborate to convey a lossy version of the state to the receiver, in addition to the information messages. The lossy version of the state is obtained through Wyner-Ziv compression. Also, in each block, Encoder 1 also transmits an individual information. However, in accordance with the aforementioned insights that we gain from the outer bound of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], the state is sent to the receiver *only* cooperatively. That is, by opposition to the coding scheme of [@LS13a Theorem 2] for the MAC with independent inputs, Encoder 1 does not compress or convey the state to the receiver beyond what is done cooperatively with Encoder 2. More specifically, the encoding and transmission scheme is as follows. Let ${\mathbf}s[i]$ denote the channel state in block $i$, and $s_{i}$ the index of the cell ${\mathcal}C_{s_i}$ containing the compression index $z_i$ of the state ${\mathbf}s[i]$, obtained through Wyner-Ziv compression. In block $i$, Encoder $2$, which has learned the state sequence ${\mathbf}s[i-1]$, knows $s_{i-2}$ and looks for a compression index $z_{i-1}$ such that ${\mathbf}v(w_{c,i-1},s_{i-2},z_{i-1})$ is strongly jointly typical with ${\mathbf}s[i-1]$ and ${\mathbf}x_2(w_{c,i-1},s_{i-2})$. It then transmits a codeword ${\mathbf}x_2(w_{c,i},s_{i-1})$ (drawn according to the appropriate marginal using ), where the cell index $s_{i-1}$ is the index of the cell containing $z_{i-1}$, i.e., $z_{i-1} \in {\mathcal}C_{s_{i-1}}$. Encoder 1 finds ${\mathbf}x_2(w_{c,i},s_{i-1})$ similarly. It then transmits a vector ${\mathbf}x_1(w_{c,i},s_{i-1},w_{1i})$ (drawn according to the appropriate marginal using ). For convenience, we list the codewords that are used for transmission in the first four blocks in Figure \[fig-example-block-markov-scheme\]. [$\Box$]{}
The scheme of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] utilizes Wyner-Ziv binning for the joint compression of the state by the two encoders. As it can be seen from the proof, the constraint $$0 \leq I(V,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_2;S)
\label{constraint-inner-bound}$$ or, equivalently, $$I(V;S|X_2)-I(V;Y|X_2) \leq I(X_2;Y),
\label{constraint-inner-bound-equivalent-form}$$ is caused by having the receiver decode the compression index uniquely. One can devise an alternate coding scheme that achieves the region of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] but without the constraint . More specifically, let $\tilde{{\mathcal}P}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ stand for the collection of all random variables $(S,V,X_1,X_2,Y)$ such that $V$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ take values in finite sets ${\mathcal}V$, ${\mathcal}X_1$ and ${\mathcal}X_2$, respectively, and satisfy . Also, define $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ to be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ satisfying the inequalities in for some $(S,V,X_1,X_2,Y) \in \tilde{{\mathcal}P}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$. Because the constraint is relaxed, the set $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ satisfies $${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq \tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}} \subseteq {\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}.
\label{inner-bound-without-nonnegativity-constraint-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$ The coding scheme that achieves the inner bound $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$ is similar to that of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], but with the state compression performed à-la noisy network coding by Lim, Kim, El Gamal and Chung [@H-LKGC11] or the quantize-map-and-forward by Avestimeher, Diggavi and Tse [@ADT11], i.e., with no binning. We omit it here for brevity.[^2]
As the next example shows, the inner bound of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is strictly contained in the outer bound of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], i.e., $${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}} \subsetneq {\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}.$$
\[example-comparison-of-inner-and-outer-bounds\] Consider a two-user cooperative MAC with binary inputs ${\mathcal}X_1={\mathcal}X_2=\{0,1\}$ and output $Y=(Y_1,Y_2) \in \{0,1\}^2$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_1 &= X_1 + S_{X_1+X_2}\\
Y_2 &= X_2.\end{aligned}$$
\[output-example-comparison-of-inner-and-outer-bounds\]
The transmission is controlled by a random state $S=(S_0,S_1) \in \{0,1\}^2$, where the state components $S_0$ and $S_1$ are i.i.d. $\text{Bernoulli}\:(p)$, where $p$ is the unique constant in the interval $[0,1/2]$ whose binary entropy is $1/2$, i.e., $$H(S_0) = H(S_1) = h_2(p) = \frac{1}{2}.$$ In , the addition is modulo two. Thus, if $X_1=X_2$ then $Y_1$ is the mod-2 sum of $X_1$ and $S_0$; otherwise, it is the mod-2 sum of $X_1$ and $S_1$. For this example the rate-pair $(R_c,R_1)=(1/2,1)$ is in the outer bound of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], but not in the inner bound of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\], i.e., $(1/2,1) \in {\mathcal}R^{\text{out}}_{\text{s-c}}$ and $(1/2,1) \notin {\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$.
**Proof:** The analysis of Example \[example-comparison-of-inner-and-outer-bounds\] appears in Appendix \[appendix-analysis-example-comparison-of-inner-and-outer-bounds\]. In what follows, we provide some intuition onto why the rate-pair $(R_c,R_1)=(1/2,1)$ is not in the inner bound ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$. In order for the rate $R_1$ to be equal $1$, the receiver needs to learn $S_{X_1+X_2}$. In the coding scheme that yields the inner bound ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$, the encoder that sends only the common message knows the values of the state $S=(S_0,S_1)$ as well as those of $X_2$ from the previous blocks, but not that of $X_1$; and, so, can not know the values of $S_{X_1+X_2}$ from the previous blocks.
On the Utility of the Strictly Causal States {#secIII_subsecC}
--------------------------------------------
The following example shows that revealing the states only strictly causally to both encoders increases the capacity region.
We use $h_2(\alpha)$ to denote the entropy of a Bernoulli$(\alpha)$ source, i.e., $$h_2(\alpha) = - \alpha \log(\alpha) - (1-\alpha)\log(1-\alpha)$$ and $p * q$ to denote the binary convolution, i.e., $$p * q = p(1-q)+q(1-p).$$
\[example-uselfuness-of-knoweledge-of-states-strictly-causally\] Consider the memoryless binary MAC shown in Figure \[BSCModelCounterExample-StrictlyCausalStates\]. Here, all the random variables are binary $\{0,1\}$. The channel has two output components, i.e., $Y^n=(Y^n_1,Y^n_2)$. The component $Y^n_2$ is deterministic, $Y^n_2=X^n_2$, and the component $Y^n_1=X^n_1 + S^n + Z^n_1$, where the addition is modulo $2$. Encoder 2 has no message to transmit, and Encoder 1 transmits an individual message $W_1$. The encoders know the states only strictly causally. The state and noise vectors are independent and memoryless, with the state process $S_i$, $i \geq 1$, and the noise process $Z_{1,i}$, $i \geq 1$, assumed to be Bernoulli $(\frac{1}{2})$ and Bernoulli $(p)$ processes, respectively. The vectors $X^n_1$ and $X^n_2$ are the channel inputs, subjected to the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{1,i} &\leq nq_1 \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{2,i} \leq nq_2, \:\: q_2 \geq 1/2.
\label{BinaryChannel__InputsConstraints}\end{aligned}$$
![Binary state-dependent MAC example with two output components, $Y^n=(Y^n_1,Y^n_2)$, with $Y^n_1=X^n_1 + S^n + Z^n_1$ and $Y^n_2=X^n_2$.[]{data-label="BSCModelCounterExample-StrictlyCausalStates"}](./fig3.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
For this example, the strictly causal knowledge of the states at Encoder 2 increases the capacity, and in fact Encoder 1 can transmit at rates that are larger than the maximum rate that would be achievable had Encoder 2 been of no help.
*Claim 1:* The capacity of the memoryless binary MAC with states known strictly causally at the encoders shown in Figure \[BSCModelCounterExample-StrictlyCausalStates\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\text{s-c}} &= \max_{p(x_1)} \:\: I(X_1;Y_1|S)
\label{Capacity__ModelCounterExample-StrictlyCausalStates}\end{aligned}$$ where the maximization is over measures $p(x_1)$ satisfying the input constraint .
**Proof:** The proof of achievability is as follows. Set $R_c=0$, $V=S$ and $Y_2=X_2$, with $X_2$ independent of $(S,X_1)$ in the inner bound of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. Evaluating the first inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 + \epsilon &\geq I(X_1;Y|V,X_2)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1,X_2|S,X_2)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S,X_2)\\
&= I(X_1,X_2;Y_1|S)-I(X_2;Y_1|S)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S)+I(X_2;Y_1|X_1,S)-I(X_2;Y_1|S)\\
\label{Constraint1__MaximalIndividualRate__ModelCounterExample__Step1}
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S)-I(X_2;Y_1|S)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S),
\label{Constraint1__MaximalIndividualRate__ModelCounterExample}\end{aligned}$$ where follows since $X_2=Y_2$ and $Y_2 \leftrightarrow (X_1,S) \leftrightarrow Y_1$ is a Markov chain, and the last equality follows by the Markov relation $X_2 \leftrightarrow S \leftrightarrow Y_1$ for this example.
Evaluating the second inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 + \epsilon &\geq I(V,X_1,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_1,X_2;S)\\
&= I(X_1,S;Y_1,X_2)+H(X_2|X_1,S)-H(S)\\
&= I(X_1,S;Y_1)+I(X_1,S;X_2|Y_1)+H(X_2|X_1,S)-H(S)\\
&= I(X_1,S;Y_1)+H(X_2|Y_1)-H(X_2|X_1,S,Y_1)+H(X_2|X_1,S)-H(S)\\
\label{Constraint2__MaximalIndividualRate__ModelCounterExample__Step1}
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S)+I(S;Y_1)+H(X_2|Y_1)-H(S)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S)+H(X_2|Y_1)-H(S|Y_1)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S)+H(Y_1|X_2)-H(Y_1|S)+H(X_2)-H(S)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S)+I(S;Y_1)+H(X_2)-H(S)
\label{Constraint2__MaximalIndividualRate__ModelCounterExample}\end{aligned}$$ where follows since $X_2$ is independent of $(X_1,S,Y_1)$.
Similarly, evaluating the constraint, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I(V,X_2;Y)-I(V,X_2;S) &= I(S;Y_1|X_2)+H(X_2)-H(S).
\label{NonNegativityConstraint__ModelCounterExample}\end{aligned}$$
Now, observe that with the choice $X_2 \sim \: \text{Bernoulli}\:(\frac{1}{2})$ independent of $(S,X_1)$, we have $H(X_2)=H(S)=1$ and, so, the RHS of is larger than the RHS of ; and the RHS of is nonnegative. This shows the achievability of the rate $R_1 = I(X_1;Y_1|S)$.
2\) The converse follows straightforwardly by specializing Theorem 2 (or the cut-set upper bound) to this example, $$\begin{aligned}
R &\leq I(X_1;Y|X_2,S)\\
&= I(X_1;Y_1|X_2,S)\\
&= H(Y_1|X_2,S)-H(Y_1|X_1,X_2,S)\\
\label{ProofCutSetBoundCounterExample__Step1}
&\leq H(Y_1|S)-H(Y_1|X_1,X_2,S)\\
&\leq H(Y_1|S)-H(Y_1|X_1,S)\\
\label{ProofCutSetBoundCounterExample__Step2}
&= I(X_1;Y_1|S),\end{aligned}$$ where holds since conditioning reduces entropy, and holds by the Markov relation $X_2 \leftrightarrow (X_1,S) \leftrightarrow Y_1$. [$\Box$]{}
*Claim 2:* The capacity of the memoryless binary MAC with states known strictly causally at the encoders shown in Figure \[BSCModelCounterExample-StrictlyCausalStates\] satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\text{s-c}} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
h_2(p * q_1) - h_2(p) & \text{if} \quad 0 \leq q_1 \leq \frac{1}{2}\\
1 - h_2(p) & \text{if} \quad q_1 \geq \frac{1}{2}
\end{array}
\right\} \geq C_{\text{no-s}} = \max_{p(x_1)} I(X_1;Y_1).
\label{ExplicitCharacterization__Capacity__ModelCounterExample}\end{aligned}$$
**Proof:** The explicit expression of $C_{\text{s-c}}$, i.e., $C_{\text{s-c}}=h_2(p * q_1) - h_2(p)$ if $ 0 \leq q_1 \leq 1/2$ and $C_{\text{s-c}}=1 - h_2(p)$ if $q_1 \geq 1/2$, follows straightforwardly from Claim 1 by simple algebra, where $h_2(\alpha)$ denotes the entropy of a Bernoulli$(\alpha)$ source and $p * q$ denotes the binary convolution, i.e., $p * q = p(1-q)+q(1-p)$, as defined in Section \[secI\_subsecB\]. Let now $C_{\text{no-s}}$ denote the capacity of the same model had the states been known (strictly causally) only at Encoder 1. Since in this case the knowledge of the states only at Encoder 1 would not increase the capacity (see also Proposition \[proposition-strictly-causal-states-at-only-strong-encoder\] below), $C_{\text{no-s}}$ is also the capacity of the same model had the states been not known at all. Thus, $C_{\text{no-s}}$ is given by the RHS of . For this example, it is easy to see that $C_{\text{no-s}} = 0$. This holds since $h_2(q_1*1/2*p)-h_2(1/2*p)= 1-h_2(1/2*p)=0 \:\:\: \forall \:\:\: (p, q_1,q_2) \in [0,1]^2{\times}[1/2,1]$ – recall that the state is Bernoulli $(\frac{1}{2})$ and is independent of the inputs $X_1$, $X_2$ and the noise $Z$. Thus, the inequality in holds irrespective to the values of the tuple $(p,q_1,q_2 \geq 1/2)$. [$\Box$]{}
Observe that the inequality in holds strictly if $p \neq 1/2$ and $q_1 \neq 0$; and, so, revealing the states strictly causally to Encoder 2 strictly increases the capacity in this case.
Capacity Results {#secIII_subsecD}
----------------
Example \[example-uselfuness-of-knoweledge-of-states-strictly-causally\] in Section \[secIII\_subsecC\] shows that the knowledge of the states strictly causally at the encoders increases the capacity region of the cooperative MAC that we study. This fact has also been shown for other related models, such as a multiaccess channel with independent inputs and strictly causal or causal states at the encoders in [@LS13a; @LS13b; @LSY13], and a multiaccess channel with degraded messages sets and states known noncausally to the encoder that sends both messages and only strictly causally at the encoder that sends only the common message in [@ZPS13; @ZPS11a; @ZPS12a]. Proposition \[proposition-strictly-causal-states-at-only-strong-encoder\] in Section \[secIV\] will show that, for the model with cooperative encoders that we study, the increase in the capacity holds precisely because the encoder that sends only the common message, i.e., Encoder 2, also knows the states. That is, if the states were known strictly causally to only Encoder 1, its availability would not increase the capacity of the corresponding model. Proposition \[proposition-maximum-sum-rate-strictly-causal-states-setting\] shows that, like for the model with independent inputs in [@LS13a], the knowledge of the states strictly causally at the encoders does not increase the sum rate capacity, however.
\[proposition-maximum-sum-rate-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The knowledge of the states only strictly causally at the encoders does not increase the sum capacity of the multiple access channel with degraded messages sets, i.e., $$\max_{(R_c,R_1) \: \in \: {\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}} R_c + R_1 = \max_{p(x_1,x_2)} I(X_1,X_2;Y).
\label{maximum-sum-rate-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$
The converse proof of Proposition \[proposition-maximum-sum-rate-strictly-causal-states-setting\] follows immediately from Proposition \[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. The achievability proof of Proposition \[proposition-maximum-sum-rate-strictly-causal-states-setting\] follows simply by ignoring the state information at the encoders, since the RHS of is the sum-rate capacity of the same MAC without states.
Proposition \[proposition-maximum-sum-rate-strictly-causal-states-setting\] shows that revealing the state that governs a MAC with degraded messages sets strictly causally to both encoders does not increase the sum-rate capacity. This is to be opposed to the case in which the encoders send only independent messages for which revealing the state strictly causally to both encoders can increase the sum-rate capacity [@LS13a].
In what follows, we extend the capacity result derived for a memoryless Gaussian example in [@LS13a Example 2] to the case of cooperative encoders and then generalize it to a larger class of channels. Consider a class of discrete memoryless two-user cooperative MACs, denoted by ${\mathcal}D^{\text{sym}}_{\text{MAC}}$, in which the channel state $S$, assumed to be revealed strictly causally to both encoders, can be obtained as a deterministic function of the channel inputs $X_1$ and $X_2$ and the channel output $Y$, as $$S = f(X_1,X_2,Y).$$
\[theorem-capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting\] For any MAC in the class ${\mathcal}D^{\text{sym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ defined above, the capacity region ${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}$ is given by the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &\leq I(X_1;Y|X_2,S)\nonumber\\
R_c + R_1 &\leq I(X_1,X_2;Y)
\label{capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$ for some measure $$P_{S,X_1,X_2,Y} = Q_SP_{X_1,X_2}W_{Y|S,X_1,X_2}.
\label{measure-capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$
**Proof:** The proof of the converse part of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting\] follows by Proposition \[proposition-alternative-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. The proof of the direct part of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting\] follows by setting $V=S$ in the region $\tilde{{\mathcal}R}^{\text{in}}_{\text{s-c}}$. (see and the discussion after Remark \[remark-main-idea-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]).
The class ${\mathcal}D^{\text{sym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ includes the following memoryless Gaussian example, which is similar to that in [@LS13a Example 2] but with the encoders being such that both of them send a common message and one of the two also sends an individual message, $$Y=X_1+X_2+S
\label{memoryless-gaussian-example-remark5}$$ where the inputs $X^n$ and $X^n_2$ are subjected to individual power constraints $(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{k,i}] \leq P_k$, $k=1,2$, and the state $S^n$ is memoryless Gaussian, $S \sim {\mathcal}N(0,Q)$, and known strictly causally to both encoders. The capacity region of this model is given by the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ satisfying $$R_c+R_1 \leq \frac{1}{2}\log\big(1+\frac{(\sqrt{P_1}+\sqrt{P_2})^2}{Q}\big).
\label{capacity-region-gaussian-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$ The region can be obtained by first extending the result of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting\] for the DM case to memoryless channels with discrete time and continuous alphabets using standard techniques [@G68 Chapter 7], and then maximizing each bound utilizing the *Maximum Differential Entropy Lemma* [@GK11 Section 2.2]. Note that, by doing so, the first condition on the individual rate in appears to be redundant for this Gaussian model. [$\Box$]{}
The class ${\mathcal}D^{\text{sym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ contains more channels along with the memoryless Gaussian model .
\[example-only-state-is-deterministic-symmetric-state-case\] Consider the Gaussian MAC with $Y=(Y_1,Y_2)$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_1 &= X_1 + X_2 + S\\
Y_2 &= X_2 + Z\end{aligned}$$
\[memoryless-gaussian-example-example4\]
where the state process is memoryless Gaussian, with $S \sim {\mathcal}N(0,Q)$, and the noise process is memoryless Gaussian independent of all other processes, $Z ~\sim {\mathcal}N(0,N)$. Encoder 1 knows the state strictly causally, and transmits both common message $W_c \in [1,2^{nR_c}]$ and private message $W_1 \in [1,2^{nR_1}]$. Encoder 2 knows the state strictly causally, and transmits only the common message. We consider the input power constraints $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{1,i}] \leq nP_1$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{2,i}] \leq nP_2$. The capacity region of this model can be computed using Theorem \[theorem-capacity-region-special-case-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. It is characterized as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal}C^{\text{G}}_{\text{s-c}} = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(R_c,R_1) \in \mathbb{R}^2_{+}:\\
R_c+R_1 \leq \max_{0 \leq \rho_{12} \leq 1} \frac{1}{2}\log\big(1+\frac{P_2}{N}\big) \\
\hspace{1.5cm} + \frac{1}{2}\log\Big(1+\frac{(1-\rho^2_{12})P_1P_2+N((\sqrt{P_1}+\rho_{12}\sqrt{P_2})^2+(1-\rho^2_{12})P_2)}{Q(P_2+N)}\Big)
\end{array}
\right\}.
\label{capacity-region-example-only-state-is-deterministic-symmetric-state-case}\end{aligned}$$
**Proof:** The analysis of Example \[example-only-state-is-deterministic-symmetric-state-case\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-analysis-example-only-state-is-deterministic-symmetric-state-case\].
Strictly Causal States at Only One Encoder {#secIV}
==========================================
In this section we consider asymmetric state settings in which the state is revealed (strictly causally) to only one encoder.
\[proposition-strictly-causal-states-at-only-strong-encoder\] The knowledge of the states strictly causally at only the encoder that sends both messages does not increase the capacity region of the cooperative MAC.
The proof of Proposition \[proposition-strictly-causal-states-at-only-strong-encoder\] appears in Appendix \[appendix-proof-proposition-strictly-causal-states-at-only-strong-encoder\].
In the case in which the state is revealed strictly causally to only the encoder that sends only the common message, this increases the capacity region. In what follows, first we derive an inner bound on the capacity of this model. Next, we generalize the capacity result derived in [@LSY13 Theorem 4] for discrete memoryless channels in which 1) the channel output is a deterministic function of the inputs and the state and 2) the state is a deterministic function of the channel output and inputs from the encoders, to a larger class of channels. For instance, in addition to that the model is different since the transmitters send a common message, the capacity result that will follow does not require that the channel output be a deterministic functions of the inputs and the state, which then is arbitrary.
Let ${\mathcal}P^{\text{in}}_{\text{asym,s-c}}$ stand for the collection of all random variables $(S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y)$ such that $U$, $V$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ take values in finite alphabets ${\mathcal}U$, ${\mathcal}V$, ${\mathcal}X_1$ and ${\mathcal}X_2$, respectively, and satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2,y) &= P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2)W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}(y|x_1,x_2,s)\\
P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2) &= Q_S(s)P_{U}(u)P_{X_2|U}(x_2|u)P_{X_1|U}(x_1|u)P_{V|S,U,X_2}(v|s,u,x_2).
$$
\[measure-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\]
The relations in imply that $(U,V) \leftrightarrow (S,X_1,X_2) \leftrightarrow Y$, $X_1 \leftrightarrow U \leftrightarrow X_2$ and $X_1 \leftrightarrow (U,V,X_2) \leftrightarrow S$ are Markov chains; and $X_1$ and $X_2$ are independent of $S$.
Define ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{asym,s-c}}$ to be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 \: &\leq \: I(X_1;Y|U,V,X_2)\nonumber\\
R_1 \: &\leq \: I(V,X_1,X_2;Y|U)-I(V;S|U,X_2)\nonumber\\
R_c+ R_1 \: &\leq \: I(U,V,X_1,X_2;Y)-I(V;S|U,X_2)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm} \text{for some}\:\: (S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y) \in {\mathcal}P^{\text{in}}_{\text{asym,s-c}}.
\label{inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$
As stated in the following theorem, the set ${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{asym,s-c}}$ is an inner bound on the capacity region of the state-dependent discrete memoryless MAC with strictly-causal states known only at the encoder that sends only the common message.
\[theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\] The capacity region of the cooperative multiple access channel with states revealed strictly causally to only the encoder that sends the common message satisfies $${\mathcal}R^{\text{in}}_{\text{asym,s-c}} \subseteq {\mathcal}C_{\text{asym,s-c}}.$$
**Proof:** A description of the coding scheme that we use for the proof of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\], as well a complete error analysis, are given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
The following remark helps better understanding the coding scheme that we use for the proof of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
\[remark-main-idea-inner-bound-cooperative-mac-with-asymmetric-state\] For the model of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\], a good codebook at the encoder that sends only the common message should resolve a *dilemma* among 1) exploiting the knowledge of the state that is available at this encoder and 2) sending information cooperatively with the other encoder (i.e., the common message). The coding scheme of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\] resolves this tension by splitting the common rate $R_c$ into two parts. More specifically, the common message $W_c$ is divided into two parts, $W=(W_{c1},W_{c2})$. The part $W_{c1}$ is sent cooperatively by the two encoders, at rate $R_{c1}$; and the part $W_{c2}$ is sent only by the encoder that exploits the available state, at rate $R_{c2}$. The total rate for the common message is $R_c=R_{c1}+R_{c2}$. In Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\], the random variable $U$ stands for the information that is sent cooperatively by the two encoders, and the random variable $V$ stands for the compression of the state by the encoder that sends only the common message, in a manner that is similar to that of Theorem \[theorem-inner-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\]. [$\Box$]{}
Consider the following class of discrete memoryless channels, which we denote as ${\mathcal}D^{\text{asym}}_{\text{MAC}}$. Encoder 1 does not know the state sequence at all, and transmits both a common message $W_c \in [1,2^{nR_c}]$ and an individual message $W_1 \in [1,2^{nR_1}]$. Encoder 2 knows the state sequence strictly causally, and transmits only the message $W_c$. In this model, in addition to the transmission of its own message, Encoder 2 also plays the role of a helper that is informed of the channel state sequence only strictly causally. Furthermore, we assume that the state $S$ can be obtained as a deterministic function of the inputs $X_1$, $X_2$ and the channel output $Y$, as $$S = f(X_1,X_2,Y).$$ The class of channels ${\mathcal}D^{\text{asym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ is larger than that considered in [@LSY13], as the channel output needs not be a deterministic function of the channel inputs and the state. The following theorem characterizes the capacity region for the class of channels ${\mathcal}D^{\text{asym}}_{\text{MAC}}$.
The capacity of the class of channels ${\mathcal}D^{\text{asym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ can be characterized as follows.
\[theorem-capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\] For any channel in the class ${\mathcal}D^{\text{asym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ defined above, the capacity region ${\mathcal}C_{\text{s-c}}$ is given by the set of all rate pairs $(R_1,R_2)$ satisfying
$$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &\leq I(X_1;Y|S,X_2)\\
R_2 &\leq I(X_2;Y|X_1)\\
R_1+R_2 &\leq I(X_1,X_2;Y)
\label{capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$
for some measure of the form $$P_{S,X_1,X_2,Y} = Q_SP_{X_1}P_{X_2}W_{Y|S,X_1,X_2}.
\label{measure-capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting}$$
**Proof:** The proof of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\].
The class ${\mathcal}D^{\text{asym}}_{\text{MAC}}$ includes the Gaussian model considered in [@LS13b], defined as $Y=X_1+X_2+S$ with input power constraints $(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{k,i}] \leq P_k$, $k=1,2$, and state $S \sim {\mathcal}N(0,Q)$ known strictly causally only to Encoder 2. Encoder 1 does not know the state sequence, and transmits message $W_1$. Encoder 2 knows the state sequence strictly causally, and transmits message $W_2$ . The capacity region of this MAC model is given by the set of all rate pairs $(R_1,R_2)$ satisfying
$$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &\leq \frac{1}{2}\log\big(1+\frac{P_2}{Q}\big)\\
R_1+R_2 &\leq \frac{1}{2}\log\big(1+\frac{P_1+P_2}{Q}\big).
\label{capacity-gaussian-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$
The result in Theorem \[theorem-capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\] for the DM case can be extended to memoryless channels with discrete time and continuous alphabets using standard techniques [@G68 Chapter 7]. The capacity can be obtained from Theorem \[theorem-capacity-special-case-asymmetric-strictly-causal-states-setting\] by maximizing each bound utilizing the *Maximum Differential Entropy Lemma* [@GK11 Section 2.2]. Note that the first condition on the individual rate in is redundant. [$\Box$]{}
Consider the following class of discrete memoryless channels, which we denote as ${\mathcal}D_{\text{IH}}$. Encoder 1 does not know the state sequence at all, and transmits an individual message $W_1 \in [1,2^{nR_1}]$. Encoder 2 knows the state sequence strictly causally, and does not transmits any message. In this model, Encoder 2 plays the role of a helper that is informed of the channel state sequence only strictly causally. This network may model one in which there is an external node that interferes with the transmission from Encoder 1 to the destination, and that is overheard only by Encoder 2 which then assists the destination by providing some information about the interference. Furthermore, we assume that the state $S$ can be obtained as a deterministic function of the inputs $X_1$, $X_2$ and the channel output $Y$, as $$S = f(X_1,X_2,Y).$$ For channels with a helper that knows the states strictly causally, the class of channels ${\mathcal}D_{\text{IH}}$ is larger than that considered in [@LSY13], as the channel output needs not be a deterministic function of the channel inputs and the state. The following theorem characterizes the capacity region for the class of channels ${\mathcal}D_{\text{IH}}$.
The capacity of the class of channels ${\mathcal}D_{\text{IH}}$ can be characterized as follows.
\[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\] For any channel in the class ${\mathcal}D_{\text{IH}}$ defined above, the capacity $C_{\text{s-c}}$ is given by $$C_{\text{s-c}} = \min\: \big\{I(X_1;Y|S,X_2), \: I(X_1,X_2;Y)\big\}
\label{capacity-informed-helper}$$ where the maximization is over measures of the form $$P_{S,X_1,X_2,Y} = Q_SP_{X_1}P_{X_2}W_{Y|S,X_1,X_2}.
\label{measure-capacity-informed-helper}$$
**Proof:** The proof of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-capacity-informed-helper\].
\[remark7\] The class ${\mathcal}D_{\text{IH}}$ includes the Gaussian model $Y=X_1+X_2+S$ where the state $S \sim {\mathcal}N(0,Q)$ comprises the channel noise, and the inputs are subjected to the input power constraints $(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{k,i}] \leq P_k$, $k=1,2$. Encoder 1 does not know the state sequence and transmits message $W_1$. Encoder 2 knows the state sequence strictly causally, and does not transmit any message. The capacity of this model is given by $$C^{\text{G}}_{\text{s-c}} = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\frac{P_1+P_2}{Q}).
\label{capacity-gaussian-informed-helper}$$ The capacity can be obtained from Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\] by maximizing the two terms of the minimization utilizing the *Maximum Differential Entropy Lemma* [@GK11 Section 2.2]. Observe that the first term of the minimization in is redundant in this case. Also, we note that the capacity of this example can also be obtained as a special case of that of the Gaussian example considered in [@LSY13 Remark 4].[$\Box$]{}
![Capacity of the models and , with different degrees of knowledge of the state sequence at the encoders. Numerical values are: $P_1=P_2=N=1/2$ and $Q=1$.[]{data-label="fig-comparison"}](./fig4.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In the following example the channel output can *not* be obtained as a deterministic function of the channel inputs and the channel state, and yet, its capacity can be characterized using Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\].
\[example-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case\] Consider the following Gaussian example with $Y=(Y_1,Y_2)$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_1 &= X_1 + X_2 + S\\
Y_2 &= X_2 + Z\end{aligned}$$
\[model-example5\]
where the state process is memoryless Gaussian, with $S \sim {\mathcal}N(0,Q)$, and the noise process is memoryless Gaussian independent of all other processes, $Z ~\sim {\mathcal}N(0,N)$. Encoder 1 does not know the state sequence, and transmits message $W_1 \in [1,2^{nR_1}]$. Encoder 2 knows the state strictly causally, and does not transmit any message. The inputs are subjected to the input power constraints $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{1,i}] \leq nP_1$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[X^2_{2,i}] \leq nP_2$. The capacity of this model can be computed easily using Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\], as $$C^{\text{G}}_{\text{s-c}} = \frac{1}{2}\log\big(1+\frac{P_1}{Q}+\frac{P_2}{Q}\frac{N}{P_2+N}\big) + \frac{1}{2}\log\big(1+\frac{P_2}{N}\big).
$$ Note that the knowledge of the states strictly causally at Encoder 2 makes it possible to send at positive rates by Encoder 1 even if the allowed average power $P_1$ is zero. The diamond on the y-axis of Figure \[fig-comparison\] shows the capacity of the model for the choice $P_1=P_2=N=1/2$ and $Q=1$. The figure also shows the capacity region of the same model had the state sequence been known (strictly causally) to both encoders. The gap on the y-axis is precisely the gain in capacity enabled by also revealing the state to the encoder that sends both messages. A similar improvement can be observed for the Gaussian model $Y=X_1+X_2+S$ of Remark \[remark7\]. The dot-dashed curve depicts the capacity region of this model had the state sequence been not known at all, neither to encoders nor to the decoder [@BLW08; @W83] – which is the same capacity region has the state sequence been known (strictly causally) only to the encoder that transmits both messages (see Proposition \[proposition-strictly-causal-states-at-only-strong-encoder\]). Note that for both models, of Remark \[remark7\] and , if the state sequence is known non-causally to the encoder that sends only the common message, a standard dirty paper coding scheme [@C83] at this encoder cancels completely the effect of the state. The reader may refer to [@ZKLV09a; @ZKLV08a; @ZKLV10] where a related model is referred to as the *deaf helper problem*. A related Gaussian Z-channel with mismatched side information, revealed non-causally to one encoder, and interference is studied in [@DLKS13]. Other related multiaccess models with states revealed non-causally to one encoder can be found in [@SBSV07a; @KL07; @KL07a].
\[example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case\] Consider the following binary example in which the state models fading. The channel output has two components, i.e., $Y=(Y_1,Y_2)$, with
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_1 &= S{\cdot}X_1\\
Y_2 &= X_2 + Z\end{aligned}$$
\[output-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case\]
where ${\mathcal}X_1={\mathcal}X_2={\mathcal}S={\mathcal}Z= \{+1,-1\}$, and the noise $Z$ is independent of $(S,X_1,X_2)$ with $\text{Pr}\{Z=1\}=p$ and $\text{Pr}\{Z=-1\}=1-p$, $0 \leq p \leq 1$, and the state $S$, known strictly causally to only Encoder 2, is such that $\text{Pr}\{S=1\}=\text{Pr}\{S=-1\}=1/2$. Using Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\], it is easy to compute the capacity of this example, as $$C^{\text{B}}_{\text{s-c}} = \max_{0 \leq q_1,q_2 \leq 1}\:\min\:\big\{h_2(q_1),g(p,q_2)-h_2(p)\big\}$$ where $$g(p,q_2) = -pq_2\log(pq_2)-(1-p)(1-q_2)\log((1-p)(1-q_2))-p*q_2\log(p*q_2).
\label{entropy-second-output-component-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case}$$ Observe that $C^{\text{B}}_{\text{s-c}} \geq 1-\frac{1}{2} h_2(p) \geq 0.5$.
**Proof:** Using , we have $S=Y_1/X_1$, and, so, $S$ is a deterministic function of $(X_1,X_2,Y)$. Thus, the capacity of this channel can be computed using Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\]. Let $0 \leq q_1 \leq 1$ such that $\text{Pr}\{X_1=1\}=q_1$ and $\text{Pr}\{X_1=-1\}=1-q_1$. Also, let $0 \leq q_2 \leq 1$ such that $\text{Pr}\{X_2=1\}=q_2$ and $\text{Pr}\{X_2=-1\}=1-q_2$. Then, considering the first term on the RHS of , we get $$\begin{aligned}
I(X_1;Y|S,X_2) &= H(Y|S,X_2)-H(Y|S,X_1,X_2)\\
&= H(SX_1,X_2+Z|S,X_2)-H(Z|S,X_1,X_2)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step1}
&= H(X_1,Z|S,X_2)-H(Z)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step2}
&= H(X_1,Z)-H(Z)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step3}
&= H(X_1)\\
&= h_2(q_1)\end{aligned}$$ where holds since $Z$ is independent of $(S,X_1,X_2)$, holds since $(X_1,Z)$ is independent of $(S,X_2)$, and holds since $X_1$ and $Z$ are independent.
Similarly, considering the second term on the RHS of , we get $$\begin{aligned}
I(X_1,X_2;Y) &= H(Y) - H(Y|X_1,X_2)\\
&= H(Y) - (SX_1,Z|X_1,X_2)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step4}
&= H(Y) - H(Z) - H(S)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step5}
&= H(SX_1)+H(X_2+Z) - H(Z) - H(S)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step6}
&= H(X_2+Z)-H(Z)\\
\label{analysis-example2-only-state-is-deterministic-asymmetric-state-case-step7}
&= g(p,q_2) - h_2(p)\end{aligned}$$ where holds since $S$ and $Z$ are independent of $(X_1,X_2)$ and independent of each other, holds since $Y_1=SX_1$ and $Y_2=X_2+Z$ are independent, follows because $$\text{Pr}\{SX_1=1\}=\text{Pr}\{SX_1=-1\}=\frac{1}{2}$$ and, so, $H(SX_1)=1=H(S)$, and follows because $$\text{Pr}\{X_2+Z=0\}=p*q_2, \quad \text{Pr}\{X_2+Z=2\}=pq_2,\quad \text{Pr}\{X_2+Z=-2\}= (1-p)(1-q_2)$$ and, so, $H(X_2+Z)=g(p,q_2)$ as given by . [$\Box$]{}
\[\] The result of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-informed-helper\] can be extended to the case in which the encoders send separate messages and each observes (strictly causally) an independent state. In this case, denoting by $S_1$ the state that is observed by Encoder 1 and by $S_2$ the state that is observed by Encoder 2, it can be shown that, if both $S_1$ and $S_2$ can be obtained as deterministic functions of the inputs $X_1$ and $X_2$ and the channel output $Y$, then the capacity region is given by the convex hull of the set of all rates satisfying
$$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &\leq I(X_1;Y|X_2,S_2)\\
R_2 &\leq I(X_2;Y|X_1,S_1)\\
R_1+R_2 &\leq I(X_1,X_2;Y)\end{aligned}$$
\[capacity-region-specific-case-mac-with-independent-states\]
for some measure of the form $Q_{S_1,S_2,X_1,X_2}=Q_{S_1}Q_{S_2}P_{X_1}P_{X_2}$. This result can also be obtained by noticing that, if both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are deterministic functions of $(X_1,X_2,Y)$, then the inner bound of [@LSY13 Theorem 2] reduces to , which is also an outer bound as stated in [@LS13b Proposition 3].
Causal States {#secV}
=============
Let ${\mathcal}P_{\text{c}}$ stand for the collection of all random variables $(S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y)$ such that $U$, $V$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ take values in finite alphabets ${\mathcal}U$, ${\mathcal}V$, ${\mathcal}X_1$ and ${\mathcal}X_2$, respectively, and
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2,y) &= P_{S,U,V,X_1X_2}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2)W_{Y|X_1,X_2,S}(y|x_1,x_2,s)\\
P_{S,U,V,X_1,X_2}(s,u,v,x_1,x_2) &= Q_S(s)P_{V}(v)P_{U|V}(u|v)P_{X_2|V,S}(x_2|v,s)P_{X_1|S,V,U}(x_1|s,v,u).
$$
\[measure-capacity-region-causal-states-setting\]
The relations in imply that $(U,V) \leftrightarrow (S,X_1,X_2) \leftrightarrow Y$ is a Markov chain; and that $(V,U)$ is independent of $S$.
Define ${\mathcal}C_{\text{c}}$ to be the set of all rate pairs $(R_c,R_1)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 \: &\leq \: I(U;Y|V) \nonumber\\
R_c+ R_1 \: &\leq \: I(U,V;Y)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm} \text{for some}\:\: (S,U,V,X_1,X_2,Y) \in {\mathcal}P_{\text{c}}.
\label{capacity-region-causal-states-setting}\end{aligned}$$
As stated in the following theorem, the set ${\mathcal}C_{\text{c}}$ is the capacity region of the state-dependent discrete memoryless MAC model with causal states.
\[theorem-capacity-region-causal-states-setting\] The capacity region of the multiple access channel with degraded messages sets and states known causally at both encoders is given by ${\mathcal}C_{\text{c}}$.
**Proof:** The proof of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-region-causal-states-setting\] is given in Appendix \[appendix-proof-theorem-capacity-region-causal-states-setting\].
For the proof of Theorem \[theorem-capacity-region-causal-states-setting\] , the converse part can be shown in a way very that is essentially very similar to [@SK05]. The coding scheme that we use to prove the achievability part is based on Shannon strategies [@Sh58]. By opposition to the case of MAC with independent inputs in [@SK05] or that with one common message and two individual messages [@K-FM10], in our case one of the two encoders knows the other encoder’s message, and this permits to create the desired correlation among the auxiliary codewords that is required by the outer bound. Also, we should mention that the fact that Shannon strategies are optimal for the MAC with degraded messages sets that we study is in opposition with the case of the MAC with independent inputs, for which it has been shown in [@LS13a Section III] that Shannon strategies are suboptimal in general. [$\Box$]{}
Concluding Remarks {#secVI}
==================
In this paper we study the transmission over a state-controlled two-user cooperative multiaccess channel with the states known – depending on the scenario, strictly causally or causally to only one or both transmitters. While, like the MAC with non-degraded messages sets of [@LS13a] (and also the related models of [@LS13b; @LSY13] and [@ZPS13]), it can be expected that conveying a description of the state by the encoders to the decoder can be beneficial in general, it is not clear how the state compression should be performed *optimally*, especially at the encoder that sends both messages in the model in which the state is revealed strictly causally to both transmitters. The role of this encoder is seemingly similar to that of each of the two encoders in the model of [@LS13a]. However, because in our case the other encoder only sends a common message, the outer bound of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] *suggests* that, by opposition to the setting of[@LS13a], in each block the private information of the encoder that sends both messages needs not carry an individual description of the state. Intuitively, this holds because, in our model in order to help the other encoder transmit at a larger rate, the encoder that transmits both messages better exploits any fraction of its individual message’s rate by directly transmitting the common message, rather than compressing the state any longer so that the decoder obtains an estimate of the state that is better than what is possible using only the cooperative compression. Although a formal proof of this, as well as exact characterizations of the capacity regions of some of the models studied in this paper, are still to be found, this work enlightens different aspects relative to the utility of delayed CSI at transmitters in a cooperative multiaccess channel.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
Insightful discussions with P. Piantanida are gratefully acknowledged. This work has been supported by the European Commission in the framework of the FP7 Network of Excellence in Wireless Communications (NEWCOM\#).
[^1]: Note, however, that since the tightness of the outer bound of Theorem \[theorem-outer-bound-strictly-causal-states-setting\] is still to be shown in general, optimal state compressions for this model are still to be found.
[^2]: The reader may refer to [@ZPS13] (see also [@ZPS11a] and [@ZPS12a]) where a setup with mixed – strictly causal and noncausal states, is analyzed and the state compression is performed à-la noisy network coding.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the problem of maximizing privacy of quantized sensor measurements by adding random variables. In particular, we consider the setting where information about the state of a process is obtained using noisy sensor measurements. This information is quantized and sent to a remote station through an unsecured communication network. It is desired to keep the state of the process private; however, because the network is not secure, adversaries might have access to sensor information, which could be used to estimate the process state. To avoid an accurate state estimation, we add random numbers to the quantized sensor measurements and send the sum to the remote station instead. The distribution of these random variables is designed to minimize the mutual information between the sum and the quantized sensor measurements for a desired level of distortion – how different the sum and the quantized sensor measurements are allowed to be. Simulations are presented to illustrate our results.'
author:
- 'Carlos Murguia, Iman Shames, Farhad Farokhi, and Dragan Nešić [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'ifacconf2.bib'
nocite:
- '[@Ahmed2017]'
- '[@Farokhi2]'
- '[@Murguia2017d]'
- '[@RothsteinMorris2017]'
- '[@FAROKHI3]'
- '[@Murguia2017d]'
- '[@Carlos_Justin2]'
- '[@Pasqualetti_1]'
- '[@Pappas]'
- '[@Carlos_Justin1]'
- '[@Wyner]'
- '[@Ozarow]'
- '[@Fawaz]'
- '[@Jerome1]'
- '[@Hashemil2017]'
- '[@Carlos_Justin3]'
- '[@Sahand2017]'
- '[@SORIA]'
- '[@Geng]'
- '[@Farokhi2]'
- '[@Fawaz2]'
title: '**On Privacy of Quantized Sensor Measurements through Additive Noise** '
---
Introduction
============
During the past half-century, scientific and technological advances have greatly improved the performance of engineering systems. However, these new technologies have also led to vulnerabilities within critical infrastructure – e.g., power, water, transportation. Advances in communication and computing power have given rise to adversaries with enhanced and adaptive capabilities. Depending on adversary’s resources and system defenses, opponents may infer critical information about the operation of systems or even deteriorate their functionality. Therefore, designing efficient defence mechanisms is of importance for guaranteeing privacy, safety, and proper operation of critical systems. All these new challenges have attracted the attention of researchers from different fields (e.g., computer science, information theory, control theory) in the broad area of privacy and security of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) [@Farokhi1]-[@Carlos_Iman1].
In most engineering applications, information about the state of systems is obtained through sensor measurements. Once this information is collected, it is usually quantized, encoded, and sent to a remote station for signal processing and decision-making purposes through communication networks. Examples of such systems are numerous: water and electricity consumption meters, traffic monitoring systems, industrial control systems, and so on. If the communication network is public or unsecured, adversaries might access and estimate the state of the system. To avoid an accurate state estimation, we add random noise to the quantized sensor measurements before transmission and send the sum to the remote station instead. This noise is designed to increase privacy of the transmitted data. Note, however, that it is not desired to overly distort the original sensor data by injecting noise. We might change the data excessively for practical purposes. Hence, when designing the additive noise, we need to take into account the trade-off between *privacy* and *distortion*.
In this manuscript, we follow an information-theoretic approach. We propose to use *mutual information* between quantized-sensor-data and quantized-sensor-data plus privacy noise as *privacy metric*, and the *mean square error* between them as *distortion metric*. The design of the *discrete* additive noise is posed as a convex optimization problem. In particular, the distribution of the noise is designed to minimize the mutual information for a desired level of maximal distortion.
The use of additive noise to increase privacy is common practice. In the context of privacy of databases, a popular approach is differential privacy [@Jerome1]-[@Dwork], where noise is added to the response of queries so that private information stored in the database cannot be inferred. In differential privacy, because it provides certain privacy guarantees, Laplace noise is usually used [@Dwork2]. However, when maximal privacy with minimal distortion is desired, Laplace noise is generally not the optimal solution. This raises the fundamental question: for a given allowable distortion level, what is the noise distribution achieving maximal privacy? This question has many possible answers depending on the particular privacy and distortion metrics being considered and the system configuration [@Topcu]-[@Dullerud]. There are also results addressing this question from an informationtheoretic perspective, where information metrics – e.g., mutual information, entropy, Kullback-Leibler divergence, and Fisher information – are used to quantify privacy [@Farokhi1]-[@FAROKHI3],[@Fawaz1]-[@Poor].
In general, if the data to be kept private follows continuous distributions, the problem of finding the optimal additive noise to maximize privacy (even without considering distortion) is hard to solve. If a close-form solution for the distribution is desired, the problem amounts to solving a set of nonlinear partial differential equations which, in general, might not have a solution, and even if they do have a solution, it is hard to find [@Farokhi1]. This problem has been addressed by imposing some particular structure on the considered distributions or assuming the data to be kept private is deterministic [@Farokhi1],[@SORIA],[@Geng].
The authors in [@SORIA],[@Geng] consider deterministic input data sets and treat optimal distributions as distributions that concentrate probability around zero as much as possible while ensuring differential privacy. Under this framework, they obtain a family of piecewise constant density functions that achieve minimal distortion for a given level of privacy. In [@Farokhi1], the authors consider the problem of preserving the privacy of deterministic databases using constrained additive noise. They use the Fisher information and the Cramer-Rao bound to construct a privacy metric between noise-free data and the one with the additive noise and find the probability density function that minimizes it. Moreover, they prove that, in the unconstrained case, the optimal noise distribution minimizing the Fisher information is Gaussian. Most of the aforementioned papers propose optimal continuous distributions assuming deterministic data. However, in a networked context, unavoidable sensor noise leads to stochastic data and thus existing tools do not fit this setting. Here, we identify two possibilities for addressing our problem: 1) we might inject continuous noise to sensor measurements, then quantize the sum, and send it over the unsecured network; or 2), the one considered here, quantize sensor measurements, add noise with discrete distribution, and send the sum over the network. As motivated above, to address the first option, even assuming deterministic sensor data, we have to impose some particular structure on the distributions of the additive noise; and, if sensor data is stochastic, the problem becomes hard to solve (sometimes even untractable). As we prove in this manuscript, if we select the second alternative, under some mild assumptions on the alphabet of the injected noise, we can cast the problem of finding the optimal noise as a constrained convex optimization. To the best of the authors knowledge, this problem has not been considered before as it is posed it here.
Preliminaries {#Prelim}
=============
Entropy, Joint Entropy, and Conditional Entropy
-----------------------------------------------
Consider a discrete random variable $X$ with alphabet $\mathcal{X}$ and probability mass function $p(x) = \text{Pr}[X=x]$, $x \in \mathcal{X}$, where $\text{Pr}[a]$ denotes probability of event $a$. We denote the probability mass function by $p(x)$ rather than $p_X(x)$ to simplify notation. Thus, $p(x)$ and $p(y)$ refer to two different random variables, and are in fact different probability mass functions, $p_X(x)$ and $p_Y(y)$, respectively.
The entropy of a discrete random variable $X$ with alphabet $\mathcal{X}$ and probability mass function $p(x)$ is defined as $H[X]:= -\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}}p(x)\log p(x)$.
The $\log$ is base 2 and thus the entropy is expressed in bits. We use the convention that $0 \log 0=0$ [@Cover].
The joint entropy of a pair of discrete random variables $(X,Y)$ with alphabets $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, respectively, and joint probability mass function $p(x,y)$ is defined as $H[X,Y]:= -\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}}\sum_{y \in \mathcal{Y}}p(x,y)\log p(x,y)$.
Let $(X,Y) \sim p(x,y)$, then the conditional entropy of $Y$ given $X$, $H[Y|X]$, is defined as $$H[Y|X]:= -\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}}\sum_{y \in \mathcal{Y}}p(x,y)\log p(y|x).$$
*[[@Cover]]{} *(Chain Rules for Entropy)** $$\begin{array}{ll}
\bullet \hspace{1mm} H[X,Y] = H[X] + H[Y|X].\\[2mm]
\bullet \hspace{1mm} H[X,Y|Z] = H[X|Z] + H[Y|X,Z]. \\[2mm]
\bullet \hspace{1mm} H[Y_1,\ldots,Y_n] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} H[Y_i|Y_{i-1},\ldots,Y_{1}]. \\[2mm]
\bullet \hspace{2mm} $Let $ Z=Z_1,\ldots,Z_m, $ then:$\\[1mm]
\hspace{3mm} H[Y_1,\ldots,Y_n|Z] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} H[Y_i|Y_{i-1},\ldots,Y_{1},Z].
\end{array}$$
Mutual Information
------------------
Consider two random variables, $X$ and $Y$, with joint probability mass function $p(x,y)$ and marginal probability mass functions, $p(x)$ and $p(y)$, respectively.Their mutual information $I[X;Y]$ is defined as the relative entropy between the joint distribution and the product distribution $p(x)p(y)$, i.e., $$I[X;Y]:= -\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}}\sum_{y \in \mathcal{Y}}p(x,y)\log \frac{p(x,y)}{p(x)p(y)}.$$
*[[@Cover]]{} *(Mutual Information and Entropy)** $$\begin{array}{ll}
\bullet \hspace{1mm} I[X;Y] = H[X] - H[X|Y] = H[Y] - H[Y|X].\\[2mm]
\bullet \hspace{1mm} I[X;Y|Z] = H[X|Z] - H[X|Y,Z].\\[2mm]
\bullet \hspace{1mm} $Let $ Z= Z_1,\ldots,Z_m, $ then:$\\[1mm]
\hspace{3mm} I[Y_1,\ldots,Y_n;Z] = H[Y_1,\ldots,Y_n] - H[Y_1,\ldots,Y_n|Z].
\end{array}$$
The mutual information between two jointly distributed random variables, $X$ and $Y$, is a measure of the dependence between $X$ and $Y$. The following properties of mutual information can be found in [@Cover] and references therein. Also, sketches of the proofs can be found in [@Madiman].\
**(P~1~)** $I[X;Y] = 0$ if and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent.\
**(P~2~)** Let $Y$ and $Z$ be independent discrete random variables and $V = Y+Z$; then, $I[V;Y] = H[V] - H[Z]$, i.e., $H[Y+Z|Y]=H[Z]$.\
**(P~3~)** The mutual information does not increase for functions of the random variables (*data processing inequality*): $$I[f(X);Y] \leq I[X;Y].$$
*[[@Cover]]{} *(Chain Rule for Mutual Information)** $$\begin{array}{ll}
\bullet \hspace{1mm} $Let $ Y= Y_1,\ldots,Y_n, $ and $ Z= Z_1,\ldots,Z_m, $ then:$\\[1mm]
\hspace{3mm} I[Y;Z] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} I[Y_i;Y_{i-1},\ldots,Y_{1},Z].
\end{array}$$
Let $Y = Y_1,\ldots,Y_m$ and $Z = Z_1,\ldots,Z_m$ be $2m$ independent discrete random variables and $V = Y+Z$, i.e, $V_i = Y_i+Z_i$, $i=1,\ldots,m$; then: $$I[V;Y] = \sum_{i=1}^{m} I[V_i;Y_i] = \sum_{i=1}^{m} H[V_i] - H[Z_i].$$
***Proof***: By Lemma 2, $I[V;Y] = H[V] - H[V|Y]$, and, by Lemma 1, $H[V] - H[V|Y] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} H[V_i|V_{i-1},\ldots,V_{1}]-H[V_i|V_{i-1},\ldots,V_{1},Y]$. By assumption, the elements of $\{Z,Y\}$ are all independent; then, the elements of $V$ are also independent. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
H[V] - H[V|Y] &= \sum_{i=1}^{n} H[V_i]-H[V_i|Y]\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{n} H[V_i]-H[Y_i+Z_i|Y]\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{n} H[V_i]-H[Z_i]\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{n} I[V_i;Y_i],\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from (P~2~) given above. $\blacksquare$
Problem Setup
=============
Let $X \in {{\mathds R}}^n$ be the state of some deterministic process that must be kept private. Information about the state is obtained through $m$ sensors of the form: $$\label{sensor_model}
Y = CX + W,$$ with sensor measurements $Y \in {{\mathds R}}^m$, matrix $C \in {{\mathds R}}^{m \times n}$, and sensor noise $W \in {{\mathds R}}^m$, $E[W]=\mathbf{0}$, $\Sigma_W := E[W W^T]$, $\Sigma_W > 0$. The entries of the noise are uncorrelated, i.e., $\Sigma_W =\text{diag}[\sigma_1^2,\ldots,\sigma_m^2]$. Then, $E[Y] = CX$, the covariance $\Sigma_Y := E[(Y-CX)(Y-CX)^T] = \Sigma_W$, and the entries of $Y$ are uncorrelated. We assume that the probability distribution of $Y$ is *known*. This is not an strong assumption since it is often possible to obtain a number of realization of $Y$ to estimate its distribution. Let $Y = (Y_1,\ldots,Y_m)^T$. Each sensor measurement $Y_i$, $i=1,\ldots,m$ is quantized using a uniform quantizer on a finite range $Q_i(Y_i,y_i^1,\Delta_i,N_i)$: $$\label{quantizer}
Q_i(Y_i,y_i^1,\Delta_i,N_i) :=
\small\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
y^1_i $ if $ Y_i \in (-\infty,y^1_i+\frac{\Delta_i}{2}], \\[2mm]
y^2_i $ if $ Y_i \in (y^1_i+\frac{\Delta_i}{2},y^2_i+\frac{\Delta_i}{2}], \\[2mm]
y^3_i $ if $ Y_i \in (y^2_i+\frac{\Delta_i}{2},y^3_i+\frac{\Delta_i}{2}], \\[2mm]\hspace{25mm} \vdots \\[1.5mm]
y^{N_i}_i $ if $ Y_i \in (y^{N_i-1}_i + \frac{\Delta_i}{2},\infty),
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $y^j_i = y^1_i + (j-1)\Delta_i$, $j=1,\ldots,N_i$. Thus, for each sensor, the $N_i$ quantization levels are given by $$\mathcal{Y}_i^Q:= \{y^1_i,y^1_i+\Delta_i,\ldots,y^1_i+(N_i-1)\Delta_i \}.$$ It follows that the vector of quantized sensor measurements $Y^Q := (Y^Q_1,\ldots,Y^Q_m)^T$, $Y^Q_i := Q_i(Y_i,y_i^1,\Delta_i,N_i)$ is determined by the initial quantization level $y^1_i \in {{\mathds R}}$, the quantization step $\Delta_i \in {{\mathds R}}_{>0}$, and the number of intervals $N_i \in {{\mathds N}}$, $i=1,\ldots,m$. Note that, because we know the distribution of $Y$ and the quantizer, we can always obtain the probability mass function $p(y^Q)$ of $Y^Q$ (and thus also $p(y^Q_i)$ of $Y^Q_i$). Moreover, the alphabet of the *discrete* random variable $Y^Q_i$ is the set of quantization levels $\mathcal{Y}^Q_i$.
After $Y$ is quantized, a random vector $Z$ is added to $Y^Q$ to obtain $V := Z + Y^Q$. The vector $V$ is transmitted over an unsecured communication network to a remote station, see Fig. 1. Notice that, if we do not add $Z$ to $Y^Q$ before transmission, information about the state is directly accessible through the unsecured network. To minimize this information leakage, we send the sum $V = Z + Y^Q$ to the remote station instead of directly sending $Y^Q$. Note, however, that we do not want to make $Y^Q$ and $Y^Q + Z$ overly different either. By adding $Z$, we might *distort* $Y^Q$ excessively for any practical purposes. Hence, when designing the distribution of $Z$, we need to consider the trade-off between *privacy* and *distortion*. In this manuscript, we propose to use the mutual information between $V = Z + Y^Q$ and $Y^Q$, $I[V;Y^Q]$, as *privacy metric*, and the mean square error, $E[(V-Y^Q)^2]$, as *distortion metric*. Thus, we aim at minimizing $I[V;Y^Q]$ using the probability mass function of $Z$, $p(z)$, as optimization variable subject to $E[(V-Y^Q)^2] = E[Z^2] \leq \epsilon$, for a desired level of distortion $\epsilon \in {{\mathds R}}_{>0}$. In what follows, we formally present the optimization problem we seek to address.
For given $Y^Q$ with corresponding $p(y^Q)$ and desired distortion level $\epsilon \in {{\mathds R}}_{\geq 0}$, find the probability mass function $p(z)$ of $Z$ solution of the optimization problem: $$\label{eq:convex_optimization}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\min_{p(z)}\ I[Y^Q+Z;Y^Q],\\
&\hspace{1mm}\text{\emph{s.t. }} E[Z^2] \leq \epsilon.
\end{aligned}\right.$$
Note that if we had access to $Z$ at the other end of the network, and saturation to $Y^Q+Z$ does not occur, we could recover $Y^Q$ exactly from $Z$, and thus cast the optimization problem in without the distortion constraint.
In Problem 1, we could consider individual constraints for the distortion, i.e., $E[Z_i^2] \leq \epsilon_i$, $\epsilon_i \in {{\mathds R}}_{\geq 0}$, $i=1,\ldots,m$, instead of the joint constraint $E[Z^2] \leq \epsilon$. Indeed, if $E[Z_i^2] \leq \epsilon_i$, then $E[Z^2] \leq \sum_{i=1}^m\epsilon_i$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$V_i$ $v_i^1:=2y_i^1$ $v_i^2 := 2y_i^1+\Delta_i$ $\cdots$ $v_i^{N_i}:=2y_i^1+(N_i-1)\Delta_i$ $v_i^{N_i+1}:=2y_i^1+N_i\Delta_i$ $\cdots$ $v_i^{2N_i-1}:=2y_i^1+2(N_i-1)\Delta_i$
---------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- --------------------------------------------- --
$p(v_i)$ $p_{i,1}^V: = p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,1}^Z$ $ \begin{array}{l} p_{i,2}^V: = p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,2}^Z +\\ p_{i,2}^Y p_{i,1}^Z \end{array} $\cdots$ $ \begin{array}{l} p_{i,N_i}^V := p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,1}^Z +\\ p_{i,N_i-1}^Y p_{i,2}^Z +\\ p_{i,N_i-2}^Y p_{i,3}^Z + \cdots +\\ p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z \end{array}$ $ \begin{array}{l} p_{i,N_i+1}^V := p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,2}^Z +\\ p_{i,N_i-1}^Y p_{i,3}^Z + \cdots +\\ p_{i,2}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z \end{array}$ $\cdots$ $p_{i,2N_i-1}^V: = p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z$
$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results
=======
To delimit the solution of Problem 1, we restrict the class of probability mass functions of $Z$. First, we fix the alphabet $\mathcal{Z}_i$ of $Z_i$ – the $i$-th component of $Z$ – to be equal to the alphabet $\mathcal{Y}^Q_i$ of $Y^Q_i$, i.e., equal to the quantization levels. This imposes a tractable convex structure on the objective and restrictions, and reduces the optimization variables to the probabilities of each element of the alphabet. The case with arbitrary alphabet leads to a combinatorial optimization problem where the objective of $\eqref{eq:convex_optimization}$ changes its structure for different combinations. In this manuscript, we do not address this case; it is left as a future work.
Next, note that, because $X$ is deterministic and the covariance matrix $\Sigma_W$ is diagonal, the elements of the vector $Y^Q$ are mutually independent. Then, if we let $Z$ to have independent components, the objective function $I[Y^Q+Z;Y^Q]$ in can be written as follows.
Let the components of $Z$ be mutually independent; then, $I[Y^Q+Z;Y^Q] = \sum_{i=1}^{m} I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q]$ and $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q] = H[V_i] - H[Z_i]$, $i=1,\ldots,m$.
***Proof***: Proposition 1 follows from Lemma 4.
To impose a decoupled structure in the optimization problem, as pointed out in Remark 2, we consider individual constraints for the distortion, i.e., $E[Z_i^2] \leq \epsilon_i$, $\epsilon_i \in {{\mathds R}}_{\geq 0}$, $i=1,\ldots,m$. Then, we can replace by the following $m$ decoupled optimization problems: $$\label{eq:convex_optimizationb}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\min_{p(z_i)}\ H[V_i] - H[Z_i],\\
&\hspace{1mm}\text{\emph{s.t. }} E[Z_i^2] \leq \epsilon_i, \hspace{2mm}i=1,\ldots,m,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $p(z_i)$ denotes the probability mass function of $Z_i$ and $\epsilon_i$ is the desired distortion level associated with the mean square error $E[(V_i - Y_i^Q)^2]$.
In what follows, we focus on the solution of assuming independence of $Z$ and restricting the alphabet $\mathcal{Z}_i$ of $Z_i$ to be equal to $\mathcal{Y}^Q_i$.
The entries of $Z$ are mutually independent and the alphabet $\mathcal{Z}_i$ of $Z_i$ is equal to the quantization levels $\mathcal{Y}^Q_i$, i.e., it equals the alphabet of $Y^Q_i$.
Next, we write $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q] = H[V_i] - H[Z_i]$ in in terms of $p(y^Q_i)$ and $p(z_i)$. Denote the probabilities of $Y_i^Q$ and $Z_i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{probabilities}
p_{i,j}^Y &:= \text{Pr}[Y_i^Q=y_i^j],\\
p_{i,j}^Z &:= \text{Pr}[Z_i=y_i^j],\end{aligned}$$ with $j=1,\ldots,N_i$. Then, the entropy $H[Z_i]$ is given by $H[Z_i] = -\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} p_{i,j}^Z \log p_{i,j}^Z$ and $E[Z_i^2] = \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} (y_i^j)^2 p_{i,j}^Z$. Moreover, since $y_i^j = y^1_i + (j-1)\Delta_i$, then, in terms of the quantizer parameters, $E[Z_i^2] = \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} (y^1_i + (j-1)\Delta_i)^2 p_{i,j}^Z$. To get an expression for $H[V_i]$, we need the probability mass function $p(v_i)$ of $V_i$. We compute all the possible elements of the alphabet of $V_i = Y_i^Q+Z_i$ and their corresponding probabilities in terms of the elements of the alphabet $\mathcal{Y}^Q_i$, $y_i^j = y^1_i + (j-1)\Delta_i$. Thus, the random variable $V_i$ has an alphabet with $2N_i-1$ elements and the corresponding probabilities are the sums of the probabilities of equal elements. The probability mass function $p(v_i)$ of $V_i$ is given in Table \[table2\].
Now, we can write an explicit expression for the objective function in : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{objective}
I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q] &= H[V_i] - H[Z_i],\\
&= -\sum_{j=1}^{2N_i-1} p_{i,j}^V \log p_{i,j}^V + \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} p_{i,j}^Z \log p_{i,j}^Z, \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E8}
v_i^j &:= 2y_i^1 + (j-1)\Delta_i, \hspace{1mm} j=1,\ldots,2N_i-1,\\[1mm]
p_{i,j}^V &:= \text{Pr}[V_i=v_i^j] \label{E9} \\[1mm]
&= \small \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{j} p_{i,j+1-k}^Y p_{i,k}^Z, \hspace{1mm} j=1,\ldots,N_i, \\[1mm]
\sum\limits_{k=j+1-N_i}^{N_i} p_{i,j+1-k}^Y p_{i,k}^Z, \hspace{1mm} j=N_i+1,\ldots,2N_i-1.
\end{array} \notag \normalsize \right.\end{aligned}$$\
The expressions in - give a complete characterization of the objective $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q]$ in terms of the *known* probabilities of the quantized sensors $p_{i,j}^Y$, $j=1,\ldots,N_i$, and the *optimization variables*, the probabilities of the injected noise $p_{i,j}^Z$, $j=1,\ldots,N_i$. Moreover, the distortion constraint $E[Z_i^2] = \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} (y^1_i + (j-1)\Delta_i)^2 p_{i,j}^Z \leq \epsilon_i$ is linear in $p_{i,j}^Z$. Therefore, if the objective is convex, we could, in principle, efficiently solve numerically. However, since $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q] = H[V_i] - H[Z_i]$, $H[V_i]$ is concave in $p_{i,j}^V$, and $H[Z_i]$ is concave in $p_{i,j}^Z$ [@Cover], it is not clear whether $H[V_i] - H[Z_i]$ is convex in $p_{i,j}^Z$ or not.
For given $p_{i,j}^Y$, the function $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q]$ is convex in the probabilities $p_{i,j}^Z$, $j=1,\ldots,N_i$.
***Proof***: Define the sum: $$\begin{aligned}
f^V_i:&= - \sum_{j=2}^{2N_i-2} p_{i,j}^V \log p_{i,j}^V.\end{aligned}$$ The entropy of $V_i$ can be written in terms of $f^V_i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
H[V_i]&= f^V_i - p_{i,1}^V \log p_{i,1}^V - p_{i,2N_i-1}^V \log p_{i,2N_i-1}^V,\label{fV} \\[2mm]
&= f^V_i - p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,1}^Z \log p_{i,1}^Y - p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,1}^Z \log p_{i,1}^Z\notag \\[1.5mm]
&\hspace{4mm}- p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z \log p_{i,N_i}^Y - p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z \log p_{i,N_i}^Z \notag ,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from . Write the entropies $H[Z_i]$ and $H[Y_i^Q]$ as $$\begin{aligned}
H[Z_i] &= - \underbrace{\big(p_{i,1}^Y+\ldots+p_{i,N_i}^Y \big)}_{=1} \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} p_{i,j}^Z \log p_{i,j}^Z,\label{fZ}\\
&=: f^Z_i - p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,1}^Z \log p_{i,1}^Z - p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z \log p_{i,N_i}^Z,\notag\\
H[Y_i^Q] &= - \underbrace{\big(p_{i,1}^Z+\ldots+p_{i,N_i}^Z \big)}_{=1} \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} p_{i,j}^Y \log p_{i,j}^Y,\label{fY} \\
&=: f^Y_i - p_{i,1}^Y p_{i,1}^Z \log p_{i,1}^Y - p_{i,N_i}^Y p_{i,N_i}^Z \log p_{i,N_i}^Y.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Combining -, we can write $$H[Z_i] + H[Y_i^Q] = f^Z_i + f^Y_i + H[V_i] - f^V_i,$$ which implies $H[V_i] = H[Z_i] + H[Y_i^Q] + f^V_i - f^Z_i - f^Y_i$ and thus $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q] = H[Y_i^Q] + f^V_i - f^Z_i - f^Y_i$. The entropy $H[Y_i^Q]$ is constant; then, $I[Y_i^Q+Z_i;Y_i^Q]$ is convex if and only if $f_i(p_{i,1}^Z,\ldots,p_{i,N_i}^Z) := f^V_i - f^Z_i - f^Y_i$ is convex. Next, collecting the $p_{i,j}^Z$ terms and using properties of logarithmic functions, we can write $f_i(p_{i,1}^Z,\ldots,p_{i,N_i}^Z)$ as follows $$f_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{j} p_{i,k}^Y p_{i,j+1-k}^Z \log \left( \dfrac{p_{i,k}^Y p_{i,j+1-k}^Z}{\sum_{l=1}^{j}p_{i,l}^Y p_{i,j+1-l}^Z} \right),\\[6mm] $\hspace{.1mm} for $j=2,\ldots,N_i, \\[4mm]
\sum\limits_{k=j-1-N_i}^{N_i} p_{i,k}^Y p_{i,j+1-k}^Z \log \left( \dfrac{p_{i,k}^Y p_{i,j+1-k}^Z}{\sum_{l=1}^{j}p_{i,l}^Y p_{i,j+1-l}^Z} \right),\\[6mm] $\hspace{.1mm} for $j=N_i+1,\ldots,2N_i-2.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that every element of $f_i(p_{i,1}^Z,\ldots,p_{i,N_i}^Z)$ above is a function of the form $g(a,b,c,\ldots,r) = a\log \big(\frac{a}{a+b+c+\cdots+r} \big)$, $a,b,c\ldots,r \in [0,1]$. The function $g(a,b,c,\ldots,r)$ can be proved to be convex using Theorem 2.7.1 in [@Cover] – *the log sum inequality*. Hence, $f_i(p_{i,1}^Z,\ldots,p_{i,N_i}^Z)$ is the sum of convex functions and thus convex as well. $\blacksquare$
Note that the ultimate goal is to make it hard for adversaries to infer $X$ from $V=Y^Q+Z$. That is, if someone estimates $X$ using the available data at the public network $V$, the estimation $\hat{X}(V)$ should carry less information about $X$ than an estimate $\hat{X}(Y^Q)$ obtained using $Y^Q$ directly. In other words, we want to make $I[\hat{X}(V);\hat{X}(Y^Q)]$ small.
For some functions $h_V,h_Y: {{\mathds R}}^m \rightarrow {{\mathds R}}^m$, let $\hat{X}(V) := h_V(V)$ and $\hat{X}(Y^Q) := h_Y(Y^Q)$ be estimates of $X$ using $V=Y^Q+Z$ and $Y^Q$, respectively. Then, it is satisfied that $I[\hat{X}(Y^Q+Z);\hat{X}(Y^Q)] \leq I[Y^Q+Z;Y^Q]$ for any pair of functions $h_Y(\cdot)$ and $h_V(\cdot)$.
***Proof***: The assertion follows from property (P~3~) in Section \[Prelim\] – the *data processing inequality* [@Cover].
Proposition 3 has a nice interpretation: for any pair of estimators $(\hat{X}(Y^Q+Z),\hat{X}(Y^Q))$ that can be constructed using $Y^Q+Z$ and $Y^Q$, respectively; the mutual information between them is always upper bounded by $I[Y^Q+Z;Y^Q]$ independently of the estimators. This implies that by minimizing $I[Y^Q+Z;Y^Q]$, we are decreasing the information $I[\hat{X}(Y^Q+Z);\hat{X}(Y^Q)]$. Indeed, the tightness of this bound depends on the particular choice of estimators.
Multiple Observations
---------------------
In real-time applications, we often have consecutive observations of the variable $X$ in , i.e., a system of the form: $$\label{sensor_model2}
Y(t) = CX + W(t), \hspace{1mm} t \in {{\mathds N}},$$ with different realizations of sensor data $Y(t) \in {{\mathds R}}^m$ and sensor noise $W(t) \in {{\mathds R}}^m$ at each time step $t$. If the noise $W(t)$ is an i.i.d. process (which is the case most of the time) with $\Sigma_W := E[W(t)W(t)^T] =\text{diag}[\sigma_1^2,\ldots,\sigma_m^2]$ and $E[W(t)]=\mathbf{0}$ for all $t$, the time-dependent model can be written as a static one for a finite number of time-steps $M$. That is, we can collect sensor data for a time window of $M$ steps, stack each set of sensor measurements as $\tilde{Y}_M := (Y(1)^T,\ldots,Y(M)^T)^T \in {{\mathds R}}^{Mm}$, and use this stacked vector to produce a stacked system: $$\label{sensor_model3}
\tilde{Y}_M = \tilde{C}_MX + \tilde{W}_M,$$ with sensor noise $\tilde{W}_M := (W(1)^T,\ldots,W(M)^T)^T \in {{\mathds R}}^{Mm}$ and stacked matrix $\tilde{C}_M:=(C^T,\ldots,C^T)^T \in {{\mathds R}}^{Mm \times n}$. Because $W(t)$ is an i.i.d. process and $\Sigma_W$ is diagonal, all entries of $\tilde{W}_M$ and $\tilde{Y}_M$ are mutually independent. Hence, we can use the tools described above to design the distribution of a noise vector $\tilde{Z}_M \in {{\mathds R}}^{Mm}$ that minimizes the mutual information $I[\tilde{Y}_M^Q+\tilde{Z}_M;\tilde{Y}_M^Q]$, where $\tilde{Y}_M^Q$ denotes the quantized $\tilde{Y}_M$. Actually, if we let $\tilde{Z}_M := (Z(1)^T,\ldots,Z(M)^T)^T$ and $Z(t)$ be an i.i.d. process with independent entries, it can be proved that $I[\tilde{Y}_M^Q+\tilde{Z}_M;\tilde{Y}_M^Q] = M I[Y^Q+Z;Y]$, where, with abuse of notation, $Y^Q$ and $Z$ denote two random vectors thrown from the distributions of the i.i.d. processes $Y^Q(t)$ and $Z(t)$. That is, the mutual information $I[\tilde{Y}_M^Q+\tilde{Z}_M;\tilde{Y}_M^Q]$ is simply $M$ times $I[Y^Q+Z;Y]$. It follows that, the distribution of $Z(t) = (Z_1(t)^T,\ldots,Z_m(t)^T)^T$ that minimizes $I[\tilde{Y}_M^Q+\tilde{Z}_M;\tilde{Y}_M^Q]$, for arbitrary large $M$, is the solution, $p(z_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,m$, of problem , i.e., $Z_i(t) \sim p(z_i)$, $t \in {{\mathds N}}$ is the optimal solution.
Simulations Results
===================
Consider system with $X = (\pi^2,\pi^2/4)^T$, $C = I_2$, and sensor noise $W = (W_1,W_2)^T$, $W_1 \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_1^2)$, $\sigma_1^2 = \pi$, $W_2 \sim \mathcal{U}(-a,a)$, $a=\pi^2/40$, $\sigma_2^2 = (1/3)a^2$. Each sensor measurement $Y_i$, $i=1,2$, is quantized using the uniform quantizer with $y_1^1 = \pi^2 - 3\sigma_1$, $\Delta_1 = 6\sigma_1/N_1$, $N_1 = 11$,and $y_2^1 = 9.09a$, $\Delta_2 = 2a/N_2$, $N_2 = 11$. In Figure 2, we show the optimal distribution $p(z_1)$ of $Z_1$ solution of , first without the distortion constraint, and then for the distortion levels $\epsilon_1 = 60,40$. The distortion level for the unconstrained case is $E[Z_1^2] = 105.03$. For comparison, we also show the distributions $p(y_1^Q)$ of $Y_1^Q$ and the one of the sum $V_1=Y_1^Q+Z_1$, $p(v_1)$. In Figure 3, we show the corresponding results for sensor 2: the optimal distributions for the unconstrained case, which yields $E[Z_2^2] = 6.10$, and then for the distortion levels $\epsilon_2 = 5.6,5.1$.
![[]{data-label="Fig2"}](CompletePlot1.eps)
![[]{data-label="Fig2"}](CompletePlot2b.eps)
Conclusion
==========
We have provided results on privacy of quantized noisy sensor measurements by adding optimal random variables. To minimize the information leakage due to unsecured communication networks, we have proposed to add random variables to the quantized sensor measurements before transmission. The distributions of these discrete random variables have been designed to minimize the mutual information between the sum and the quantized sensor measurements for a desired level of distortion. In particular, we have posed the design problem as a convex optimization where the optimization variables are the probabilities of the injected noise. We have provided simulation results to test the performance of our tools.
[^1]: This work was partially supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) under the Discovery Project DP170104099.
[^2]: Carlos Murguia, Iman Shames, Farhad Farokhi, and Dragan Nešić are with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, at the University of Melbourne, Australia.
[^3]: Emails: [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] & [email protected].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider vector fixed point (FP) equations in large dimensional spaces involving random variables, and study their realization-wise solutions. We have an underlying directed random graph, that defines the connections between various components of the FP equations. Existence of an edge between nodes $i,j$ implies the $i$-th FP equation depends on the $j$-th component. We consider a special case where any component of the FP equation depends upon an appropriate aggregate of that of the random ‘neighbour’ components. We obtain finite dimensional limit FP equations (in a much smaller dimensional space), whose solutions approximate the solution of the random FP equations for almost all realizations, in the asymptotic limit (number of components increase). Our techniques are different from the traditional mean-field methods, which deal with stochastic FP equations in the space of distributions to describe the stationary distributions of the systems. In contrast our focus is on realization-wise FP solutions. We apply the results to study systemic risk in a large financial network with many small institutions and one big institution, and demonstrate some interesting phenomenon.'
author:
- |
$^1$Veeraruna Kavitha, $^1$Indrajit Saha and $^2$Sandeep Juneja\
$^1$IEOR, IIT Bombay, and $^2$TIFR Mumbai, India
title: 'Random Fixed Points, Limits and Systemic risk '
---
Introduction
============
Random fixed points (FPs) are generalization of classical deterministic FPs, and arise when one considers systems with uncertainty. Broadly one can consider two types of such fixed points. There is considerable literature that considers stochastic FP equations on the space of probability distributions (e.g., [@Urns; @WeightedBranch]). These equations typically arise as a limit of some iterative schemes, or as asymptotic (stationary) distribution of stochastic systems. Alternatively, one might be interested in sample path wise FPs (e.g., [@Measure_FP; @Measure_Approx]). For each realization of the random quantities describing the system, we have one deterministic FP equation. These kind of equations can arise when the performance/status of an agent depends upon that of a number of other agents. For example, a financial network with any given liability graph is affected by individual/common random economic shocks received by the agents. The amount cleared (full/fraction of liability) by an agent depends upon: a) the shocks it receives; and b) the liabilities cleared by the other agents. Our primary focus in this paper is on the second type of equations. Existing literature primarily considers the existence of measurable FP, given the existence of realization-wise FPs (e.g., [@Measure_FP; @Measure_Approx]). In [@Measure_Approx] (and reference therein) authors consider the idea of random proximity points.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no (common) techniques that provide ‘good’ solutions to (some special types of) these equations. We consider a special type of FP equations, which are quite common, and provide a procedure to compute the approximate solutions. We have FP equations in which the performance/status of an agent is influenced only by the aggregate performance/status of its neighbours. A random graph describes the neighbours, while a set of FP equations (one per realization of the random quantities) describe the performance vectors. The key idea is to study these FPs, asymptotically as the number of agents increase. Towards this, we first study the aggregate influence factors, with an aim to reduce the dimensionality of the problem. But due to random connections, the aggregate influence factors can also depend upon the nodes. However the aggregates might converge towards the same limit (e.g., as in law of large numbers). [We precisely consider such scenarios and show that the random FPs]{} converge to that of a limit system, under certain conditions. [ The performance of the agents in the limit system, depends upon finitely many ’aggregate’ limits. ]{}We could also obtain closed form expressions for approximate solutions of some examples.
[The mean field theory (MFT) is close to this approach: MFT approximates many body problem with a one body problem and our result is also similar in nature. However there are significant differences.]{} The mean field theory also deals with a system of large number of agents, wherein the state/behaviour of an individual agent is influenced by its own (previous) state and the mean (aggregate) field seen by it (e.g., [@Mean_WLAN] and reference therein).[ The mean field is largely described in terms of occupation (empirical) measures representing the fraction of agents in different states.]{} The theory shows the convergence of the state trajectories as well as the stationary (time limit) distributions of the original system towards that of a limit deterministic system. The stationary distribution can be described by FP equations in the space of distributions (e.g., [@Mean_WLAN]). While we directly have a set of FP equations, which are defined realization-wise and depend upon the realization-wise ‘mean’ performance. Further, as already mentioned the mean influence factor is not common to all the agents. In [@Mean_rand] and references therein, authors consider the mean field analysis with ‘random’ aggregate influence factors like in our case. They consider the first-order approximation, wherein the joint expected values are approximated by the product of the marginal expected values etc. [Thus the moments of the joint distributions representing the FP solutions are asymptotically proven to be product of marginal moments. Some authors also consider second-order approximations or moment closure techniques, where the joint states of triplets are assumed to have a specific distribution (see [@Mean_rand] for relevant discussions).]{} Our FP solutions are also proved to be asymptotically independent, however the asymptotic solutions are independent (infinite dimensional) random vectors.
We consider FP equations with possibly multiple solutions. We show that any sequence of the chosen FPs, converges to the unique FP of the limit system almost surely[ under sufficiently general conditions.]{}[.]{}
We apply our results to study the systemic risk in a large financial network with many financial institutions. The institutions borrow/lend money from/to other institutions, and will have to clear their obligations at a later time point. These systems are subjected to economic shocks, because of which some entities default (do not clear their obligations). Because of interdependencies, this can lead to further defaults and the cascade of these reactions can lead to (partial/full) [*collapse*]{} of the system. After the financial crisis of $2007$-$2008$, there is a surge of activity towards studying systemic risk (e.g., [@allen2000financial],[@acemoglu2015systemic],[@eisenberg2001systemic]). The focus in these papers has been on several aspects including, measures to capture systemic risk, influence of network structure on systemic risk, phase transitions etc. These papers primarily discuss homogeneous systems, although heterogeneity is a crucial feature of real world networks. As already mentioned the clearing vectors are represented by FP equations and may have multiple FP solutions. Thus our asymptotic solution can be useful in this context. We consider one stylized example of network, that of one big bank and numerous small banks. Our key contribution is that we develop a methodology to arrive at simplified asymptotic representation to large bank networks. This allows easy resolution of many practical what-if scenarios. For instance, in a simple framework we observe that having a big bank in an economy well connected to the small banks can stabilize the small banks even when the big bank itself faces shocks. However, the reverse may not be true. The proposed methodology can be similarly used to provide insights into many other practical scenarios. We analyze these in future. To summarise, our analysis helps identify important patterns in a complex structure, since the structure simplifies when large number of constituents are involved.
System Model
=============
Consider a random graph with $n+1$ vertices $\{1, 2, \cdots, n, b\}$ whose directed edges, given by random weights $\{W_{i,j}\}$, represent the influence factors. The node $b$ is a ‘big node’, and is highly influential. There is an edge between any two of the ‘small’ nodes (nodes in $\{1, 2, \cdots, n\}$) with probability $p_{ss}$ independently of the others and let $\{ I_{i,j} \}_{i \le n, j\le n}$ be the corresponding indicators. Then the weights from a small node $j$ are the fractions[^1] defined as below: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn_Weights} \hspace{20mm}
W_{j, b} = \eta_j^{sb} \mbox{ and } W_{ j, i} = \frac{I_{j,i} (1-\eta_j^{sb}) } { \sum_{i' \le n} I_{j, i'} } ,
$$where $\{\eta_j^{sb} \}_j$ are IID (independent, identically distributed) random variables with values between $0,1$. These fractions, for example, can represent random fractions of some resources shared between various nodes. From small node $j$, there is a dedicated fraction $\eta^{sb}_j$ towards the b-node while the remaining ($1-\eta^{sb}_j$ ) fraction is equally shared by the other connected small nodes. The weights from $b$-node are the fractions, $$\hspace{19mm}
W_{b, j} = \frac{\eta_j^{bs} }{ \sum_i \eta_i^{bs}},$$ where $\{\eta_j^{bs} \}_j$ are IID random variables again. We are interested in some performance of the nodes, which depends upon the weighted average of the performance of other nodes with weights as given by $\{W_{i, j}\}.$ We consider the following fixed point (FP) equation (in $R^{n+1}$) constructed using functions $(f^s, f^b)$, which in turn depend upon weighted averages $\{{\bar X}^s_i \}_i$ and ${\bar X}^b$, and whose FP ($i$-th component) represents important performance measure of the nodes (node-$i$) as below:
In the above, $\{G_i\}$ is an IID sequence and the performance of the big node $X^b$ is defined per small node (performance divided by $n$). For any $n$ define mapping ${{\bf f}}:= (f^b, f^s, \cdots f^s)$, with ${\bf x}:= {\bf x}^n := (x_1^n, x_2^n, \cdots, x_n^n)$, component wise:
which represents the FP of the random operator (\[Eqn\_FixedeqGen\])-(\[Eqn\_Fixedeq2Gen\]). We assume the following:\
[**A.1**]{} The functions $f^s, f^b$ are non-negative, continuous and are bounded by an $y < \infty$, Under the above assumption, by well known Brouwers fixed point theorem, FP solution exists for almost all realizations of $\{G_i\}$, $\{W_{j,i}\}$ and for any $x_b$. Thus we have a random (measurable) FP $( {\bf X}^{*}, X_b^*)$ for each $n$ for the random operator (\[Eqn\_FixedeqGen\])-(\[Eqn\_Fixedeq2Gen\]) (see [@Measure_FP]). [To be precise we have:]{}[The precise details are as Lemma 1 of [@TR].]{}
\[CLemma\_exist\] For any $n$ define mapping ${{\bf f}}:= (f^b, f^s, \cdots f^s)$, with ${\bf x}:= {\bf x}^n := (x_1^n, x_2^n, \cdots, x_n^n)$, component wise:
Each component is a mapping from $[0, y ]^{n+1} \to [0, y ]$ for almost all $\{G_i\}$, $\{W_{j,i}\}$ and for any $x_b$. Further by continuity of ${{\bf f}}$, we have a deterministic fixed point for almost all $\{G_i\}$ and $\{I_{j,i}\}$ under [**A**]{}.1. Then we have (almost sure) random fixed point $( {\bf X}^{*}, X_b^*)$ for each $n$ (see [@Measure_FP]). [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}
We require that the number of nodes influencing any given node, grows asymptotically linearly for almost all sample paths:
[**A.2**]{} Consider $p_{ss} > 0$, and only graphs for which, [$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to \infty } \sum_{j \le n} \left|
\frac{1 }{ \sum_{i} I_{j, i}} - \frac{1}{ n p_{ss}} \right | = 0 \mbox{ almost surely (a.s.), for any } i. \end{aligned}$$]{}
Aggregate fixed points
-----------------------
One can rewrite the fixed point equations for the weighted averages $\{ {\bar X}_i^s \}_i$, ${\bar X}^b$ and we begin with their analysis. Define the following random variables, that depend upon real constants $(x, x_b)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{15mm} \label{Eqn_xi}
\xi_i (x, x_b) := f^s (G_i, x , \eta_{i}^{bs} x_b) ,
$$ and assume:\
[**A.3**]{} [$|\xi_i (x, x_b) - \xi_i (u, u_b) | \le \sigma ( |x- u| + |x_b- u_b|)$]{} with [$\sigma \le 1$]{}.
Consider the following operators on infinite sequence space[^2] $s^\infty$, one for each $ n$:
It is clear that the fixed points of the above operators equal the aggregate vectors, $(\{{\bar X}_i^s \}_{i \le n} , {\bar X}_b )$. Define the ’limit’ operator $\bar {\bf f}^\infty ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b) = ({\bar f}^\infty_b, {\bar f}^\infty_1, {\bar f}^\infty_2 \cdots )$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn_bar_fixedpoint_limtGen}
{\bar f}^\infty_i ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b ) :=
\lim \sup_n {\bar f}^n_i ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b) \mbox{ for all } i \in \{b, 1, 2, \cdots \}. \end{aligned}$$ The idea is to show that the fixed point of this operator equals that of a ‘limit’ system and that the fixed points of the original system converge towards these fixed points. Recall that the weights sum up to one, i.e., $\sum_{i} W_{j, i} = 1$ for any $i$. Thus we require the fixed point of the operator: $${\bar {\bf f}}^n \mbox{ where } {\bf f}^n : {[0, y]} \times {s}^\infty \to {[0, y]} \times {s}^\infty,$$ where the $s^\infty$ is defined in footnote \[footnote\_sinf\]. Idea is to derive a kind of mean field analysis where the aggregates will be approximated by their expected values.
When we consider constant sequence, i.e., if ${{\bar {\bf x}}}= ({\bar x}, {\bar x},\cdots)$ the limit superiors in the definition of the limit system ${\bar {\bf f}}^\infty$ are actually limits by [**A**]{}.2 and Law of large numbers (LLN) and equal (with $x_b$ as in (\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_randGen\]))
In the above, $E_{X,Y}$ represents the expectation with respect to $X,Y$. The random variables are IID and hence the first equation is the same function for all $i$. By Theorem \[Thm\_MainGen\], given below, one such constant sequence would be the almost sure limit of the solutions of the aggregate fixed point equations (\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_randGen\]). Thus one will have to solve a two-dimensional fixed point equation corresponding to the above function (\[Eqn\_barf\_limit\]). And then random fixed points (\[Eqn\_FixedeqGen\])-(\[Eqn\_Fixedeq2Gen\]) are asymptotically independent depending upon the other nodes only via the aggregate fixed point, as given by the theorem below[.]{}[ (proof is in [@TR]).]{}
\[Thm\_MainGen\] Assume either $0 < E[\eta_1^{sb}] < 1$ or $\sigma < 1$ in [**A.3**]{}. The aggregates of the random system, which are FPs of (\[Eqn\_xi\])-(\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_randGen\]), denoted by $({{{\bar {\bf X}}}}^{*}, {\bar X}_b^*) (n) := ( \{{\bar X}_i^s\}_i, {\bar X}_b^* ) (n) $ converge as $n \to \infty$: $${\bar X}_i^s \to {\bar x}^{\infty*} \mbox{ for all } i \mbox{ and } {\bar X}_b^* \to {\bar x}_b^{\infty*} \mbox{ almost surely (a.s.),}$$ where $({\bar x}_b^{\infty*}, {{\bar {\bf x}}}^{\infty*})$ with ${{\bar {\bf x}}}^{\infty*} := ({\bar x}^{\infty*}, {\bar x}^{\infty *} , \cdots)$ is the FP of the limit system given by (\[Eqn\_barf\_limit\]). Further (any sequence of) FPs of the original system (\[Eqn\_FixedeqGen\])- (\[Eqn\_Fixedeq2Gen\]) converge almost surely: $$\begin{aligned}
X^b (n) &\to& X_b^{\infty* } := f^b ( {\bar x}_b^{\infty*}) \mbox{ as $n \to \infty$ and } \hspace{3mm}\label{Eqn_Act_Fixed} \\
X^s_i (n) &\to& f^s (G_i, {\bar x}^{\infty*}, \eta_i^{bs} X_b^{\infty*})
. \hspace{20mm}\mbox{ {{\hfill $\blacksquare$} }} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[ [**Proof:**]{} The proof is provided in section \[sec\_proof\]. [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}]{} Thus the fixed points of the finite $n$ system converge to that of the limit system. The fixed points are asymptotically independent and depend upon the other nodes only via an almost sure constant ${\bar x}^{\infty*}_i$ which is common for all $i$. Another important point to observe here is that, , however any sequence of fixed points (one for each $n$) converges towards that of the limit system (when it has unique fixed point).
Another interesting observation is that the result does not depend upon the precise probability $p_{ss}$ of the connection between small nodes. It only depends upon the fact that every node can potentially influence every other node directly or indirectly (i.e., $p_{ss} > 0$). It is straight forward to generalize to the case where[ $\{I_{i,j}\}$ are any IID random variables and the weights are formed in a similar way. Further]{} one may have finite number of groups of small nodes, nodes within a group are identical stochastically (identical $\{G_i\}$, $\{\eta_i^{sb}\}$ and $\{\eta_i^{bs}\}$), and any typical small node can be of group $i$ with probability $q_i$ independent of others. With this one can study a wider variety of heterogeneous situations. For example one can consider a financial network with many big and small banks. One can also generalize to the case when we have more than one (but finite) distinct limits for the aggregate fixed points. The results are true even when $\{X_i^s\}$ are finite dimensional, with dimension greater than one. One can then consider banks with different levels of connectivity.
Financial Network
=================
Consider a huge financial network with $n$ small banks and one big bank. The assets (shares, bonds etc.) of the big bank are large compared to any small bank and the small banks are similar in nature. At time $T =0$ the banks invest in a project by taking loans from one another or from outside the financial network. At time $T=1$, the banks anticipate some returns from their investments, which is used to clear their obligations (e.g., [@eisenberg2001systemic; @acemoglu2015systemic]). But the investments are risky, there are chances of economic shocks, the returns might be lower than anticipated, because of which some banks may not be able to (fully/partially) pay the liability. We say these banks The defaulted banks increase the shocks to other connected banks, because of which we may have more defaults. And this can continue and the system can ‘collapse’. Systemic risk precisely studies these aspects. [The defaulted banks break the bonds, those that they invested at time $T=0$, and try to clear their obligations using the partial returns obtained after breaking. At the end of second time period $T=2$ the survived banks obtain a return $A^s$ (respectively $nA^b$ for the big bank) while the defaulted ones obtain obtain $\rho^s A^s / \rho^b n A^b$ (at time period $T=1$) where $\rho^s/\rho^b < 1$ (usually much less than 1).]{}Our main aim is to study the influence of economic shocks on the stability of the network, wherein stability is understood in terms of the fraction of defaults, for a given realization of the shocks[ or in terms of the expected surplus after the shocks etc.]{}[.]{}
We model the financial network using a directed weighted graph, with the banks as the nodes and the weighted edges represent the liability fractions and directions. The weight $W_{i,j} := l_{i,j} / Y_i$ represents the fraction of the liability, where $l_{i,j}$ is the amount the bank $i$ is liable to bank $j$ and $Y_i := \sum_j l_{i,j} + l_{i,b}$ is the total liability of the small bank $i.$ The small banks are liable to big bank with proportionality factors $\{\eta^{sb}_i\}_i $ and, a small bank is liable to another small bank with probability $p_{ss} >0$. Let $I_{i,j} $ be 1 if small bank $i$ is liable to small bank $j$ and then the fractions of liability would be:
The fraction of liability of big bank towards small bank $i$ equals $W_{b,i}=\eta^{bs}_i / {\bar \eta}$, [and $W_{b,o} =\eta^o/ {\bar \eta}$ is the fraction that it is liable to sources outside the network, with ${\bar \eta} := \sum_{j \le n } \eta^{bs}_j + n \eta^o $.]{}[ with ${\bar \eta} := \sum_{j \le n } \eta^{bs}_j .$]{} Let $nY^b $ represent the total liability of big bank.
Let $K^s_{i}$ be the amount of money small bank $i$ is expecting as return (plus its liquid cash) at time $T=1$, let $Z^s_i$ represent the individual/independent shock experienced by small bank $i$, and let $Z_c$ represent the shock that is commonly received by all the small banks. The big bank receives a shock of magnitude $n \delta Z_c$ along with its independent shock $n Z_b$. After the shocks the small bank $i$ receives $(K^s_{i}- Z_c- Z^s_{i})^+$ at $T=1$ while the big bank receives $n(K^b - \delta Z_c- Z^b )^+$, where $nK^b$ is the shock free return anticipated at time $T=1$.
{width="5.cm" height="6cm"}
{width="4.9cm" height="6cm"}
{width="5.cm" height="5.7cm"}
{width="5.2cm" height="8cm"}
{width="5.2cm" height="8cm"}
Let $X_i^s$ represent the maximum possible part of the total liability, eventually cleared by small bank $i$, and let $X_b$ (per small bank) represent the same for big bank. The vector $(X^b, \{X_i^s \}_s)$ is referred to as clearing vector (e.g., [@eisenberg2001systemic; @acemoglu2015systemic]) and we make the following commonly made assumptions (as in [@eisenberg2001systemic; @acemoglu2015systemic] etc.) for computing the same. When a bank (say bank $i$) defaults, it may not be able to clear its liabilities completely. However it repays the maximum possible, and the amount cleared to another bank (say bank $j$) is proportional to the fraction $W_{i,j}$. Thus small bank $i$ receives ${\bar X}_i^s := \sum_{j} W_{j,i} X_j^s$ at time period $T=1$ when the other small banks try to clear their liabilities. In a similar way, it receives $X^b W_{b, i}$ from big bank. It also receives $(K^s_{i}- Z_c- Z^s_{i})^+$ at time period $T=1$ (after shock) from outside investments. The liabilities are paid, only after paying the operational costs/taxes $v^s$ ($nv^b$ for big bank). Thus the bank $i$ at maximum can clear $( (K^s_{i}- Z_c- Z^s_{i})^+ + {\bar X}_i^s - v^s)^+$[ and if this amount is less than $Y_i$ it breaks its bonds which are supposed to mature at time period $T=2$.]{}[.]{} The amount cleared by big bank is also computed in a similar manner. Thus, in all, the total amount cleared by small bank $i$ and big bank respectively equals,
By Law of large numbers (LLN), ${\bar \eta} / n \to E[\eta^{bs}] {\ifthenelse{1<2}}{+ \eta^o}{}$ a.s. The rest of the system is exactly like the general system (\[Eqn\_FixedeqGen\])-(\[Eqn\_Fixedeq2Gen\]), for any given realization of $(Z_c, Z_b, K^b, Y^b).$ Assumptions [**A.1**]{} and [**A.3**]{} are clearly satisfied and Theorem \[Thm\_MainGen\] is applicable if we assume [**A.2**]{}. By Theorem \[Thm\_MainGen\] and equation (\[Eqn\_barf\_limit\]), for any given realization $(Z_c, Z_b, K^b, Y^b) = (z_c, z_b, k^b, y^b)$, the aggregate vectors are approximately (accurate for large $n$) the solutions of the following fixed point equations:
Once these fixed point equations are solved, the clearing vectors are approximately given by (\[Eqn\_Act\_Fixed\]) of Theorem \[Thm\_MainGen\]. These are , as now the aggregates ${\bar X}^s_i$ are almost sure constants and are common for all $i$. We now compute relevant asymptotic performance measures.
Performance measure to study Systemic risk
------------------------------------------
Once these fixed point are available for each pair of shock, initial value, total liability realizations $(k^b, y^b, z_c, z_b)$, one can obtain various performance measures as below:
1\) This is the total income of the network (big bank as well as small banks) after paying away the liabilities and taxes $(v)$ divided by number of small banks. We are currently using the following expression which has to be proved as in [@eisenberg2001systemic; @acemoglu2015systemic] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn_ES1}
E [S(1)] { \hspace{-1.5mm}& \hspace{-1.5mm} := \hspace{-1.5mm}& \hspace{-1.5mm}}E \left [ \left ( \Psi^s \right )^+ + \left (\Psi^s + \rho^s A^s \right )^+ ; \Psi^s < 0 \right ] \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1mm} + (\Psi^b )^+ + \left (\Psi^b + \rho^b A^b \right )^+ 1_{ \{ \Psi^b < 0 \} },
\mbox{ with} \nonumber \\
\Psi_i^s { \hspace{-1.5mm}& \hspace{-1.5mm} := \hspace{-1.5mm}& \hspace{-1.5mm}}(K_i^s -Z_c- Z^s_{i})^++ {\bar x}^{\infty*} + { x}^{\infty*}_b \eta^{bs}_i -v^s - Y_i^s \nonumber \\
\Psi^b { \hspace{-1.5mm}& \hspace{-1.5mm} := \hspace{-1.5mm}& \hspace{-1.5mm}}(K^b - Z_c \delta - Z_b)^+ + {\bar x}^{\infty*} \frac{E[\eta_1^{sb}]}{ 1 - E[\eta_1^{sb}]} \nonumber \\ && \hspace{10mm} -v^b - Y^b .
\end{aligned}$$ The expectations are with respect to $(Z_i, \eta_{i}^{bs}, Y_i, K_i^s)$ and are conditioned over $(K^b, Z_c, Z_b, Y^b)$.
2)
The fraction of small banks that defaulted (by bounded convergence theorem) and the indicator that the big bank defaults asymptotically equal:
[ 3) The banks invest and the liability structure is defined at time period $T=0$. The first installment is returned to the banks at $T=1$ (as in [@eisenberg2001systemic; @acemoglu2015systemic]) and we are studying the situation when there are shocks to these returns. The surplus per small bank till time period $T=1$ is given by $E[S(1)]$. The banks that defaulted at time $T=1$, break their bonds/investments. If this did not happen a small bank receives amount $A^s$ on maturity at $T=2$, while the big bank receives $nA^b$ amount (if it did not default). Thus the surplus at $T=2$ equals: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn_ES2}
E[S(2)] = E[S(1)] + (1-P_D^s ) A^s + (1-P_D^b) A^b . \hspace{2mm}
\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
{width="5.9cm" height="8cm"}
{width="5.9cm" height="8cm"}
{width="5.2cm" height="8cm"}
{width="5.2cm" height="8cm"}
In these networks, the total claim of any bank equals its total liability, i.e., $ \sum_{j} l_{ji}+l_{bi} = \sum_{j} l_{ij} +l_{ib} $ for all $i$. We consider these networks for further study, as they ensure the initial wealth[^3] of the network remains the same once the characteristics of $K^b, K^s, Z_i, Z_c, Z_b$ remain the same (stochastically). This allows fair comparison of stability of the network for different values of the parameters[, importantly the big bank-small bank connection parameter $E[\eta^{sb}]$. ]{}[.]{} In our network the liabilities are random and equal:
Thus clearly $\sum_{i} l_{ji} + l_{jb} = Y_j$, and as $n \to \infty$ by LLN and [**A.2**]{} ([@TR Section 5])
Since the liabilities are random, we require equality in stochastic sense or atleast in expected sense ($\stackrel{m}{=}$), i.e., we need: [$$E[Y_i] (1 - E[\eta^{sb}_i ] )+ \frac{1}{E[\eta^{bs}] {\ifthenelse{1<2}}{+ \eta^o}{}} \eta^{bs}_i Y^b \stackrel{m}{=} Y_i$$]{} We also need that the liabilities and claims of the big bank match, i.e., $
\sum_j l_{bj} = \sum_j l_{jb} .
$ That is we need (at limit), [$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\sum_j l_{bj}}{n} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \sum_j \eta^{bs}_j }{nE[\eta^{bs}] {\ifthenelse{1<2}}{+\eta^o}{} } Y^b
\ \stackrel {m}{=} \
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \sum_j \eta^{sb}_j Y_j }{n} .$$]{}
Example Case studies
--------------------
We consider two scenarios of regular networks and compute the performance measures (\[Eqn\_ES1\])-(\[Eqn\_ES2\]).
No external links, $\eta^o = 0$
-------------------------------
[ We consider an example scenario of a regular network and compute the performance measures. ]{}
To keep things simple yet sufficiently interesting, we consider a deterministic $ Y_i^s \equiv y, Y^b \equiv y^b $ and $K_i^s \equiv k^s$. We then consider a given scenario $(z_c, z_b, k^b)$ as discussed before. This is the case with identical small banks in terms of initial wealth, investments at time $T=0$ and when they receive common shock $z_c$ as well individual independent shocks $\{Z_i^s\}$. The total shock of the big bank equals $\delta z_c +z_b$. To have regular networks we set: $$\hspace{22mm}\eta^{bs}_i \stackrel{d}{=} \eta^{sb}_i \mbox{ and } y^b = y E[\eta^{bs}] \mbox{ for all } i,$$and so $E[\eta_{i}^{sb}] =E[\eta_{i}^{bs}]= p_{bs}$.
We immediately have the following for the limit system when $\eta_{i}^{bs}$ are indicators. Let ${{\underline k}^s}$, ${{\overline k}^s}$ respectively represent the worst and best returns ($(k^s_i-z_c-Z_i^s)^+$) of a small bank, given $z_c$. Then
\[Lemma\_First\] (i) If $y p_{bs} \le \big ({{\underline k}^s}- v^s \big ) $ then none of the small banks default, i.e, [$P_D^s = 0$]{}.\
(ii) If [$yp_{bs} > \big ( {{\overline k}^s}+ x^{\infty *}_b - v^s \big ) $]{}, then all small banks default, i.e., [$P_D^s = 1$]{}. Thus if [$y p_{bs} > \big ( {{\overline k}^s}+ y - v^s \big ) $]{}, then [$P_D^s = 1$]{}. [\
(iii) If [$0 < yp_{bs} < \big ( {{\overline k}^s}+ x^{\infty *}_b - v^s \big ) $]{}, then atleast some small banks do not default, as [$P_D^s \le 1- (1-w)pbs < 1$]{}.]{}
The small banks never default if for all scenarios (realizations of $Z_i, \eta_i^{bs}$):
The worst scenario is with worst shock ${{\underline k}^s}$ and with $\eta_i^{bs}=0$ and hence $P_D^s = 0$ when $y p_{bs} \le {{\underline k}^s}- v^s $ proving (i). In a similar way consider the best scenario to obtain part (ii). [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}
Thus we identified the conditions for zero and all defaults. As long as $p_{bs} < ({{\underline k}^s}-v^s)/y$, none of the small banks default. But (for example) when $p_{bs}$ increases beyond $({{\underline k}^s}-v^s)/y$, there can be a ‘phase transition’ in the fraction of defaults, $P_D^s$. At this point it probably would jump from $0$ to some non-zero value. One need more analysis to understand this possible ‘phase transition’. We derive more such details for the special case with binary shocks.
Consider that [$Z_i \sim Bin (w, \epsilon)$]{}, i.e., binary $(0, \epsilon)$ shocks with [$P(Z_i = \epsilon) = w$]{}. Then [${{\underline k}^s}= (k^s - z_c -\epsilon)^+$]{} and [${{\overline k}^s}= (k^s -z_c)^+$]{}.
### With two time periods {#with-two-time-periods .unnumbered}
We begin with analysis with two time period, $T = 0, 1$. Thus $\rho^s\ \rho^b$ and $A^s \ A^b$ are not applicable. We compute only the expected fraction of defaults.
We have the closed form expressions for the clearing vectors as well as the asymptotic fraction of defaults, for the sub-case when the big bank does not default. These expressions approximately equal the corresponding quantities for system with large number of small banks.
When the big bank does not default {#when-the-big-bank-does-not-default .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
\[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\] Let $y > \epsilon.$ With binary shocks, the a.s. limit fraction of defaults equal (with [${\bar K}^s_Z := E[(k^s-z_c-Z_i)^+]$]{}): Let $b_5 :=y$, $c_5 := {\bar K}^s_Z - v^s + y p_{bs}$ and $P_{D5} (p_{bs}) = 1$. The common clearing aggregate (when [$b_{i-1} < yp_{bs} < b_{i} $]{}): [$$\bar{x_s}^\infty =
y (1-p_{bs}) -\frac{ \left ( yp_{bs} - c_i \right ) (1- p_{bs})P_{Di}(p_{bs}) }{1 - (1-p_{bs})P_{Di}(p_{bs})} \ \forall i \le 5.$$]{} The above is true when the big bank does not default, i.e., if [$$(k^b-\delta z_c - z_b)^+ - v^b + \bar{x_s}^\infty \frac{p_{bs}}{1-p_{bs}} > y p_{bs} \mbox{. {{\hfill $\blacksquare$} }}$$]{}
[**Proof :**]{} is available in Appendix, in pages 9-10. [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}
The above result indicates the ‘phase transitions’ with respect to the connection parameter $ p_{bs}$. This lemma is true for the sub-case when big bank does not default (one example scenario, when $(k^b - \delta z_c - z_b)^+ - v^b > y$). However some of the ‘phase transition’ results mentioned below are also true for the other case, by Lemma \[Lemma\_First\].
As already discussed when the connectivity parameter $p_{bs}$ is below $b_{1}/ y$, the network of all small banks remains stable (the fraction of defaults is zero). But as soon as the connection parameter crosses $b_{1}/ y = ({{\underline k}^s}- v^s)/y$ the small banks start defaulting, and we see a sharp jump of size (see $P_{D1}$ and $P_{D2}$ in Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\]): $$w(1-p_{bs}) =\frac{ w(y - {{\underline k}^s}+ v^s)}{y} \mbox{ \underline{at exactly} } p_{bs } = \frac{{{\underline k}^s}- v^s}{ y}.$$ These kind of phase-transitions can also be seen in Figures \[Fig\_All\_retuns\]-\[Fig\_ZbZc\]. When $p_{bs}$ is increased further, when it crosses the threshold $ b_{2}/y$, $P_D^s$ has another jump/phase-transition. At $p_{bs} = b_2 / y$, we notice a sharp jump of size (see $P_{D2}$ and $P_{D3}$ in Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\]): $$\left (1 - \frac{b_2}{y} \right ) (1-w).$$ For this case, one needs to solve the equation (Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\]) $$\begin{aligned}
p_{bs} &=& \frac{b_2} { y} \\
& & \hspace{-10mm}= \frac{({{\underline k}^s}-v^s) (1-p_{bs})^2w + ({{\overline k}^s}-v^s) ( 1 - (1-p_{bs})^2w) }{y} \end{aligned}$$ to get the exact point of phase transition. In a similar way from Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\], we see four possible phase transitions with respect to parameter $p_{bs}$. Since all the co-efficients also depend upon the shock realizations ($z_c, z_b$) one can also obtain phase transitions with respect to shock sizes. Same is the case with other parameters.
More general observation from Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\] is that, we have a possibility of small fraction of defaults when $p_{bs}$ is near 0 ($P_D^s $ can be 0) or when $p_{bs}$ is near 1 with $b_4 > 1$ ($P_D^s \propto (1-p_{bs})$ or $\propto (1-p_{bs}(1-w))$). The coefficient $b_4 $ with $p_{bs}$ close to one, approximately equals $d_4 = {{\overline k}^s}- v^s + y$, is mostly bigger than one. Thus either small connectivity or large connectivity is better, but intermediate connectivity may not be good. This can also be observed in the figures.
### With three time periods {#with-three-time-periods .unnumbered}
From equation (\[Eqn\_Finanace\_FP\]), If ${{\underline k}^s}+\rho^sA^s > v^s + y p_{bs}$ then ${\bar x}^{\infty*} = y (1- p_{bs})$ and further $k^b > \delta z_c + z_b + v^b$ implies $x_b^{\infty*} = y$. Thus the banks (small) may default, but they are able to clear their obligations completely by breaking the bonds. One can easily verify the following in this case.
\[Lemma\_Binary2\] Assume $k^b > \delta z_c + z_b + v^b$, $\epsilon < y$ and ${{\underline k}^s}+\rho^sA^s > v^s + y p_{bs}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
P_D^s = \left \{
\begin{array}{lllll}
w (1-p_{bs}) & \mbox{if} & \frac{ {{\underline k}^s}- v^s }{y} < p_{bs} \le \frac{ {{\overline k}^s}- v^s }{y} \\
1-p_{bs} & \mbox{if} & \frac{ {{\overline k}^s}- v^s }{y} < p_{bs} \le \frac{ {{\underline k}^s}+ y - v^s }{y} \\
1- p_{bs}+w p_{bs} & \mbox{if} & \frac{ {{\underline k}^s}+ y - v^s }{y} < p_{bs} \le \frac{ {{\overline k}^s}+y - v^s }{y} \\
1 & \mbox{if} & \frac{ {{\overline k}^s}+y - v^s }{y} < p_{bs} .
\end{array} \right .\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} When $y > \epsilon$ (i.e., $x_b > \epsilon$), $ {{\overline k}^s}< {{\underline k}^s}+ x_b $ and one can derive the result considering various scenarios as in the previous lemma. [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}\
We continue with sub-case considered of Lemma \[Lemma\_Binary2\] for which $P_D^b = 0.$ Define, $$P^{*s}_D := \inf_{p_{bs} } P^s_D,$$ the minimum ‘expected defaults’ possible. It is clear that for the sub-case considered in Lemma \[Lemma\_Binary2\] it equals the following: $$\begin{aligned}
P^{*s}_D = \hspace{-8mm} & \\ & \left \{ \begin{array}{lllll}
\min \left \{ w \left (1- \frac{ {{\overline k}^s}-v^s )} {y} \right), \ \frac{ (v^s- {{\underline k}^s})^+} {y} \right \} &\mbox{if } v^s < {{\overline k}^s}, \\
\min \left \{ w + (1-w) \frac{ v^s -{{\overline k}^s}} {y}, \ \frac{ (v^s- {{\underline k}^s})} {y}, \ 1 \right \} \hspace{-2mm} &\mbox{if } v^s > {{\overline k}^s}.
\end{array} \right .\end{aligned}$$ Further the assumptions of Lemma \[Lemma\_Binary2\] for any $p_{bs} = E[\eta^{bs}]$, we have ${\bar x}^{\infty*} = y (1- p_{bs})$, $x_b^{\infty*} = y$, and hence $$\Psi^s =
(k^s -z_c- Z^s_{i})^++ y ( \eta^{bs}_i - E[\eta^{bs}] ) -v^s$$ and $
\Psi^b = \psi^b = k^b - z_c \delta - z_b -v^b > 0.
$ Further $\Psi^s + \rho^sA^s \ge 0$ almost surely and thus from equations (\[Eqn\_ES1\])-(\[Eqn\_ES2\]) the expected surplus equals $$\begin{aligned}
E[S(2)] &=& E [ \Psi^s + \rho^s A^s ; \Psi^s < 0 + A^s ; \Psi^s \ge 0 ] + \psi^b \\
& & \hspace{-20mm} \ = \ E [ (k^s -z_c- Z^s_{i})^+ ] - v^s + A^s - (1-\rho^s) A^s P_D^s + \psi^b.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the expected surplus is maximized at the same $p_{bs}^*$ which minimizes $P_D^s$ and then the optimal surplus is obtained by substituting $P_D^s*$ in equation (\[Eqn\_ES2\]).
We study the influence of connectivity parameter $p_{bs} = E[\eta^{bs}] = E[\eta^{sb}]$ for various shock scenarios. We begin with the case when $p_{bs} = 0^+$, i.e., as $p_{bs}$ approaches 0 (or is $\approx 0$). There is negligible connection between the small banks and big bank, and the small banks are primarily liable to other small banks. The limit FP equations are: $ x_b = 0^+ $ and
When ${{\underline k}^s}> v^s$, it is clear that $ {\bar x}^{\infty*} = y$, i.e., the small banks do not default at $p_{bs} = 0^+$. If the big bank encounters big shock, i.e., if $( k^z - \delta z_c - z_b )^+ < v^b$, then it defaults near $p_{bs} = 0^+.$ In fact from equation (\[Eqn\_Finanace\_FP\]), the big bank defaults for any $p_{bs} > 0$ under these conditions[^4]. Therefore we conclude, [*‘when the big bank receives large shocks, it always defaults, the connection with the small banks does not help’*]{}. Further some of the small banks can also default leading to an increased fraction of defaults as $p_{bs}$ increases. We considered one such example in the first sub-figure of Figure \[Fig\_All\_retuns\], which reaffirms our observation: the fraction of defaults $P_D^s = 0$ for small $p_{bs}$ (till 0.1) and near $p_{bs} = 1$. The defaults are more for intermediate $p_{bs}$.
We consider the reverse situation now. Say the big bank does not default at $p_{bs} = 0^+$. This is because it received small shocks such that $( k^z - \delta z_c - z_b )^+ > v^b$. Say some small banks receive big shocks such that ${{\underline k}^s}< v^s$. Then from Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\], $P_D^s \ge w$ at $p_{bs } = 0^+$. The connection with big bank can improve the fraction of defaults, for example, if we manage to chose a large enough $p_{bs}$ which is between $b_2/y$ and $b_3/y$ of Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\] (and if further the big bank does not default). In this case the asymptotic fraction of defaults could be smaller than $w$. We consider one such example in the second sub-figure of Figure \[Fig\_All\_retuns\]. We notice that $P_D^s$ reduces as $p_{bs}$ increases beyond 0.8, in fact $P_D^s = 0$ (i.e, no small bank defaults) at $p_{bs} = 1$. Thus we conclude [*‘the big bank (with small shocks) can help the small banks’.*]{}
![For different shock realizations: [$ v^s \hspace{-1mm}= \hspace{-1mm}v^b \hspace{-1mm}= \hspace{-1mm}12$,]{} [$Z_i \hspace{-1mm}\sim \hspace{-1mm}Bin (.4, 20)$, $(y, k^b, k^s) = (80, 55, 25)$, $ (\delta, p_{bs}) = (.4 , .9)$]{} \[Fig\_ZbZc\]](PDsVsZbZcNoRho_exp){width="4cm" height="6cm"}
![For different shock realizations: [$ v^s \hspace{-1mm}= \hspace{-1mm}v^b \hspace{-1mm}= \hspace{-1mm}12$,]{} [$Z_i \hspace{-1mm}\sim \hspace{-1mm}Bin (.4, 20)$, $(y, k^b, k^s) = (80, 55, 25)$, $ (\delta, p_{bs}) = (.4 , .9)$]{} \[Fig\_ZbZc\]](PDbVsZbZcNoRho_exp){width="4cm" height="6cm"}
We consider a third example in Figure \[Fig\_All\_retuns\], where big bank and some small banks receive big shocks to default at $p_{bs} = 0^+$. The big bank continues to default at all $p_{bs}$, however $P_D^s$ decrease with increase in $p_{bs}$. Thus for the chosen example of economy with one big bank and many small banks, [*‘small banks can be stabilized by connecting to big bank, even if the later defaults, however they can’t help the big bank’.*]{}
The banks can face two types of shocks. The idiosyncratic shocks ($\{Z_i^s\}, Z^b$) are bank specific shocks, while the common shock ($Z_c$) affects all the banks. We aim to study the role of magnitude of these shocks on the cascading of defaults in Figure \[Fig\_ZbZc\] for a fixed $p_{bs}=0.9$. We observe two phase transitions in the fraction of defaults, $P_D^s$ remains at 0.1 ($1-p_{bs}$) for some region of $(Z_b, Z_c)$, jumps to 0.46 ($1-p_{bs} (1-w)$) and then to 1, and, one phase transition with respect to big bank. This behaviour can also be explained using the barrier constants $\{b_i \}$ of Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\], which depend upon these shocks. One can observe significant sharp jumps at the phase transition points, and these points are very important for any financial network. These jumps and transitions points can be studied either using Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\] or by studying the simplified FP equations (\[Eqn\_Finanace\_FP\]) numerically.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
We considered a random graph, with edges representing the influence factors between a big (highly influential) node and numerous small nodes. The performance/status of individual nodes is resultant of these influences, which are represented by fixed point (FP) equations. We showed that the solution of the random FP equations converge almost surely to that of a limit system and these solutions are asymptotically independent. One may have multiple solutions for finite graphs, however any sequence of them converge to the unique FP of the limit system (if it has unique FP). Thus we have a procedure to solve the large dimensional FP equations, using mean-field kind of techniques. The proposed solution requires solving of ’aggregate’ FPs in a much smaller dimensional space and is accurate asymptotically.
The clearing vectors (the fraction of liabilities eventually cleared) in a financial network are generally represented by random FP equations and we studied the same using our results. We study an example heterogeneous financial network with one big bank and many small banks. We have reduced the overall economy problem in this set-up to a two node problem - one big bank and one aggregate small bank, thus facilitating big picture analysis. We observe some interesting phase transitions, one can easily study the nature of these phase transitions using the approximate solutions of the involved FPs. When small banks invest more in big banks, lesser fraction of them default and this is true even when all of them face large idiosyncratic shocks. These observations could be specific to the example considered by us, however we now have a procedure to study complex networks and a more elaborate study would help us derive more concrete observations. One can easily generalize the results by relaxing many of the assumptions, one can apply this approach to more applications and these two would be the topics of future interest.
Claude Berge. *Topological Spaces: including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces, and convexity*. Courier Corporation, 1963.
W. Hildenbrand. *Core and Equilibria of a Large Economy, with an appendix to Chapter 2 by K. Hildenbrand, Princeton Stud. Math*. Economics, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ (1974).
Margarete Knape and Ralph Neininger. P[ó]{}lya urns via the contraction method. , 2014.
Alsmeyer, Gerold, and Uwe Rösler. “A stochastic fixed point equation related to weighted branching with deterministic weights.” Electronic Journal of Probability, 2006.
Heinz W Engl. A general stochastic fixed-point theorem for continuous random operators on stochastic domains. , 1978.
Anh, Ta Ngoc. “Random equations and applications to general random fixed point theorems.” New Zealand J. Math, 2011. Ken R Duffy. Mean field markov models of wireless local area networks. , 2010.
Sahneh, Faryad Darabi, Caterina Scoglio, and Piet Van Mieghem. “Generalized epidemic mean-field model for spreading processes over multilayer complex networks.” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 2013. [ Technical report downloadable at\
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qubugql1ik3jege/TRFP.pdf?dl=0]{}
Daron Acemoglu, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. Systemic risk and stability in financial networks. , 2015.
Franklin Allen and Douglas Gale. Financial contagion. , 2000.
Larry Eisenberg and Thomas H Noe. Systemic risk in financial systems. , 2001.
Proof of Theorem 1 {#sec_proof}
==================
Define a good set as below with $p_{sb} := E[\eta^{sb}_1]$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal B} = \Big \{ w : \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j \le n} W_{j,b} (w) \stackrel{ n \to \infty}{\to} p_{sb} , \ \mbox{ and } & \\ & \hspace{-22mm}
\sum_{j \le n} \frac{ 1 - \eta_{j}^{sb} } {\sum_{i' \le n} I_{j, i'} } \to \frac{1-p_{sb}}{p_{ss}}
\Big \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $P({\cal B}) = 1$ by law of large numbers, under assumptions like that in [**A.**]{}2. We begin with a Lemma that discusses the existence and uniqueness of the aggregate fixed points and then provide the remaining proof of the theorem. We consider the following norm for this proof on the space of infinite sequences, $[0, y]^\infty \times [0,y]$: $$\begin{aligned}
|| ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b - ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) ||_\infty =\max \left \{ | {\bar x}_b - {\bar u}_b |, \ \sup_{i } |x_i - u_i| \right \}. \end{aligned}$$
\[Lemma\_Contraction\] Assume $0 < p_{sb} < 1$ or $\sigma < 1$ in [**A**]{}.3. The $n$-system (\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_randGen\]) as well as the limit system (\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_limtGen\]) have (aggregate) fixed points. Fix any $w \in {\cal B}$. The the limit system ${\bar f}^\infty$ for this sample is a strict contraction and hence has unique fixed point.
[**Proof:**]{} By boundedness assumption [**A**]{}.1 using Brouwer’s fixed point theorem, the first part is true. For the second part consider any $w \in {\cal B}$. From equation (\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_limtGen\]) and using assumption [**A**]{}.3, we have for any $i$: $$\begin{aligned}
| {\bar f}^\infty_i ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b ) - {\bar f}^\infty_i ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) | \\
& & \hspace{-30mm} \le \ \lim \sup_n \sum_{j \le n} | \xi_j ({\bar x}_j, {\bar x}_b ) - \xi_j ({\bar u}_j, {\bar u}_b ) | W_{j,i} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-30mm} \le \ || ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b) - ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) ||_\infty \lim \sup_n \sum_{j \le n} W_{j,i} \\
& & \hspace{-30mm} = \ || ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b) - ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) ||_\infty (1- p_{sb} ) .
\end{aligned}$$ In a similar way $$\begin{aligned}
| {\bar f}^\infty_b ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar u}_b ) - {\bar f}^\infty_b ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) | &\le &
|| ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b) - ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) ||_\infty p_{sb} .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
|| {\bar {\bf f}}^\infty ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b ) - {\bar {\bf f}}^\infty ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) ||_\infty {\ifthenelse{1<2}}{\hspace{-40mm} \\ &= &
\max \left \{ | {\bar f}^\infty_b ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar u}_b ) - {\bar f}^\infty_b ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) | , \
\sup_{i } | {\bar f}^\infty_i ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar u}_b ) - {\bar f}^\infty_i ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) | \right \} \\}{ \hspace{-30mm}\\ }
&\le & || ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b) - ( {{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b ) ||_\infty \max \{ 1- p_{sb} , p_{sb} \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus ${\bf f}^\infty$ is a strict contraction mapping with contraction co-efficient, $\varrho: = \max \{ 1- p_{sb} , p_{sb} \} < 1$.
If $\sigma < 1$ using similar logic it is clear that not only the limit system even the system for any finite $n$ is a strict contraction. [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}
Define the following function from $[0, y]^\infty \times \{1, 2, \cdots , \infty \} \to {\cal R}^+ $ as below
It is clear that the zeros of the above functions are the fixed points of the mappings ${\bar {\bf f}}^{n}$ given by (\[Eqn\_bar\_fixedpoint\_randGen\]) for any $n \le \infty.$ And since the systems have fixed points as given by the previous lemma, these fixed points form the minimizers of the above functions. Our idea is to obtain the convergence proof using continuity of optimizers as given by maximum theorem (e.g., [@Berge; @Equilibria]). Towards this we begin with joint continuity of the objective function.
First fix an $w \in {\cal B}$ and consider an $ N_w < \infty$ (because of the convergences defined in ${\cal B}$), such that for all $n \ge N_w$:
Thus for all such $n$ we have from equation (\[Eqn\_Weights\]), as $I_{j,i} \le 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i \le n} 2^{-i} \sum_{j \le n} W_{j,i} & \le & \sum_{i \le n} 2^{-i} \sum_{j \le n} \frac{1 - \eta_j^{sb}}{ \sum_{i'} I_{j, i'}} \\
&\le & \sum_{i \le \infty} 2^{-i}
2 \frac{1- p_{sb}} {p_{ss}} := c < \infty.
$$ We will show that $h$ is a Lipschitz continuous function for all such $w$ and that the co-efficient of Lipschitz continuity can be the same for all $n \ge N_w$ and for $\infty$. For any $({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b)$ and $({{\bar {\bf u}}}, {\bar u}_b)$ we have for all $n > N_w$:
Using the above, if $({{\bar {\bf x}}}_n, {\bar x}_{n,b}, n) \to ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b, \infty) $, i.e., if $|| ({{\bar {\bf x}}}_n, {\bar x}_{n,b} ) - ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b ) ||_\infty \to 0 $ as $n \to \infty$, then $$| h({{\bar {\bf x}}}_n, {\bar x}_{n,b}, n) - h({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b, \infty) | \to 0,$$ which implies joint continuity of $h$.
The unit spheres are not compact, as the space is infinite dimensional ([@Berge; @Equilibria]). So we use the topology generated by weak continuity[^5] The strong continuity implies continuity in weak sense. Further, the bounded set $[0, y]^\infty$ is weak compact. Now applying maximum theorem to the function $h$ using the topology generated by weak continuity and when the domain of optimization, $[0, y]^\infty$ is same for all $n$, we obtain that the set of minimizers of $h$ form a upper hemi-continuous (with respect to $n$) compact correspondence, in the weak sense ([@Berge; @Equilibria]). Let the unique fixed point of the limit system be represented by $({{\bar {\bf x}}}^*, {\bar x}^{\infty*}_{b})$. By properties of upper hemi-continuous (with respect to $n$) compact correspondence ([@Berge; @Equilibria]) we have the following result: a) consider any sequence of of numbers $n_k \to \infty$ (it can also be $n \to \infty$); b) consider (any) one fixed point for each $n_k$, call it $\big ({{\bar {\bf x}}}^*(n_k), {\bar x}^*_{b} (n_k) \big )$; c) then we have the following weak convergence: $$\Big({{\bar {\bf x}}}^* (n_k), {\bar x}^*_{b} (n_k) \Big ) \stackrel{weakly}{\to } \Big ( {{\bar {\bf x}}}^{\infty*} , {\bar x}^{\infty*}_{b} \Big ).$$ Since the projection is a linear functional we have the required result. The last statement of the theorem is immediate once we have the convergence of the aggregate fixed points. [[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}
MDP - state aggregation
=======================
Say we have finite number of actions in ${\cal A}$. There exists finite number of groups $\{G_l \}_{l \le L}$ and if the states of an infinite MDP aggregate in the following manner $$|\sum_{j \in G_l} p^{(n)}( j | i, a) - p( l |k, a) | \to 0\mbox{, i.e., }$$ $$| p^{(n)}( G_l | i, a) - p( l |k, a) | \mbox{ for all } i \in G_k$$ and if the immediate rewards also converge $$r^{(n)}(i, a) = r(k, a) \mbox{ for all } i \in G_k.$$ Then using our theorem we can show that the value functions $$v^{(n)} (i) = \min_{a \in {\cal A} } \{r(i, a) + \lambda \sum_{j} p^{(n)} (j| i, a) v^{(n)} ( j) \}$$ converges $$v^{(n)} (i) \to v(k) \mbox{ for all } i \in G_k,$$ and also the optimal strategy converges $$a^{(n)*} (i) \to a^{*} (k) .$$ This will be true if the limit system has unique optimizer.
Idea is to use convergence of aggregates $${\bar v}^{(n)}_{i, a} := \sum_{j} p^{(n)} (j| i, a) v^{(n)} ( j) = \sum_{j} p^{(n)} (j| i, a) \xi_j ( {\bf {\bar v}}^{(n)}_j )$$ where the vector of aggregate for any $i$ is defined as: $${\bf {\bar v}}^{(n)}_{i} := \{ {\bar v}^{(n)}_{i,a} \}_a,$$ and then for all $j \in G_l$ $$\xi_j ( {\bf {\bar v}}^{(n)}_j ) := \min_a \left \{ r (l, a) + {\bar v}^{(n)}_{j, a} ) \right \}.$$
Appendix: Proof of Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\] {#appendix-proof-of-lemma-lemma_binarynorho .unnumbered}
================================================
**Proof of Lemma \[Lemma\_BinaryNoRho\]:** The big bank does not default hence $ { x}^{\infty *}_b=y$. Therefore we can rewrite the FP equation representing aggregate clearing vector $\bar{x_s}^\infty$ as below: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\bar{x_s}^\infty}{1-p_{bs}} &=&
\min\lbrace{{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty,y\rbrace w(1-p_{bs}) + \min\lbrace{{\overline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty,y\rbrace (1-w)(1-p_{bs}) \nonumber
\\
&& + \min\lbrace{{\underline k}^s}-v^s +\bar{x_s}^\infty + y,y\rbrace wp_{bs}+
\min\lbrace{{\overline k}^s}-v^s +\bar{x_s}^\infty+y,y\rbrace (1-w)p_{bs}. \label{Eqn_FP_Binary}
\end{aligned}$$
It is clear that ${{\underline k}^s}< {{\overline k}^s}$ and ${{\underline k}^s}< {{\underline k}^s}+ y$ etc. If $ y > \epsilon$ then we also have ${{\overline k}^s}< {{\underline k}^s}+ y$. Then the above FP equation has a natural order in the following sense: the terms are arranged in increasing order when the corresponding probabilities are not considered. For example the third term, $\min\lbrace{{\underline k}^s}-v^s +\bar{x_s}^\infty + y,y\rbrace \le \min\lbrace{{\overline k}^s}-v^s +\bar{x_s}^\infty+y,y\rbrace$, the fourth term. The best scenario is with fourth term (small banks receive zero shock and connect with big bank) while the worst is with the first term (small bank face negative shock and are not connected to big bank).
**Case 1:** There is no default even in the worst scenario i.e. if $$\begin{aligned}
{{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty > y .
\end{aligned}$$ Then none of the small banks default leading to $P_D^s = P_{D1} =0$, and hence the clearing vector satisfies $
\frac{\bar{x_s}^\infty}{1-p_{bs}} = y,
$ or equivalently $\bar{x_s}^\infty =y(1-p_{bs})$. That is Case 1 holds as long as: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ y (1- p_{bs}) > y \mbox{ or equivalently as long as } y p_{bs } < {{\underline k}^s}-v^s. \label{Eqn_case1}
\end{aligned}$$ However as $p_{bs}$ increases, the above may not be true and this gives us the bound $b_1 = {{\underline k}^s}-v^s.$\
**Case 2** When there is default only in the first term of (\[Eqn\_FP\_Binary\]), i.e., when $P_D^s (p_{bs}) = P_{D2} (p_{bs})=w(1-p_{bs})$. The aggregate clearing vector in this case satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\bar{x_s}^\infty}{1-p_{bs}} =
({{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty)P_{D2}+ y(1-P_{D2})
\\ \Rightarrow {\small
\bar{x_s}^\infty =
y (1-p_{bs}) -\frac{ \left ( yp_{bs} - c_2 \right ) (1- p_{bs})P_{D2}(p_{bs}) }{1 - (1-p_{bs})P_{D2}(p_{bs})} \mbox{ where } c_2= {{\underline k}^s}-v^s.
}
\end{aligned}$$ The Case 2 holds as long as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty < y \mbox{ and } {{\overline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty > y.
\end{aligned}$$ Once again as $p_{bs}$ increases, the above may not be true (the second inequality can fail) and this gives us the bound $b_2$. The bound $b_2$ can be obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\overline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty = y
\Rightarrow yp_{bs}=({{\underline k}^s}-v^s)P_{D2}(1-p_{bs}) +({{\overline k}^s}-v^s)(1-(1-p_{bs})P_{D2})
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Rightarrow yp_{bs}= c_2 P_{D2}(1-p_{bs})+d_2(1-(1-p_{bs})P_{D2}) \mbox{ where } d_2= {{\overline k}^s}-v^s.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus bound, $b_2 = c_2 P_{D2}(1-p_{bs})+d_2(1-(1-p_{bs})P_{D2}).$
**Case 3** When there is default only in the first two terms of (\[Eqn\_FP\_Binary\]), i.e., when $P_D^s (p_{bs}) = P_{D3} (p_{bs})=(1-p_{bs})$. The aggregate clearing vector in this case satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\bar{x_s}^\infty}{1-p_{bs}} =
({{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty)w(1-p_{bs})+ ({{\overline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty)(1-w)(1-p_{bs})+ y(1-P_{D3}).
\end{aligned}$$ This implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn_XsCase3}
\bar{x_s}^\infty =
y (1-p_{bs}) -\frac{ \left ( yp_{bs} - c_3 \right ) (1- p_{bs})P_{D3}(p_{bs}) }{1 - (1-p_{bs})P_{D3}(p_{bs})} \mbox{ where } c_3= {\bar K}^s_Z - v^s.
\end{aligned}$$ The Case 3 holds as long as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\overline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty < y \mbox{ and } {{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty +y > y.
\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[Eqn\_XsCase3\]) one can easily show that that $\bar{x_s}^\infty$ is decreasing with increase in $p_{bs}$. Thus again as $p_{bs}$ increases, the above inequalities (second one) may not be true and this gives us the bound $b_3$. The bound $b_3$ can be obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\underline k}^s}-v^s+ \bar{x_s}^\infty+y = y
\Rightarrow yp_{bs}= c_3 P_{D3}(1-p_{bs})+d_3(1-(1-p_{bs})P_{D3})
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Rightarrow yp_{bs}= c_3 P_{D3}(1-p_{bs})+d_3(1-(1-p_{bs})P_{D3}) \mbox{ where } d_3= {{\underline k}^s}-v^s+y.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus bound, $b_3 = c_3 P_{D3}(1-p_{bs})+d_3(1-(1-p_{bs})P_{D3}).$
Continuing this way one can obtain all the subcases of the Lemma.
[[$\blacksquare$]{} ]{}
[^1]: Note that $\sum_{i} W_{j,i} + W_{j, b} = 1$ for all $j$.
[^2]: \[footnote\_sinf\] Here $s^\infty$ is the space (subset) of bounded sequences equipped with $l^\infty$ norm $ |{{\bar {\bf x}}}|_\infty := \sup_i |x_i|$, $$s^\infty := \{ {{\bar {\bf x}}}= (x_1, x_2, \cdots ) : x_i \in [0, y ] \mbox{ for all } i \}.$$
[^3]: This is proportional to the amount anticipated without shocks at time $T=1$ plus the amount anticipated by the returns from other banks minus the amount it has to pay to other banks, all at time $T=1$. For small banks and big bank (per small bank) it is proportional respectively to:
[^4]: Clearly [$ {\bar x}^{\infty*} \le y (1-p_{bs})$]{}, [$y^b = y (1-p_{bs}$)]{} and so [$x_b < y$]{}.
[^5]: We say vector $({{\bar {\bf x}}}_n, {\bar x}_{nb}) $ converges weakly to $({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x})$ ([@Berge; @Equilibria]) if $${\cal L } ({{\bar {\bf x}}}_n, {\bar x}_{nb}) \to {\cal L} ({{\bar {\bf x}}}, {\bar x}_b)$$ for any linear functional ${\cal L}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The distribution of descents in fixed conjugacy classes of $S_n$ has been studied, and it is shown that its moments have interesting properties. Fulman proved that the descent numbers of permutations in conjugacy classes with large cycles are asymptotically normal, and Kim proved that the descent numbers of fixed point free involutions are also asymptotically normal. In this paper, we generalize these results to prove a central limit theorem for descent numbers of permutations in any conjugacy class of $S_n$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095'
author:
- 'Gene B. Kim'
- Sangchul Lee
date: 'March 27, 2018'
title: 'Central limit theorem for descents in conjugacy classes of $S_n$'
---
Introduction
============
The Eulerian function $A_n(x)$ was first defined by the relation $$\sum_{j \geq 1} j^n x^{j-1} = \frac{A_n(x)}{(1-x)^{n+1}}$$ by Euler in [@Euler] when he evaluated the zeta function $\zeta(s)$ at negative integers. It turns out that the coefficients of the $x^k$ term in $A_n(x)$, written $A_{n,k}$ and called *Eulerian numbers*, can be interpretted combinatorially.
A permutation $\pi \in S_n$ has a *descent* at position $i$ if $\pi(i) > \pi(i+1)$, where $i = 1, \dots, n-1$, and the *descent set* of $\pi$, denoted $Des(\pi)$ is the set of all descents of $\pi$. The *descent number* of $\pi$ is defined as $d(\pi) := \lvert Des(\pi) \rvert$.
The results of MacMahon and Riordan, in [@MacMahon] and [@Riordan] respectively, showed that $A_{n,k}$ is the number of permutations in $S_n$ with $k$ descents.
The theory of descents in permutations has been studied thoroughly and is related to many questions. In [@Knuth], Knuth connected descents with the theory of sorting and the theory of runs in permutations, and in [@Diaconis1], Diaconis, McGrath, and Pitman studied a model of card shuffling in which descents play a central role. Bayer and Diaconis also used descents and rising sequences to give a simple expression for the chance of any arrangement after any number of shuffles and used this to give sharp bounds on the approach to randomness in [@Bayer]. Garsia and Gessel found a generating function for the joint distribution of descents, major index, and inversions in [@Garsia], and Gessel and Reutenauer showed that the number of permutations with given cycle structure and descent set is equal to the scalar product of two special characters of the symmetric group in [@Gessel]. Diaconis and Graham also explained Peirce’s dyslexic principle using descents in [@DiaconisGraham]. Petersen also has an excellent and very thorough book on Eulerian numbers [@Petersen].
It is well known ([@Diaconis2]) that the distribution of $d(\pi)$ in $S_n$ is asymptotically normal with mean $\frac{n+1}{2}$ and variance $\frac{n-1}{12}$. Fulman also used Stein’s method to show that the number of descents of a random permutation satisfies a central limit theorem with error rate $n^{-1/2}$ in [@Fulman2]. In [@Vatutin], Vatutin proved a central limit theorem for $d(\pi) + d(\pi^{-1})$, where $\pi$ is a random permutation.
Using generating functions, Fulman proved the following analogous result in [@Fulman1] about conjugacy classes with large cycles only:
For every $n \geq 1$, pick a conjugacy class $C_n$ in $S_n$, and let $n_i(C_n)$ be the number of $i$-cycles in $C_n$. Suppose that for all $i$, $n_i(C_n) \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Then, the distribution of $d(\pi)$ in $C_n$ is asymptotically normal with mean $\frac{n-1}{2}$ and variance $\frac{n+1}{12}$.
Kim also used generating functions, in [@Kim], to prove the following central limit theorem about the conjugacy class of fixed point free involutions:
For every $n \geq 1$ even, let $C_n$ be the conjugacy class of fixed point free involutions in $S_n$. Then, the distribution of $d(\pi)$ in $C_n$ is asymptotically normal with mean $\frac{n}{2}$ and variance $\frac{n}{12}$.
After the above result was proved, Diaconis conjectured that there are asymptotic normality results for conjugacy classes that are fixed point free. In this paper, we will prove a generalized version of this conjecture that proves asymptotic normality of descents for all conjugacy classes of $S_n$.
\[clt\] Let $\pi$ be uniformly drawn form a conjugacy class $\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}$ having $m_1$ fixed points and $W_{\lambda}$ be the normalized descent number of $\pi$, in the sense that $d(\pi) = \frac{n+1}{2} - \frac{m_1^2}{2n} + \sqrt{n} W_\lambda$. Then, if $m_1/n \to \alpha$, $W_{\lambda}$ converges to $\mathcal{N}\left( 0, \frac{1 - 4\alpha^3 + 3\alpha^4}{12} \right)$ in distribution.
The outline is as follows. In Section 2, we expand the generating function $A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t)$ at infinity to obtain a series expression that is convergent for $\lvert t \rvert > 1$. In Section 3, we calculate the asymptotic variance of descent numbers of permutations, chosen uniformly at random, from a conjugacy class $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$, where $\lambda \vdash n$. Finally, in Section 4, we prove the following main theorem on the moment generating function $M_{\lambda}$ of the normalized descent numbers.
\[main\] Write $\alpha_{\lambda} = m_1/n$. Then, there exists a function $C : \mathbb{R} \to (0, \infty)$ such that $$\left| M_{\lambda}(s) - \exp\left\{ \frac{s^2}{24} \left( 1 - 4\alpha_{\lambda}^3 + 3\alpha_{\lambda}^4 \right) \right\} \right|
\leq C(s) \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}}$$ for any $n \geq 1$ and for any $\lambda \vdash n$.
We obtain the asymptotic normality as a consequence.
Crossing the singularity
========================
Let $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ be a conjugacy class of $S_n$, where $\lambda \vdash n$ and $\lambda$ consists of the cycle lengths. For each subset $S \subseteq S_n$, define the generating function $A_S(t) = \sum_{\pi \in S} t^{d(\pi)}$. In [@Fulman1], Fulman showed that, if $\lambda$ has $m_i$ $i$’s, $$A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t) = (1-t)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty t^a \prod_{i=1}^n \binom{f_{i,a} + m_i - 1}{m_i},\label{6.0}$$ where $f_{i,a} = \frac{1}{i} \sum_{d \mid i} \mu(d) a^{i/d}$ and $\mu(d)$ is the M[ö]{}bius function. This identity holds as a formal power series, and as an actual convergent series for $\lvert t \rvert < 1$. In [@Reutenauer], Reutenauer showed that $f_{i,a}$ counts the number of primitive circular words of length $i$ from the alphabet $\{ 1, \dots, a \}$.
Recall that the moment generating function (MGF) of a random variable $X$ is defined by $M_X(s) = \mathbb{E}[ e^{sX} ]$. In [@Kim], Kim observed that we can construct $M_n(s)$, the MGF of descents in fixed point free involutions, from (\[6.0\]), by the relation $M_n(s) = A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}\left( e^s \right)$. After showing that the MGF converges pointwise to $e^{s^2/24}$, which is the MGF of a normal distribution, the desired central limit theorem followed from the pointwise convergence and the following result of Curtiss from [@Curtiss].
\[curtiss\] Suppose we have a sequence $\left\{ X_n \right\}_{n=1}^\infty$ of random variables and there exists $s_0 > 0$ such that each MGF $M_n(s) = \mathbb{E}\left[ e^{s X_n} \right]$ converges for $s \in \left( -s_0, s_0 \right)$. If $M_n(s)$ converges pointwise to some function $M(s)$ for each $s \in \left( -s_0, s_0 \right)$, then $M$ is the MGF of some random variable $X$, and $X_n$ converges to $X$ in distribution.
However, since (\[6.0\]) is convergent for $\lvert t \rvert < 1$, the above relation for $M_n(s)$ is only convergent for $s < 0$. Fortunately, the descents of fixed point free involutions have a crucial palindromic property, also proven in [@Kim], which implies $M_n(s) = M_n(-s)$, and so, the pointwise convergence follows for all $s$.
It turns out that descents of other conjugacy classes of $S_n$ do not have this palindromic property. Hence, we need an expression for $A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t)$, similar to (\[6.0\]), that converges for $\lvert t \rvert > 1$, in order to deal with MGF for $s < 0$. We claim the following proposition.
Let $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ be a conjugacy class of $S_n$. Then, for $\lvert t \rvert > 1$, $$A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t) = (t-1)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty t^{-a} \left[ (-1)^n \prod_{i=1}^n \binom{f_{i,-a}+m_i-1}{m_i} \right].\label{6.1}$$
In order to prove the proposition, we first prove an analogous statement for $A_n(t) = A_{S_n}(t)$.
For $\lvert t \rvert > 1$, $$A_n(t) = (t-1)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty a^n t^{-a}.\label{6.2}$$
Recall that $a^n = \sum_{k=0}^n {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k} (a)_k$, where ${\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k}$ is the (unsigned) Stirling number of the second kind, and $(a)_k = a(a-1) \cdots (a-k+1)$ is the falling factorial. Plugging this identity into $A_n(t) = (1-t)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty a^n t^a$, we see that $$A_n(t) = (1-t)^{n+1} \sum_{k=0}^n {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k} \sum_{a=0}^\infty t^a (a)_k = \sum_{k=0}^n {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k} k! t^k (1-t)^{n-k},$$ where the second equality follows from $$\sum_{a=0}^\infty (a)_k t^{a-k} = \left( \frac{d}{dt} \right)^k (1-t)^{-1} = k!(1-t)^{-(k+1)}.$$
Now, we can view $A_n(t)$ as a polynomial in $t$, and assuming $\lvert t \rvert > 1$, we substitute $t = 1/s$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
A_n\left( \frac{1}{s} \right) &= (-1)^n s \left( \frac{1}{s} - 1 \right)^{n+1} \sum_{k=0}^n {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k} \frac{(-1)^k k!}{(1-s)^{k+1}} \\
&= (-1)^n s \left( \frac{1}{s} - 1 \right)^{n+1} \sum_{k=0}^n {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k} (-1)^k \sum_{a=0}^\infty (a+k)_k s^a \\
&= (-1)^n s \left( \frac{1}{s} - 1 \right)^{n+1} \sum_{a=0}^\infty \left( \sum_{k=0}^n {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}}{n}{k} (-1)^k (a+k)_k \right) s^a.\end{aligned}$$ We can simplify the expression further by noting $(-1)^k(a+k)_k = (-a-1)_k$, and so, $$A_n \left( \frac{1}{s} \right) = (-1)^n s \left( \frac{1}{s} - 1 \right)^{n+1} \sum_{a=0}^\infty (-a-1)^n s^a = \left( \frac{1}{s} - 1 \right)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty a^n s^a.$$ Plugging back $s = 1/t$ proves (\[6.2\]).
By viewing $$\prod_{i=1}^n \binom{f_{i,a}+m_i-1}{m_i} = \sum_{k=1}^n c_k a^k,$$ we can write $$A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda} (t) = \sum_{k=1}^n c_k (1-t)^{n-k} A_k(t).$$ Hence, by (\[6.2\]), for $\lvert t \rvert > 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t) &= \sum_{k=1}^n c_k (1-t)^{n-k} (t-1)^{k+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty a^k t^{-a} \\
&= (t-1)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty t^{-a} \left[ (-1)^n \sum_{k=1}^\infty c_k(-a)^k \right] \\
&= (t-1)^{n+1} \sum_{a=1}^\infty t^{-a} \left[ (-1)^n \prod_{i=1}^n \binom{f_{i,-a}+m_i-1}{m_i} \right]\end{aligned}$$
Computation of the asymptotic variance
======================================
In [@Fulman1], Fulman showed that the asymptotic mean of the descent numbers of $\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}$ is $$(1-\alpha^2) \frac{n}{2}$$ as $n \to \infty$ and $m_1/n \to \alpha$, by analyzing (\[6.0\]). Using similar methods, we calculate the asymptotic variance.
The asymptotic variance of the descent numbers of $\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}$ is $$\left( 1 - 4\alpha^3 + 3\alpha^4 \right) \frac{n}{12}$$ as $n \to \infty$ and $m_1/n \to \alpha$.
From (\[6.0\]), we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t)}{\lvert \mathcal{C}_\lambda \rvert}
&= \frac{(1-t)^{n+1}}{n!} \sum_{a=0}^\infty t^a \prod_{i=1}^n \Bigg( \sum_{k=1}^{m_i} \sum_{d_1,\dots,d_k \mid i} i^{m_i - k} {\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}}{m_i}{k} \\
&\hspace{15em} \times \mu\left( \frac{i}{d_1} \right) \cdots \mu\left( \frac{i}{d_k} \right) a^{d_1 + \cdots + d_k} \Bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}}{n}{k}$ denotes the Stirling numbers of the first kind. The asymptotic mean in [@Fulman1] was calculated by noting that $d_1 + \cdots + d_k = i m_i$ if and only if $k = m_1$ and $d_1 = \cdots d_k = i$, and also noting that $d_1 + \cdots + d_k = i m_i - 1$ if and only if one of the following is true:
1. $i=2$, $k=m_2$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 1, 2, \dots, 2 \right\}$ as multisets.
2. $i=1$, $k=m_1-1$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 1, \dots, 1 \right\}$ as multisets.
Similarly, we note that $d_1 + \cdots + d_k = i m_i - 2$ if and only if one of the following is true:
1. $i=4$, $k=m_4$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 2, 4, \dots, 4 \right\}$ as multisets.
2. $i=3$, $k=m_3$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 1, 3, \dots, 3 \right\}$ as multisets.
3. $i=2$, $k=m_2$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 1, 1, 2, \dots, 2 \right\}$ as multisets.
4. $i=2$, $k=m_2-1$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 2, \dots, 2 \right\}$ as multisets.
5. $i=1$, $k=m_1-2$, and $\left\{ d_1, \dots, d_k \right\} = \left\{ 1, \dots, 1 \right\}$ as multisets.
Hence, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{A_{\mathcal{C}_\lambda}(t)}{\lvert \mathcal{C}_\lambda \rvert}
&= \frac{A_n(t)}{n!} + \frac{1-t}{n} \frac{A_{n-1}(t)}{(n-1)!} \left( \binom{m_1}{2} - m_2 \right) \\
&\quad + \frac{(1-t)^2}{n(n-1)} \frac{A_{n-2}(t)}{(n-2)!} \left( \frac{3m_1 - 1}{4} \binom{m_1}{3} + 3 \binom{m_2}{2} - m_2 \binom{m_1}{2} - m_3 - m_4 \right) \\
&\quad + (1-t)^3 g(t)\end{aligned}$$ for some polynomial $g(t)$, from which we can calculate the asymptotic variance of descent numbers to be $\left( 1 - 4\alpha^3 + 3\alpha^4 \right)\frac{n}{12}$.
Central Limit Theorem for Descents in Conjugacy Classes of $S_n$
================================================================
Write $D_{\lambda}$ for the descent number $d(\pi)$ of a permutation $\pi$ which is uniformly chosen from the conjugacy class $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ of $S_n$. Let us define the normalized random variable $W_\lambda$ by $$D_\lambda = \frac{n+1}{2} - \frac{m_1^2}{2n} + \sqrt{n} W_\lambda,$$ and denote by $M_\lambda(s) = \mathbb{E}[e^{s W_{\lambda}}]$ the MGF of $W_\lambda$.
Since we now know the asymptotic mean and variance, we expect that the distribution of $W_{\lambda}$ is asymptotically the normal distribution with the zero mean and the variance $\frac{1}{12}(1 - 4\alpha^3 + 3\alpha^4)$ along the limit $m_1 / n \to \alpha$. This is equivalent to showing that $M_{\lambda}$ converges pointwise to the MGF of this normal distribution as $m_1/n \to \alpha$. The following result, Theorem \[main\], concerns a uniform estimate on $M_{\lambda}$ that serves this purpose.
Write $\alpha_{\lambda} = m_1/n$. Then, there exists a function $C : \mathbb{R} \to (0, \infty)$ such that $$\left| M_{\lambda}(s) - \exp\left\{ \frac{s^2}{24} \left( 1 - 4\alpha_{\lambda}^3 + 3\alpha_{\lambda}^4 \right) \right\} \right|
\leq C(s) \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}}$$ for any $n \geq 1$ and for any $\lambda \vdash n$.
This section is aimed at proving this theorem. In Section 4.1, we develop a series representation of $M_{\lambda}$ along with some preliminary estimates on its coefficients. This reduces the main claim to Proposition \[mainprop\]. In Section 4.2, we prove this proposition.
Series representation of $M_{\lambda}$
--------------------------------------
In [@Kim], estimating the coefficients of played an important role in the computation. Likewise, we need to provide an estimation on the coefficients of . Let $F_{i,a} = i f_{i,a} = \sum_{i \mid d} \mu(i) a^{d/i}$. We first prove the following lemma about $F_{i,a}$ and $F_{i,-a}$.
\[F-lemma\] Let $a$ and $i$ be positive integers. Then,
1. $(-1)^i F_{i,-a} = F_{i,a} + 2F_{\frac{i}{2},a}\mathbbm{1}_{\left\{\text{ord}_2(i)=1\right\}}$,
2. (upper bound) $0 \leq F_{i,a} \leq a^i$ and $0 \leq (-1)^i F_{i,-a} \leq a^i + 2a^{\frac{i}{2}}$, and
3. (lower bound) $(-1)^i F_{i,-a} \geq F_{i,a} \geq a^{\frac{i}{2}} \left( a^{\frac{i}{2}} - \frac{i}{2} \right)$.
Part (1) is proven by looking at the definition of $f_{i,a}$. Let us write $i = 2^k q$, where $k$ is a positive integer and $q$ is an odd integer. Then, by the multiplicity of $\mu$, we have $$F_{i,a} = \sum_{j=0}^k \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \mu\left( 2^j \right) a^{2^{k-j}\frac{q}{d}},$$ and $$F_{i,-a} = \sum_{j=0}^k \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \mu\left( 2^j \right) (-a)^{2^{k-j}\frac{q}{d}}.$$
We divide the computation into three cases.
1. If $k = 0$, $i = q$ is odd, and so, $$(-1)^i F_{i,-a} = -\sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) (-a)^{\frac{q}{d}} = \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) a^{\frac{q}{d}} = F_{i,a}.$$
2. If $k = 1$, both the terms for $j = 0,1$ may survive, and $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^i F_{i,-a} &= \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) (-a)^{\frac{2q}{d}} + \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(2) \mu(d) (-a)^{\frac{q}{d}} \\
&= \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) a^{\frac{2q}{d}} + \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) a^{\frac{q}{d}} \\
&= \sum_{d \mid 2q} \mu(d) a^{\frac{2q}{d}} + 2\sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) a^{\frac{q}{d}} \\
&= F_{i,a} + 2F_{\frac{i}{2}, a}.
\end{aligned}$$
3. If $k \geq 2$, we have $(-1)^i = 1$ and $(-a)^{2^{k-j}\frac{q}{d}} = a^{2^{k-j}\frac{q}{d}}$ for $j = 0,1$ and $d \mid q$. Hence, by comparing the formula for $F_{i,a}$ and $(-1)^i F_{i,-a}$, we see that they coincide.
For part (2), we note that $f_{i,a}$ counts certain types of words, and so, $F_{i,a} = if_{i,a} \geq 0$. By using M[ö]{}bius inversion formula, we see that $F_{i,a} \leq \sum_{d \mid i} F_{i,a} = a^i$. The second inequality follows from part (1) and the first inequality.
For part (3), note that, by parts (1) and (2), we have $(-1)^i F_{i,-a} \geq F_{i,a}$. The other half of the inequality follows by noting that $$F_{i,a} \geq a^i - \sum_{d \mid i, d \neq i} a^d \geq a^i - \frac{i}{2} a^{\frac{i}{2}},$$ and so, the lemma is proven.
In order to utilize both representations and simultaneously, we introduce some auxiliary notations as follows. Given a partition $\lambda \vdash n$ and a non-zero real number $s$, define $$\begin{aligned}
K_{a}
= \prod_{i=1}^{n} K_{a}^{(i)},
\qquad
K_{a}^{(i)}
= \begin{cases}
\displaystyle \prod_{k=0}^{m_{i}-1} (F_{i,a} + ik), & \text{if } s < 0 \\
\displaystyle \prod_{k=0}^{m_{i}-1} (-1)^i (F_{i,-a} + ik), & \text{if } s > 0
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $a \geq 1$. Strictly speaking, both $K_{a}$ and $K_{a}^{(i)}$ depend on both $s$ and $\lambda$ as well. Since $s$ and $\lambda$ are assumed to be given throughout the computation, however, we suppress them from the notation. Then by and , we obtain the following concise formula $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[e^{sD_\lambda}]
= \frac{A_{\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}}(e^{s})}{|\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}|}
= \left( \frac{e^s-1}{s} \right)^{n+1} \frac{|s|^{n+1}}{n!} \sum_{a=1}^\infty K_a e^{-|s|a}.\end{aligned}$$ From this, we find that $M_{\lambda}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\lambda}(s)
&= \mathbb{E} \exp\left\{ \frac{s}{\sqrt{n} } \left( D_{\lambda} - \frac{n+1}{2} + \frac{m_1^2}{2n} \right) \right\} \\
&= \left( \frac{\sinh\left( \frac{s}{2\sqrt{n}} \right)}{\frac{s}{2\sqrt{n}}} \right)^{n+1} \frac{\left( |s|/\sqrt{n} \right)^{n+1}}{n!} \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} K_a \exp \left\{ -\frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}}a + \frac{m_1^2 s}{2n^{3/2}} \right\} .\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of simplicity, let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
L_a
= \frac{\left( |s|/\sqrt{n} \right)^{n+1}}{n!} K_a \exp \left\{ -\frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}}a + \frac{m_1^2 s}{2n^{3/2}} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, for $s$ fixed and $n \to \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{\sinh\left( \frac{s}{2\sqrt{n}} \right)}{\frac{s}{2\sqrt{n}}} \right)^{n+1}
= \left( 1 + \frac{s^2}{24n} + \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{1}{n^2} \right) \right)^{n+1}
= e^{\frac{s^2}{24}} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{n} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where the implicit bounds depend only on $s$. In light of this, we have only to prove the following proposition.
\[mainprop\] Write $\alpha_\lambda = m_1/n$. Then, there exists a function $C: \mathbb{R} \to (0,\infty)$ such that $$\left\lvert \sum_{a=1}^\infty L_a - \exp\left\{ \frac{s^2}{24} \left( -4\alpha_\lambda^3 + 3\alpha_\lambda^4 \right) \right\} \right\rvert \leq C(s) \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
Proof of Proposition \[mainprop\]
---------------------------------
We inspect the sum over two ranges – the small range, where $a \leq \varepsilon n^{3/2}$, and the large range, where $a > \varepsilon n^{3/2}$. Here, $\varepsilon$ is a positive real number chosen to satisfy $4\varepsilon e |s| < 1$. This choice will be explained shortly later, but it is important to note that $\varepsilon$ depends only on $s$.
When invoking asymptotic notation $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$, it is always assumed that implicit bounds depend only possibly on $s$. This way, we can keep track of uniform estimates. Likewise, we indulge in luxury of changing the meaning of the generic function $C = C(s)$ from line to line, as its exact values are not important to the argument.
### Estimation of the small range.
If $a \leq \varepsilon n^{3/2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lvert K_a \rvert
\leq \prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{k=0}^{m_i-1} \left( a^i + 2a^{\frac{i}{2}} + ik \right)
\leq \prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{k=0}^{m_i-1} \left( 3 \varepsilon n^{\frac{3}{2}} + n \right)
\leq \max\left\{ 4n, 4\varepsilon n^{\frac{3}{2}} \right\}^n,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from bounding each factor $\left( 3 \varepsilon n^{\frac{3}{2}} + n \right)$ by $4$ times the bigger of $n$ and $\varepsilon n^{3/2}$. This induces the following upper bound of $L_{a}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\lvert L_a \rvert
\leq \frac{\left( |s|/\sqrt{n} \right)^{n+1}}{n!} \max\left\{ 4n, 4\varepsilon n^{\frac{3}{2}} \right\}^n e^{\sqrt{n}|s|/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking a union bound, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a \leq \varepsilon n^{3/2}} L_a
\leq \varepsilon n^{\frac{3}{2}} \left( \max_{ a \leq \varepsilon n^{3/2} } |L_a| \right)
\leq \frac{\varepsilon |s|n}{n!} \max\left\{ 4|s|\sqrt{n}, 4\varepsilon|s| n \right\}^n e^{\sqrt{n}|s|/2}.\end{aligned}$$ In view of the Stirling’s approximation $n! \sim \sqrt{2\pi} n^{n+\frac{1}{2}} e^{-n}$, this bound decays to $0$ at least as exponentially fast as $n \to \infty$ by our choice of $\varepsilon$.
### Estimation of the large range.
Through this section, we assume that $a > \varepsilon n^{\frac{3}{2}}$. In this range, we first check that $K_{a}^{(i)}$, for $2 \leq i \leq n$, behaves almost the same as $a^{im_i}$. More precisely, fix $N_1 = N_1(s)$ so that $\frac{1}{2\varepsilon n^{1/2}} + \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2 n^2} < \frac{1}{2}$ for all $n \geq N_1$, which we assume hereafter. Then, by Lemma \[F-lemma\], we find that $$\begin{aligned}
0
< \prod_{k=0}^{m_i-1} \left( 1 - \frac{i}{2a^{i/2}} - \frac{ik}{a^i} \right)
\leq \frac{K_a^{(i)}}{a^{i m_i}}
\leq \prod_{k=0}^{m_i-1} \left( 1 + \frac{2}{a^{i/2}} + \frac{ik}{a^i} \right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $2 \leq i \leq n$. Applying the estimate $\log(1+x) = \mathcal{O}(x)$ for $|x| \leq \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\log \left( \frac{1}{a^{n-m_1}} \prod_{i=2}^n K_a^{(i)} \right)
&\leq C \sum_{i=2}^{n} \sum_{k=0}^{m_i-1} \left( \frac{i}{a^{i/2}} + \frac{ik}{a^i} \right)
\leq C \sum_{i=2}^{n} \sum_{k=0}^{m_i-1} \left( \frac{i}{a} + \frac{ik}{a^2} \right) \\
&\leq C \left( \frac{n}{a} + \frac{n^2}{a^2} \right)
\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}},\end{aligned}$$ As for $K_a^{(1)}$, we need to consider both $s>0$ and $s<0$ cases. If $s<0$, then by the expansion $1+x = \exp\{\log(1+x)\} = \exp\left\{ x - \frac{1}{2}x^2 + \mathcal{O}(x^3) \right\}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
a^{-m_1} K_a^{(1)}
&= \prod_{k=0}^{m_1-1} \left( 1 + \frac{k}{a} \right)
= \exp \left\{ \sum_{k=0}^{m_1-1} \left( \frac{k}{a} - \frac{k^2}{2a^2} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{k^3}{a^3} \right) \right) \right\} \\
&= \exp \left\{ \frac{m_1^2}{2a} - \frac{m_1^3}{6a^2} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for $s>0$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
a^{-m_1} K_a^{(1)}
= \prod_{k=0}^{m_1-1} \left( 1 - \frac{k}{a} \right)
= \exp \left\{ -\frac{m_1^2}{2a} - \frac{m_1^3}{6a^2} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the results, we see that, for $s \neq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
K_a
= a^n \exp \left\{ -\frac{m_1^2}{2a} {\operatorname{sgn}}(s) - \frac{m_1^3}{6a^2} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the implicit constant in $\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{n} \right)$ depends only on $\varepsilon$. From this, it easily follows that, for $x \in [a, a+1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
K_a \exp\left\{ -\frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}} a \right\}
&= \left( 1 + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right) x^n \exp \left\{ -\frac{m_1^2}{2x} {\operatorname{sgn}}(s) - \frac{m_1^3}{6x^2} - \frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}} x \right\}\end{aligned}$$ and hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a > \varepsilon n^{3/2}} L_a
&= \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right)
\exp\left\{ \frac{m_1^2 s}{2n^{3/2}} \right\} \frac{\left( |s|/\sqrt{n} \right)^{n+1}}{n!} \\
&\hspace{1.5em} \times \int_{\varepsilon n^{3/2}}^{\infty} x^n \exp \left\{ -\frac{m_1^2}{2x} {\operatorname{sgn}}(s) - \frac{m_1^3}{6x^2} - \frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}} x \right\} \, dx.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the substitution $y = \frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}} x$, followed by $y = n + \sqrt{n} z$, the above integral becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\exp\left\{ \frac{m_1^2 s}{2n^{3/2}} \right\} \frac{\left( |s|/\sqrt{n} \right)^{n+1}}{n!} \int_{\varepsilon n^{3/2}}^{\infty} x^n \exp \left\{ -\frac{m_1^2}{2x} {\operatorname{sgn}}(s) - \frac{m_1^3}{6x^2} - \frac{|s|}{\sqrt{n}} x \right\} \, dx \\
&\hspace{1em} = \exp\left\{ \frac{m_1^2 s}{2n^{3/2}} \right\} \frac{1}{n!} \int_{\varepsilon |s| n}^{\infty} y^n \exp \left\{ -\frac{m_1^2 s}{2\sqrt{n} y} - \frac{m_1^3 s^2}{6ny^2} - y \right\} \, dy \\
&\hspace{1em} = \frac{n^{n+\frac{1}{2}} e^{-n}}{n!} \int_{\mathbb{R}} g_n(z) \exp \left\{ \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^2 s }{2 ( 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}} )} z - \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^3 s^2}{6 ( 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}} )^2} \right\} \, dz,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{\lambda} = m_1 / n$ and $g_n : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
g_n(z) = \begin{cases}
\displaystyle \left( 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}} \right)^n e^{-\sqrt{n} z}, & \text{if } z > -(1-\varepsilon|s|)\sqrt{n} \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Now we aim at estimating the last integral. First, by the Stirling’s approximation we have $\frac{n^{n+\frac{1}{2}} e^{-n}}{n!} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n} \right)$. Next, we claim the following lemma.
\[g-lemma\] Let $N \geq 1$ be arbitrary. Then, for any $n \geq N$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
g_n(z)
\leq \begin{cases}
g_N(z), & \text{if $z \geq 0$} \vspace{0.5em} \\
e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^2}, & \text{if $z < 0$}
\end{cases}.
\end{aligned}$$
Consider the function $h(n, z) = \log \left( \left( 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}} \right)^n e^{-\sqrt{n} z} \right)$ on $z > -\sqrt{n}$. By direct computation, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial n^2} = \frac{z^3}{4n^{3/2} \left( z + \sqrt{n} \right)^2}
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\partial h}{\partial n} = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ So, it follows that $\frac{\partial h}{\partial n} \leq 0$ if $z \geq 0$, and $\frac{\partial h}{\partial n} \geq 0$ if $z < 0$. Hence, for $n \geq N$ and $z \geq 0$, we obtain $g_n(z) = \exp\{h(n, z)\} \leq \exp\{h(N, z)\} = g_N(z)$. Similarly, when $z < 0$ we have $g_n(z) \leq \lim_{n'\to\infty} \exp\{h(n', z)\} = e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^2}$.
Now, pick $N_2 = N_2(s)$ so that $N_2 \geq \max\{N_1, s^2\}$ (recall that we introduced $N_1$ at the beginning of the estimation in the large range.) Writing $\tilde{g}_n$ for the integrand $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}_n(z) = g_n(z) \exp \left\{ \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^2 s }{2 ( 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}} )} z - \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^3 s^2}{6 ( 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}} )^2} \right\},\end{aligned}$$ the above Lemma \[g-lemma\] provides the following bound $$\begin{aligned}
g_n(z) \leq
\begin{cases}
g_{N_2}(z) e^{\frac{|s|}{2} z} & \text{if $z \geq 0$} \vspace{0.5em} \\
e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^2+\frac{|s|}{2}z} & \text{if $z < 0$}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{R}$ and for all $n \geq N_2$. The specific detail of this bound is not important, however, and we only need to note that this decays exponentially fast. To be precise, there exist constants $C > 0$ and $c > 0$, which depend only on $s$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\max \left\{ g_{N_2}(|z|) e^{\frac{|s|}{2} |z|}, e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^2+\frac{|s|}{2}|z|} \right\}
\leq C e^{-c |z|}\end{aligned}$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{R}$. Now, to estimate the integral of $\tilde{g}_n$, we split this into two parts $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \tilde{g}_n(z)
= \int_{|z| \leq \frac{\log n}{2c}} \tilde{g_n}(z) \, dz
+ \int_{|z| > \frac{\log n}{2c}} \tilde{g_n}(z) \, dz.\end{aligned}$$ The latter integral is easily estimated by direct computation. $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|z| > \frac{\log n}{2c}} \tilde{g_n}(z) \, dz
\leq 2 \int_{\frac{\log n}{2c}}^{\infty} Ce^{-cz} \, dz
= \frac{2C}{c\sqrt{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the first integral, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|z| \leq \frac{\log n}{2c}} \tilde{g_n}(z) \, dz
&= \int_{|z| \leq \frac{\log n}{2c}} \exp\left\{ - \frac{1}{2}z^2 + \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^2 s}{2}z - \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^3 s^2}{6} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right\} \, dz \\
&= \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right) \int_{\mathbb{R}} \exp\left\{ - \frac{1}{2}z^2 + \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^2 s}{2}z - \frac{\alpha_{\lambda}^3 s^2}{6} \right\} \, dz \\
&\hspace{2em} + \mathcal{O} \left( \int_{|z| > \frac{\log n}{2c}} C e^{-c|z|} \, dz \right) \\
&= \sqrt{2\pi} \exp \left\{\frac{s^2}{24} \left( -4\alpha_{\lambda}^3 + 3\alpha_{\lambda}^4 \right) \right\} + \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Combining altogether, we obtain, for $n \geq N_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a > \varepsilon n^{3/2}} L_a
= \exp \left\{\frac{s^2}{24} \left( -4\alpha_{\lambda}^3 + 3\alpha_{\lambda}^4 \right) \right\} + \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{\log^3 n}{\sqrt{n}} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Together with the exponential decay of $\sum_{a \leq \varepsilon n^{3/2}} L_a$ proved in the previous section, the desired proposition follows by revealing the implicit bound $C$ and then making it larger, if needed, so that the inequality is also true for $n < N_2$.
This concludes the proof of Proposition \[mainprop\] and, in turn, Theorem \[main\]. Combining Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[curtiss\] yields the desired central limit theorem, Theorem \[clt\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Jason Fulman and Persi Diaconis for suggesting the original problem. Sangchul Lee’s research has been partially supported by the NSF award DMS-1712632.
[10]{}
D. Bayer and P. Diaconis, *Trailing the dovetail to its lair*, The Annals of Applied Probability, **2** (1992), no.2, 294–313.
J. H. Curtiss, *A note on the theory of moment generating functions*, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, **13** (1942), no.4, 430–433.
P. Diaconis, M. McGrath, and J. Pitman, *Riffle shuffles, cycles, and descents*, Combinatorica, **15** (1995), no.1, 11–29.
P. Diaconis and R. Graham, *The magic of Charles Sanders Peirce*, Preprint.
P. Diaconis and J. Pitman, *Unpublished notes on descents*
L. Euler, *Institutiones calculi differentialis cum eius usu in analysi finitorum ac doctrina serierum* (1787)
J. Fulman, *The distribution of descents in fixed conjugacy classes of the symmetric group*, Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, **84** (1998), no.2, 171–180.
J. Fulman, *Stein’s method and non-reversible Markov chains*, Stein’s Method: Expository Lectures and Applications, IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser., **46** (2004), 69–77.
A. M. Garsia and I. Gessel, *Permutation statistics and partitions*, Adv. Math, **31** (1979), no.3, 288–305.
I. Gessel and C. Reutenauer, *Counting permutations with given cycle structure and descent set*, Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, **64** (1993), no.2, 189–215.
G. B. Kim, *Distribution of descents in matchings*, Accepted to Annals of Combinatorics, `arXiv:1710.03896 [math.CO]`
D. Knuth, *The art of computer programming, Vol. 3. Sorting and searching*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. (1973)
P. MacMahon, *Combinatory analysis*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1915)
T. K. Petersen, *Eulerian numbers*, Birkh[ä]{}user-Springer, New York, NY. (2015)
C. Reutenauer, *Free Lie algebras*, Oxford University Press, London, U.K. (1993)
J. Riordan, *An introduction to combinatorial analysis*, J. Wiley, New York, NY. (1958)
V. A. Vatutin, *The numbers of ascending segments in a random permutations and in the inverse to it are asymptotically independent*, Discrete Math Appl., **6** (1996), no.1, 41–52.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the last few years the hydrodynamic formulation of quantum mechanics, equivalent to the Bohmian equations of motion, has been used to obtain numerical solutions of the Schrödinger equation. Problems, however, have been experienced near wave function nodes (or low probability regions). Here we attempt to compute wave functions and Bohmian trajectories for the interference of one particle or of two identical particles. It turns out that the large number of nodes (i.e. interference minima) makes the hydrodynamic equations impractical, whereas a more straightforward solution of the Schrödinger equation gives very good results.'
address: ' Département de physique, Université du Québec, Trois-Rivières, Qc. Canada G9A 5H7'
author:
- Émilie Guay
- Louis Marchildon
title: Wave functions and Bohmian trajectories in interference phenomena
---
,
Hydrodynamic equations ,Bohmian trajectories ,Schrödinger equation ,Interference 02.60.Cb ,03.65.-w
Introduction
============
Bohmian trajectories were first proposed in an attempt to restore determinism in quantum mechanics [@Bohm_article]. In Bohm’s view, quantum particles have at every instant well-defined positions which, however, can only be known probabilistically. The particles follow deterministic trajectories governed by equations of motion similar to Newton’s, except that a specific quantum contribution must be added to the classical potential. This *quantum potential* explicitly depends on the particles’ total wave function and is responsible for characteristic quantum-mechanical effects like barrier penetration. All statistical predictions of quantum mechanics can be obtained through averages over trajectories [@Holland; @Bohm_livre].
One of the first numerical computations of Bohmian trajectories was carried out in the context of two-slit interference [@Philippidis]. It showed vividly how one-particle interference effects can be understood in terms of particle dynamics. Trajectories associated with two-particle interference were also shown explicitly to reproduce standard quantum-mechanical results [@article].
Bohmian trajectories can usually be computed rather straightforwardly if the particles’ wave function is known analytically. Computation can also be carried out from a numerical approximation to the exact wave function. But this, it turns out, can be viewed from a different perspective. In the past few years, the computation of Bohmian trajectories has led to a powerful way of numerically integrating the Schrödinger equation.
The method is closely connected with the *hydrodynamic formulation* of the Schrödinger equation, which goes back to the early years of quantum mechanics [@Madelung; @Broglie]. In this formulation, the evolution of the wave function is associated with that of a fluid whose motion can be obtained through the trajectories of its elements. Among the quantum-mechanical problems that have been adressed in this way are photodissociation [@Dey; @Mayor], reactive scattering with the Eckart barrier [@Wyatt; @Wyatta], the quartic double-well potential [@Bittner], and the harmonic oscillator with quartic anharmonicity [@Zhao]. The method has a number of advantages, in particular the use of a relatively small number of grid points and its applicability to higher-dimensional problems. It does, however, have difficulties in dealing with regions where the wave function vanishes or nearly vanishes.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the numerical computation of wave functions and Bohmian trajectories in the context of particle interference [@Lam]. This specifically quantum-mechanical phenomenon illustrates perhaps more than any other the properties of quantum superpositions. Moreover, interference minima correspond to zeros or near-zeros of the wave function, and therefore make severe tests on numerical methods. The hydrodynamic method and algorithms for its numerical solution will be reviewed side by side with the method based upon separating the Schrödinger equation into its real and imaginary parts. Both will be used to make detailed computations of the wave functions and Bohmian trajectories associated with the interference of one particle or two identical particles. Comparison with results obtained through an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation will show that zeros (or nodes) of the wave function make the hydrodynamic computation prohibitive in computer resources, whereas the approach using the real and imaginary parts of the wave function yields accurate results in reasonable time.
Wave functions and trajectories
===============================
The Schrödinger equation for a system of $n$ particles interacting through a potential $V$ is given by $$i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}
= - \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_i}\nabla_i^2 \psi +
V(\vec{r}_1, \ldots, \vec{r}_n) \psi , \label{Schrodinger}$$ where $m_i$ is the mass of particle $i$ and $\nabla_i^2$ the Laplacian operator with respect to that particle’s coordinates. We will focus here on the interference of one particle or of two identical particles. There is then only one mass and, in dimensionless units, Eq. (\[Schrodinger\]) can be written as $$i \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}
= - \frac{1}{2} \nabla^2 \psi + V(\vec{r}\,) \psi .
\label{Schrodinger1}$$ The vector $\vec{r}$ now stands for the position in configuration space, and the operator $\nabla^2$ for the Laplacian in that space.
Hydrodynamic equations
----------------------
The hydrodynamic equations follow from the Schrödinger equation when the wave function is written in polar form. They were first used as a basis for the numerical solution of Eq. (\[Schrodinger\]) a number of years ago [@Weiner], but the method has been substantially improved recently.
To get the hydrodynamic equations we substitute $\psi = \sqrt{P} \exp (i S)$ in Eq. (\[Schrodinger1\]), where $S$ and $\sqrt{P}$ are real dimensionless functions and $\sqrt{P}$ is nonnegative. Equating separately the real and imaginary parts of (\[Schrodinger1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}
&= - \vec{\nabla} \cdot (P \vec{\nabla} S) , \label{P}\\
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}
&= - \frac{1}{2} (\vec{\nabla} S)^2 - Q - V(\vec{r}\,) , \label{S}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$, the quantum potential, is given by $$Q \equiv - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\nabla^2 \sqrt{P}}
{\sqrt{P}} . \label{Q}$$ The Bohmian trajectories of the particles are defined by writing the following equation for the velocity in configuration space: $$\vec{v} = \vec{\nabla} S . \label{momentum}$$ We now substitute (\[momentum\]) in (\[P\]) and (\[S\]). Noting that $\nabla_a v_b = \nabla_b v_a$ ($a$ and $b$ are coordinate indices), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{D P}{Dt} &= - P(t) \vec{\nabla}
\cdot \vec{v} \, (t), \label{P2}\\
\frac{D \vec{v}}{Dt} &= - \vec{\nabla} (Q + V) , \label{V1}\end{aligned}$$ where the *Lagrangian derivative* is defined as $$\frac{D}{Dt} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+ \vec{v} \, (t)\cdot \vec{\nabla} . \label{dl}$$ Eqs. (\[P2\]) and (\[V1\]), together with $$\frac{D \vec{r}}{Dt} = \vec{v} \, (t) \label{position},$$ must be solved to get the Bohmian trajectories and, eventually, the wave function.
The numerical solution of Eqs. (\[P2\]), (\[V1\]), and (\[position\]) can be carried out in two different ways. The first one, called Lagrange’s viewpoint, uses the fact that the Lagrangian derivative represents the total time derivative with respect to a moving coordinate system. Grid points are then defined which move with the particles according to Eq. (\[position\]). This method has a number of advantages. First, the Bohmian trajectories are automatically calculated. Secondly, as grid points follow Bohmian trajectories, they remain concentrated in regions of high probability. As a consequence, fewer points are needed since the grid adapts itself throughout time evolution. Finally, use of the Lagrangian derivative gives differential equations with very few terms.
Euler’s viewpoint, in contrast with Lagrange’s, uses a fixed grid. Eqs. (\[P2\]) and (\[V1\]) are solved with (\[dl\]) substituted into them. That method may be more flexible for the purpose of computing spatial derivatives.
Schrödinger equation
--------------------
Several methods for the numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation in its original form were developed over the years [@Mazur; @Goldberg; @Heller; @Feit]. Heller’s approach [@Heller], in particular, was used for the analysis of atom diffraction by surfaces through computation of Bohmian trajectories [@Sanz1; @Sanz2]. Here we shall separate the Schrödinger equation into its real and imaginary parts [@Mazur] by substituting $\psi = \psi_R + i \psi_I$ in (\[Schrodinger1\]). We get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \psi_R}{\partial t}
&= - \frac{1}{2} \nabla^2 \psi_I + V \psi_I , \label{psiR}\\
\frac{\partial \psi_I}{\partial t}
&= \frac{1}{2} \nabla^2 \psi_R - V \psi_R . \label{psiI}\end{aligned}$$ Starting with the value of $\psi$ at a given time, these equations are to be solved over an interval of time. Bohmian trajectories are then computed using (\[momentum\]) or, explicitly, $$\frac{d\vec{r} \, (t)}{dt} = \vec{v} \, (t)
= \vec{\nabla} \left\{\arctan \left(
\frac{\psi_I}{\psi_R} \right) \right\} .
\label{btraj}$$
Numerical methods
=================
In this section, we address the problems of appropriately evaluating spatial derivatives and carrying out time integrations, in each of the two schemes considered.
Hydrodynamic equations
----------------------
In the Lagrangian viewpoint, one needs to compute spatial derivatives on a grid that changes at each time step. We use the *moving weighted least squares method* proposed in Ref. [@Wyatt]. It consists in fitting a series of polynomials to values of functions in a neighborhood of the point were the derivative is to be evaluated. Provided that the neighborhood is small enough, the function to be differentiated should be well represented by low-order polynomials. Function derivatives will then be given by the coefficients of the polynomials. This method can be adapted to almost any point distribution.
To be more specific, suppose we want to evaluate derivatives of a function $f$ at a point $\vec{r}_0$. We first write $f$ as a finite series of polynomials around $\vec{r}_0$, that is, $$f(\vec{r} \, ) = \sum_{s=1}^{M} a_s
p_s(\vec{r} - \vec{r}_0). \label{serief}$$ We now use the values of $f$ at $N_b$ neighboring points $\vec{r}_n$ of $\vec{r}_0$, and find the coefficients $a_s$ by minimizing the following expression: $$\chi^2 = \sum_{n=1}^{N_b} \left[\frac{f(\vec{r}_n)
- \sum_{s=1}^{M} a_s p_s(\vec{r}_n
- \vec{r}_0)}{\sigma_n} \right]^2 . \label{chi_carre}$$ Introducing the rectangular matrix $$A_{ns}= \frac{p_s(\vec{r}_n -\vec{r}_0)}{\sigma_n}$$ and the vector $$b_n = \frac{f(\vec{r}_n)}{\sigma_n},$$ we find that $\chi^2$ is minimized if $$\mathbf{A}^{T} \cdot \vec{b}
= \mathbf{A}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{A} \cdot \vec{a}.
\label{normal}$$ This is called the *normal equation* [@NumRecipes]. The weighted least squares approximation is implemented by solving (\[normal\]) for the unknown $\vec{a}$. Note that $\mathbf{A}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{A}$ is a square matrix. Once the $a_s$ are known, derivatives of $f$ can be evaluated from Eq. (\[serief\]). The standard error $\sigma_n$ is determined by assigning larger weights to closer points, using for instance a Gaussian distribution around $\vec{r}_0$. Further details on the use of the weighted least square method in connection with the hydrodynamic equations can be found in Refs. [@Wyatta; @Bittner].
Time integration in Lagrange’s viewpoint is based on the following discretization of the Lagrangian derivative: $$\frac{Df(t)}{Dt} \rightarrow
\frac{f(t + \Delta t) - f(t)}{\Delta t}.$$ Here $f$ is evaluated on the moving grid, whose points follow particle trajectories. In Euler’s viewpoint we have $$\frac{\partial f(t)}{\partial t} \rightarrow
\frac{f(t + \Delta t) - f(t)}{\Delta t} ,$$ where $f$ is now evaluated on a fixed grid.
The spatial derivatives turn out to be smoother if we make the transformation $P = \exp (2g)$. Making use of Eqs. (\[P2\]), (\[V1\]), and (\[position\]), we find in Lagrange’s viewpoint $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{r}_n(t + \Delta t)
&= \vec{r}_n(t) + \Delta t \,
\vec{v}_n(t), \label{position1} \\
\vec{v}_n(t + \Delta t)
&= \vec{v}_n(t) - \Delta t \, \vec{\nabla}(Q_n + V_n),
\label{vitesse1} \\
g_n(t + \Delta t)
&= g_n(t) - \frac{1}{2} \Delta t \,
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v}_n ,
\label{lnDensite}\end{aligned}$$ where $$Q_n = -\frac{1}{2} \frac{\nabla^2 \sqrt{P_n}}{\sqrt{P_n}}
= - \frac{1}{2}\left\{ \left( \vec{\nabla} g_n \right)^2
+ \nabla^2 g_n \right\} . \label{potqi}$$ Here $f_n(t)$, for instance, stands for the value of the function $f$ at the grid point $n$ at time $t$, and $\vec{\nabla} g_n \equiv (\vec{\nabla} g)_n$.
In Euler’s viewpoint, the following equations have to be solved, together with (\[potqi\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{v}_n(t + \Delta t)
&= \vec{v}_n(t) - \Delta t \,
\vec{\nabla}(Q_n + V_n) - \Delta t
\{\vec{v}_n(t) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \} \vec{v}_n(t), \label{vi} \\
g_n(t + \Delta t)
&= g_n(t) - \frac{1}{2} \Delta t \,
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v}_n
- \Delta t \, \vec{v}_n \cdot \vec{\nabla}g_n . \label{gi}\end{aligned}$$ It should be pointed out that a higher-order scheme like the conventional Runge-Kutta method cannot be used for time integration with the weighted least squares method, since the functional form of the spatial derivatives changes at each time step.
Schrödinger equation
--------------------
The numerical solution of Eqs. (\[psiR\]) and (\[psiI\]) requires discrete approximations to the second-order spatial derivatives of $\psi_R$ and $\psi_I$. Let $\Delta$ denote the grid spacing. We use the following approximation, which neglects terms of order $\Delta^4$ and higher: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}
&= \frac{1}{12 \Delta^2} \left[-30 f(x)
+ 16\{f(x + \Delta) + f(x - \Delta)\} \right. \notag\\
&\qquad\qquad \ \left. \mbox{} - \{f(x +
2\Delta) + f(x - 2\Delta)\} \right]. \label{d2fa}\end{aligned}$$ This formula cannot be used near the grid boundaries, where $f(x \pm \Delta)$ and $f(x \pm 2\Delta)$ may not be defined. In this case we write, for instance, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}
&= \frac{1}{12 \Delta^2} \left[45 f(x)
- 154 f(x+\Delta) + 214 f(x + 2\Delta) \right. \notag\\
&\qquad\qquad \left. \mbox{} - 156 f(x + 3 \Delta)
+ 61 f(x + 4 \Delta) -10 f(x + 5 \Delta) \right] ,
\label{d2fb} \\ \displaybreak[0]
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}
&= \frac{1}{12 \Delta^2} \left[- 15 f(x)
+ 10 f(x - \Delta) -4 f(x+\Delta) \right. \notag\\
&\qquad\qquad\left. \mbox{} + 14 f(x + 2\Delta)
- 6 f(x + 3 \Delta) + f(x + 4 \Delta) \right] ,\label{d2fc}\end{aligned}$$ with similar expressions on the other side of the grid.
A fourth-order expression for first derivatives is also used for the computation of Bohmian trajectories.
Once the spatial discretization is done, Eqs. (\[psiR\]) and (\[psiI\]) read as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi_{Rn}
&= -\frac{1}{2} F_n(\psi_{Im}), \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi_{In}
&= \frac{1}{2} F_n(\psi_{Rm}).\end{aligned}$$ For a grid with $N$ points, this makes up a system of $2 N$ coupled first-order differential equations. From Eqs. (\[d2fa\])–(\[d2fc\]), one can see that for a given value of $n$, the index $m$ assumes up to six different values.
Since oscillations of the real and imaginary parts of the wave function may be important, the numerical integration of $\psi_R$ and $\psi_I$ requires an accurate and stable scheme. We use the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. Note that we improve on Ref. [@Mazur] in both the spatial and the time discretization.
One- and two-particle interference
==================================
An idealized interference setup is shown in Fig. 1, where parameters later to be used in wave functions are indicated. The source S either emits one particle at a time, which may go through one of the slits and be detected on the screen. Or it emits two identical correlated particles, with identical $x$ momenta and opposite $y$ momenta, so that if one particle goes through slit $A$ the other goes through slit $B$.
Let $\psi_A(\vec{r}_i, t)$ and $\psi_B(\vec{r}_i, t)$ be the partial wave functions for particle $i$ going through slit $A$ or $B$. Just like the symmetry of the setup, we assume that $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$ transform into each other under reflection through the $x$ axis, that is, $$\psi_A(x_i, y_i, t) = \psi_B(x_i, -y_i, t) .
\label{ab}$$ The $z$ coordinate is omitted throughout.
For one-particle interference, the global wave function is given by $$\Psi_{\mathrm{one}}(\vec{r}, t)
= \mathcal{N} \left[ \psi_A(\vec{r_1}, t)
+ \psi_B(\vec{r_1}, t) \right] ,
\label{Psi_int1}$$ where the configuration space coordinate $\vec{r}$ corresponds to the one-particle coordinate $\vec{r}_1$. Here $\mathcal{N}$ is a normalization constant. For two-particle interference, $\vec{r} = (\vec{r}_1,
\vec{r}_2)$ and we can write $$\Psi_{\mathrm{two}}(\vec{r}, t)
= \mathcal{N} \left[ \psi_A(\vec{r}_1, t) \psi_B(\vec{r}_2, t)
\pm \psi_B(\vec{r}_1, t) \psi_A(\vec{r}_2, t) \right].
\label{Psi_2int}$$ The $+$ sign corresponds to bosons, for which the global wave function is symmetric under particle exchange, while the $-$ sign corresponds to fermions, for which the wave function is antisymmetric. In the one-particle case the interference pattern shows up on the screen, whereas in the two-particle case it is a property of configuration space.
At $t = 0$, the partial wave functions are picked as plane waves in the $x$-direction, and Gaussian wave packets in the $y$-direction, centered on the appropriate slit. Explicitly, $$\psi_{A}(\vec{r}_i, t=0)
= \left( 2\pi \sigma_0^2 \right)^{-1/4}
\exp \left\{ - \frac{(y_i -Y)^2}{4\sigma_0^2}
+ i k_x x_i \right\} ,$$ with $\psi_B$ given through (\[ab\]). The time evolution of such wave functions in free space (where $V=0$) is known exactly. It is given by $$\psi_{A}(\vec{r}_i, t)
= \left( 2\pi \sigma_t^2 \right)^{-1/4}
\exp \left\{ - \frac{(y_i -Y)^2}{4\sigma_0\sigma_t}
+ i \left[k_x x_i - \frac{k_x^2 t}{2} \right] \right\} ,
\label{psiA}$$ where $$\sigma_{t} = \sigma_{0} \left( 1 + \frac{i t}
{2 \sigma_{0}^{2}} \right) . \label{sigmat}$$ For plane waves along $x$, one can show [@article] that the $x$-coordinate Bohmian trajectory is simply given by $x(t) = x(0) + k_x t$. In the numerical implementation, we therefore concentrate only on the $y$-coordinates. One-particle interference thus reduces to a one-dimensional problem, whereas two-particle interference is a two-dimensional problem.
We recall that Bohmian trajectories have been obtained, from exact wave functions, for one-particle interference in [@Philippidis] and for two-particle interference in [@article]. In the numerical computations of wave functions and trajectories that follow, we let throughout $Y = 1$, $\sigma_0 = 0.2$, and $k_x = 0.1$.
Results and discussion
======================
Hydrodynamic equations
----------------------
One of the main advantages of the Lagrangian viewpoint is the possibility of concentrating grid points in regions of high probability. Accordingly, our first attempts at solving the hydrodynamic equations for one-particle interference used grid points in the immediate neighborhood of the slits only. The numerical results obtained with such initial conditions were very different from what should be expected. Instead of building up an interference pattern, they represented essentially independent Gaussian wave packets emerging from each slit. Clearly then, grid points are needed in the whole region between the slits, even where the probability of finding a particle is very low. This is related to the fact that the development of plateaux and troughs in the quantum potential responsible for the formation of fringes really begins around $y=0$ [@Philippidis]. These remarks point to one of the main problem encountered with the hydrodynamic equations: wave function nodes [@Bittner; @Zhao; @Wyatt5; @Wyatt3].
The reason why nodes or quasinodes of the wave function are apt to cause problems in the hydrodynamic approach is apparent from Eq. (\[Q\]). While the denominator of the quantum potential then nearly vanishes, the numerator normally does not. The quantum potential may thus experience rapid and important variations which challenge approximation procedures. Moreover, in the Lagrangian approach the trajectories tend to group in regions of higher probability, thereby going away from nodes. Thus precision is lacking just where the most important variations of the quantum potential occur. The problem is especially acute in our case of one-particle interference. Nodes then correspond to some of the most interesting parts of the wave function, namely interference minima.
Since the wave function (\[Psi\_int1\]) for one-particle interference nearly vanishes initially at the point $y=0$, it should help to understand the node problem. With grid points in the neighborhood of slits only, no interference pattern is formed and trajectories go through the node just as if it were absent. But Bohmian trajectories should never cross, hence in this case the quantum potential is not properly calculated. When points are added near the node, the quantum potential can be calculated better. Fig. 2 shows that getting an accurate approximation is no easy matter. As expected, the approximation tends to get better as points are added and more polynomials are used. In the Lagrangian approach, however, the matrix $\mathbf{A}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{A}$ has to be inverted at every point and every time step. Since the dimension of the matrix is equal to the number of polynomials, computation time increases quickly, which makes the method inefficient.
Moreover, small inaccuracies in the initial quantum potential cause important effects in later times, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Although a good approximation is found for the quantum potential with 801 grid points between $-4$ and 4 and fifth-order polynomials, oscillations appear in the quantum potential and in the velocity as early as $t = 0.01$ (1000 time steps). These oscillations can be caused by instabilities in the time integration or by small errors in the approximation of the spatial derivatives, or both.
The grid used for these tests was uniform. Although the weighted least square method allows for nonuniform grids, it would not really help concentrating points around the initial node. Other nodes would develop as the interference pattern builds up, which would also require additional points.
Several solutions have been proposed in connection with the node problem, for example grid adaptation [@Wyatt2] and a hybrid method consisting of solving the Schrödinger equation near nodes and the hydrodynamic equations elsewhere [@Wyatt3; @Wyatt4]. In the case of interference, however, nodes are permanent in time as well as moving in space, so that adaptation is too expensive. As far as the Schrödinger equation goes, we shall show in the next section that it is in fact more efficient than the hydrodynamic equations, and therefore does not need to be coupled with it.
Instead of using Lagrange’s approach, we may try Euler’s. Since grid points are then fixed, precision can be controlled easily. Because matrix inversion is carried out only at the first time step, computation times are somewhat shorter. Yet use of the weighted least square method still makes this approach inefficient. As a matter of fact, the behavior of the quantum potential and velocity is roughly similar in the Eulerian approach as in Figs. 2 and 3, since almost no dispersion of the wave packet has yet occurred at $t=0.01$. In addition, numerical instabilities arise due to the terms in Eqs. (\[vi\]) and (\[gi\]) that are absent in the Lagrangian approach. This suggests that a higher-order scheme is probably needed for time propagation.
Other ways of approximating derivatives can be used with Euler’s approach and give good results in reasonable time. The approximations described in Sect. 3.2, for example, give very good results for the initial node. However, they require more points than needed in connection with the Schrödinger equation, and the time integration is highly unstable. In this case the fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme could be used. But again the Schrödinger equation looks more promising, since it involves at most second-order (instead of third-order) derivatives.
There is no point here to look at two-particle interference, since the behavior of $\vec{v}$, $Q$, and $P$ is similar to what was found for one particle, and the two-particle problem requires a much larger number of points.
Schrödinger equation
--------------------
Figs. 4 and 5 show the real and imaginary parts of the wave function for one-particle interference. Excellent agreement is found between the numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation (dots) and the exact value (solid lines). The grid spans $y$-values between $-13$ and 13 with spacing $\Delta$ equal to 0.1, for a total of 261 points. 5000 steps were used to go from $t=0$ to $t=1$.
With the real and imaginary parts of the wave function in hand, Bohmian trajectories can be obtained through Eq. (\[btraj\]). Some of these trajectories are shown in dotted lines in Fig. 6, solid lines representing trajectories obtained from the exact wave functions. Again the agreement is excellent. In general the grid should cover enough space to avoid boundary effects. But with the scheme of Sect. 3.2, second-order derivatives are computed quickly and, even with 5000 times steps, the overall computation time (for the wave function and trajectories) is a few minutes on a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 processor. For comparison, the computation time of wave functions in the Lagrangian approach is between one and two orders of magnitude higher [@note1].
As mentioned earlier, two-particle interference here is a two-dimensional problem, and therefore the grid must be much larger. We have used a square grid with $261 \times 261$ points, both $y$-coordinates going from $-13$ to 13. The computation time is therefore much longer. Bosons wave functions (the $+$ sign in Eq. (\[Psi\_2int\])) were used throughout.
Once again results obtained for the real and imaginary parts of the wave function are in very good agreement with exact values. Some Bohmian trajectories, obtained with time steps, are shown in Fig. 7 as dotted lines. Solid lines represent trajectories computed with exact wave functions. The agreement is usually very good, with just a small difference showing up in the upper curve in Fig. 7a. The main reason for this is here again that the trajectory goes through a node of the wave function, where the velocity varies quickly. The complete numerical solution for the wave function and trajectories is then more demanding. Similar behavior was observed for one-particle interference, but in both cases differences are small, in sharp contrast with results from the hydrodynamic equations.
Conclusion
==========
To our knowledge, Bohmian trajectories in the context of interference through wave packet spreading have hitherto been calculated only from exact wave functions. In this paper, we have investigated two different methods for the numerical computation of wave functions. The hydrodynamic equations, written either in Lagrange’s or Euler’s viewpoint, are sensitive to the evaluation of derivatives of the quantum potential. This is especially delicate near wave function nodes, inevitable in interference problems. Lagrange’s viewpoint is usually attractive because the grid automatically adapts to regions of high probability, and because it addresses higher-dimensional problems with relative ease. Yet here proper evaluation of derivatives with the weighted least squares method requires a large number of points and high-order polynomials, and time propagation tends to be unstable. In Euler’s viewpoint, derivatives can be computed more efficiently, and higher-order schemes can be used for time propagation. But then it is simpler and more accurate to use the Schrödinger equation directly, which involves at most second-order derivatives (instead of the gradient of the quantum potential). In both one- and two-particle interference problems, the direct numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation thus provides an accurate and relatively quick way of obtaining wave functions and Bohmian trajectories.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
One of us (EG) would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for the award of a postgraduate scholarship.
[35]{} D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II, Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952). P. R. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe, (Routledge, London, 1993). C. Philippidis, C. Dewdney, and B. J. Hiley, Quantum interference and the quantum potential, Nuovo Cimento 52 B, 15 (1979). E. Guay and L. Marchildon, Two-particle interference in standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 5617 (2003). E. Madelung, Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer Form, Z. Phys. 40, 322 (1926). L. de Broglie, Sur la possibilité de relier les phénomènes d’interférence et de diffraction à la théorie des quanta de lumière, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 183, 447 (1926); La structure atomique de la matière et du rayonnement et la mécanique ondulatoire, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 184, 273 (1927). B. K. Dey, A. Askar, and H. Rabitz, Multidimensional wave packet dynamics within the fluid dynamical formulation of the Schrödinger equation, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 8770 (1998). F. S. Mayor, A. Askar, and H. A. Rabitz, Quantum fluid dynamics in the Lagrangian representation and applications to photodissociation problems, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 2423 (1999). C. L. Lopreore and R. E. Wyatt, Quantum wave packet dynamics with trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5190 (1999). R. E. Wyatt, Quantum wave packet dynamics with trajectories: application to reactive scattering, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 4406 (1999). E. R. Bittner, Quantum tunneling dynamics using hydrodynamic trajectories, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 9703 (2000). Y. Zhao and N. Makri, Bohmian versus semiclassical description of interference phenomena, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 60 (2003). M. M. Lam and C. Dewdney, Locality and nonlocality in correlated two-particle interferometry, Phys. Lett. A 150, 127 (1990). J. H. Weiner and Y. Partom, Quantum rate theory for solids. II. One-dimensional tunneling effects, Phys. Rev. 187, 1134 (1969). J. Mazur and R. J. Rubin, Quantum-mechanical calculation of the probability of an exchange reaction for constrained linear encounters, J. Chem. Phys. 31, 1395 (1959). A. Goldberg, H. M. Schey, and J. L. Schwartz, Computer-generated motion pictures of one-dimensional quantum-mechanical transmission and reflection phenomena, Am. J. Phys. 35, 177 (1967). E. J. Heller, Time-dependent approach to semiclassical dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 62, 1544 (1975). M. D. Feit, J. A. Fleck, Jr., and A. Steiger, Solution of the Schrödinger equation by a spectral method, J. Comput. Phys. 47, 412 (1982). A. S. Sanz, F. Borondo, and S. Miret-Artés, Causal trajectories description of atom diffraction by surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 61, 7743 (2000). A. S. Sanz, F. Borondo, and S. Miret-Artés, Particle diffraction studied using quantum trajectories, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14, 6109 (2002). W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, and S. A. Teukolsky, Numerical Recipes in C (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992). R. E. Wyatt, D. J. Kouri, and D. K. Hoffman, Quantum wave packet dynamics with trajectories: implementation with distributed approximating functionals, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 10730 (2000). R. E. Wyatt, Wave packet dynamics on adaptive moving grids, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 9569 (2002). R. E. Wyatt and E. R. Bittner, Quantum wave packet dynamics with trajectories: implementation with adaptive Lagrangian grids, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 8898 (2000). K. H. Hughes and R. E. Wyatt, Wave packet dynamics on arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian grids: application to an Eckart barrier, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 5, 3905 (2003). Our code implementing the Lagrangian approach can probably be improved for speed. Yet with the problem at hand, and for a given number of points and time steps, the Lagrangian approach is much slower than the two others considered.
Figure captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
Figure 1. Two-slit interferometer.
Figure 2. Initial quantum potential. (a) 12 neighbors, 401 points, order of polynomials varied; (b) 12 neighbors, fifth-order polynomials, number of points varied.
Figure 3. Velocity at $t=0.01$. Other conditions same as in Fig. 2.
Figure 4. Real part of the wave function at $t = 1$.
Figure 5. Imaginary part of the wave function at $t = 1$.
Figure 6. Bohmian trajectories in one-particle interference. The $x$-coordinate is proportional to the $t$-coordinate, since $x(t) = k_x t$.
Figure 7. Bohmian trajectories associated with pairs of particles. (a) $y_1(0) = 1$, $y_2(0) = -0.6$; (b) $y_1(0) = 1$, $y_2(0) = -1.4$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the complexity of Banach space valued integration in the randomized setting. We are concerned with $r$-times continuously differentiable functions on the $d$-dimensional unit cube $Q$, with values in a Banach space $X$, and investigate the relation of the optimal convergence rate to the geometry of $X$. It turns out that the $n$-th minimal errors are bounded by $cn^{-r/d-1+1/p}$ if and only if $X$ is of equal norm type $p$.'
author:
- |
Stefan Heinrich\
Department of Computer Science\
University of Kaiserslautern\
D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany\
e-mail: [email protected]\
\
Aicke Hinrichs\
Institute of Mathematics\
University of Rostock\
D-18051 Rostock, Germany\
e-mail: [email protected]\
\
title: On the randomized complexity of Banach space valued integration
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Integration of scalar valued functions is an intensively studied topic in the theory of information-based complexity, see [@TWW88], [@Nov88], [@NW10]. Motivated by applications to parametric integration, recently the complexity of Banach space valued integration was considered in [@DH12]. It was shown that the behaviour of the $n$-th minimal errors $e_n^{{\rm ran }}$ of randomized integration in $C^r(Q,X)$ is related to the geometry of the Banach space $X$ in the following way: The infimum of the exponents of the rate is determined by the supremum of $p$ such that $X$ is of type $p$. In the present paper we further investigate this relation. We establish a connection between $n$-th minimal errors and equal norm type $p$ constants for $n$ vectors. It follows that $e_n^{{\rm ran }}$ is bounded by $cn^{-r/d-1+1/p}$ if and only if $X$ is of equal norm type $p$.
Preliminaries {#sec:2}
=============
Let ${\mathbb N}=\{1,2,\dots\}$ and ${\mathbb N}_0=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$. We introduce some notation and concepts from Banach space theory needed in the sequel. For Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$ let $B_X$ be the closed unit ball of $X$ and $\mathscr{L}(X,Y)$ the space of bounded linear operators from $X$ to $Y$, endowed with the usual norm. If $X=Y$, we write $
\mathscr{L}(X)$. The norm of $X$ is denoted by $\| \cdot\|$, while other norms are distinguished by subscripts. We assume that all considered Banach spaces are defined over the same scalar field ${\mathbb K}={\mathbb R}$ or ${\mathbb K}={\mathbb C}$.
Let $Q=[0,1]^d$ and let $C^{r}(Q,X)$ be the space of all $r$-times continuously differentiable functions $f:Q\to X$ equipped with the norm $$\|f\|_{C^r(Q,X)}=\max_{0\le |\alpha|\le r,\, t\in Q}\| D^\alpha f(t)\|,$$ where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_d)$, $|\alpha|=|\alpha_1|+\dots+|\alpha_d|$ and $D^\alpha$ denotes the respective partial derivative. For $r=0$ we write $C^0(Q,X)=C(Q,X)$, which is the space of continuous $X$-valued functions on $Q$. If $X={\mathbb K}$, we write $C^r(Q)$ and $C(Q)$.
Let $1\le p\le 2$. A Banach space $X$ is said to be of (Rademacher) type $p$, if there is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$ and $x_1,\dots,x_n\in X$ $$\label{A6}
\left({{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\| \sum_{i=1}^n {\varepsilon }_i x_i\Big\|^p\right)^{1/p}\le c\left(\sum_{k=1}^n \| x_i\|^p\right)^{1/p},$$ where $(\varepsilon_i)_{i=1}^n$ is a sequence of independent Bernoulli random variables with ${\mathbb P}\{\varepsilon_i=-1\}={\mathbb P}\{\varepsilon_i=+1\}=1/2$ on some probability space $(\Omega,\Sigma,{{\mathbb P}})$ (we refer to [@MP76; @LT91] for this notion and related facts). The smallest constant satisfying (\[A6\]) is called the type $p$ constant of $X$ and is denoted by $\tau_p(X)$. If there is no such $c>0$, we put $\tau_p(X)=\infty$. The space $L_{p_1}(\mathcal{N},\nu)$ with $(\mathcal{N},\nu)$ an arbitrary measure space and $p_1<\infty$ is of type $p$ with $p=\min(p_1,2)$.
Furthermore, given $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, let $\sigma_{p,n}(X)$ be the smallest $c>0$ for which (\[A6\]) holds for any $x_1,\dots,x_n\in X$ with $\|x_1\|=\dots=\|x_n\|$. The contraction principle for Rademacher series, see ([@LT91], Th. 4.4), implies that $\sigma_{p,n}(X)$ is the smallest constant $c>0$ such that for $x_1,\dots,x_n\in X$ $$\label{C3}
\left({{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\| \sum_{i=1}^n {\varepsilon }_i x_i\Big\|^p\right)^{1/p}\le cn^{1/p} \max_{1\le i\le n} \|x_i\|.$$ We say that $X$ is of equal norm type $p$, if there is a constant $c>0$ such that $\sigma_{p,n}(X)\le c$ for all $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Clearly, $\sigma_{p,n}(X)\le \tau_p(X)$ and type $p$ implies equal norm type $p$.
Let us comment a little more on the relation of the different notions of type which are used here and in the literature. The concept of equal norm type $p$ was first introduced and used by R. C. James in the case $p=2$ in [@Jam78]. There it is shown that $X$ is of equal norm type 2 if and only if $X$ is of type 2. This result is attributed to G. Pisier. Later, it even turned out in [@BKT89] that the sequence $\sigma_{2,n}(X)$ and the corresponding sequence $\tau_{2,n}(X)$ of type 2 constants computed with $n$ vectors are uniformly equivalent. In contrast, for $1<p<2$, L. Tzafriri [@Tza79] constructed Tsirelson spaces without type $p$ but with equal norm type $p$. Finally, V. Mascioni introduced and studied the notion of weak type $p$ for $1<p<2$ in [@Mas88] and showed that, again in contrast to the situation for $p=2$, a Banach space $X$ is of weak type $p$ if and only if it is of equal norm type $p$.
Throughout the paper $c,c_1,c_2,\dots$ are constants, which depend only on the problem parameters $r,d$, but depend neither on the algorithm parameters $n,l$ etc. nor on the input $f$. The same symbol may denote different constants, even in a sequence of relations.
For $r,k\in {\mathbb N}$ we let $P^{r,X}_k\in \mathscr{L}(C(Q,X))$ be $X$-valued composite tensor product Lagrange interpolation of degree $r$ with respect to the partition of $[0,1]^d$ into $k^d$ subcubes of sidelength $k^{-1}$ of disjoint interior, see [@DH12]. Given $r\in{\mathbb N}_0$ and $d\in {\mathbb N}$, there are constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that for all Banach spaces $X$ and all $k\in{\mathbb N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{f\in B_{C^r(Q,X)}}\|f-P^{r,X}_kf \|_{C(Q,X)}\le c_2k^{-r}\label{A3}\end{aligned}$$ (see [@DH12]).
Banach space valued integration {#sec:3}
===============================
Let $X$ be a Banach space, $r\in{\mathbb N}_0$, and let the integration operator $S^X:C(Q,X)\to X$ be given by $$S^Xf=\int_Q f(t)dt.$$ We will work in the setting of information-based complexity theory, see [@TWW88; @Nov88; @NW10]. Below $e_n^{\rm det }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})$ and $e_n^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})$ denote the $n$-th minimal error of $S^X$ on $B_{C^r(Q,X)}$ in the deterministic, respectively randomized setting, that is, the minimal possible error among all deterministic, respectively randomized algorithms, approximating $S^X$ on $B_{C^r(Q,X)}$ that use at most $n$ values of the input function $f$. The precise notions are recalled in the appendix. The following was shown in [@DH12].
\[theo:1\] Let $r\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $1\le p\le 2$. Then there are constants $c_{1-4}>0$ such that for all Banach spaces $X$ and $n\in{\mathbb N}$ the following holds. The deterministic $n$-th minimal error satisfies $$c_1n^{-r/d}\le e_n^{\rm det }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\le c_2n^{-r/d}.$$ Moreover, if $X$ is of type $p$ and $p_X$ is the supremum of all $p_1$ such that $X$ is of type $p_1$, then the randomized $n$-th minimal error fulfills $$c_3n^{-r/d-1+1/p_X}\le e_n^{\rm ran }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\le c_4\tau_p(X)n^{-r/d-1+1/p}.$$
As a consequence, we obtain
\[cor:1\] Let $r\in {\mathbb N}_0$ and $1\le p\le 2$. Then the following are equivalent:\
(i) $X$ is of type $p_1$ for all $p_1<p$.\
(ii) For each $p_1<p$ there is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ $$e_n^{\rm ran }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\le cn^{-r/d-1+1/p_1}.$$
The main result of the present paper is the following
\[theo:2\] Let $1\le p\le 2$ and $r\in{{\mathbb N}}_0$. Then there are constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that for all Banach spaces $X$ and all $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ $$\label{A2}
c_1 n^{r/d+1-1/p}e_n^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\le \sigma_{p,n}(X)\le c_2\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}).$$
This allows to sharpen Corollary \[cor:1\] in the following way.
\[cor:2\] Let $r\in {\mathbb N}_0$ and $1\le p\le 2$. Then the following are equivalent:\
(i) $X$ is of equal norm type $p$.\
(ii) There is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ $$e_n^{\rm ran }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\le cn^{-r/d-1+1/p}.$$
Recall from the preliminaries that the conditions in the corollary are also equivalent to\
*(iii) $X$ is of type $2$ if $p=2$ and of weak type $p$ if $1<p<2$, respectively.*\
For the proof of Theorem \[theo:2\] we need a number of auxiliary results. The following lemma is a slight modification of Prop. 9.11 of [@LT91], with essentially the same proof, which we include for the sake of completeness.
\[lem:2\] Let $1\le p\le 2$. Then there is a constant $c>0$ such that for each Banach space $X$, each $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and each sequence of independent, essentially bounded, mean zero $X$-valued random variables $(\eta_i)_{i=1}^n$ on some probability space $(\Omega,\Sigma,{{\mathbb P}})$ the following holds: $$\Bigg({{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^n \eta_i\Big\|^{p}\Bigg)^{1/p}
\le c\sigma_{p,n}(X)n^{1/p}\max_{1\le i\le n}
\|\eta_i\|_{L_\infty(\Omega,{{\mathbb P}},X)}.$$
Let $({\varepsilon }_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ be independent, symmetric Bernoulli random variables on some probability space $(\Omega',\Sigma',{{\mathbb P}}')$ different from $(\Omega,\Sigma,{{\mathbb P}})$. Considering $(\eta_i)_{i=1}^n$ and $({\varepsilon }_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ as random variables on the product probability space, we denote the expectation with respect to ${{\mathbb P}}'$ by ${{\mathbb E}'\,}$ (and the expectation with respect to ${{\mathbb P}}$, as before, by ${{\mathbb E}\,}$). Using Lemma 6.3 of [@LT91] and (\[C3\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigg({{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^n \eta_i\Big\|^{p}\Bigg)^{1/p}&\le&
2\left({{\mathbb E}\,}{{\mathbb E}'\,}\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\varepsilon }_i \eta_i\Big\|^{p}\right)^{1/p}
\\
&\le&2\sigma_{p,n}(X)n^{1/p}\left({{\mathbb E}\,}\max_{1\le i\le n}\|\eta_i\|^p\right)^{1/p}
\nonumber\\
&\le& 2\sigma_{p,n}(X)n^{1/p}\max_{1\le i\le n}
\|\eta_i\|_{L_\infty(\Omega,{{\mathbb P}},X)}.\quad
\label{AV2}\end{aligned}$$
Next we introduce an algorithm for the aproximation of $S^Xf$. Let $n\in{\mathbb N}$ and let $\xi_i:\Omega\to Q$ $(i=1,\dots,n)$ be independent random variables on some probability space $(\Omega,\Sigma,{\mathbb P})$ uniformly distributed on $Q$. Define for $f\in C(Q,X)$ $$\label{A8}
A^{0,X}_{n,\omega}f=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n f(\xi_i(\omega))$$ and, if $r\ge 1$, put $k=\left\lceil n^{1/d}\right\rceil$ and $$\label{A9}
A^{r,X}_{n,\omega}f=S^X(P_k^{r,X}f)+A^{0,X}_{n,\omega}(f-P_k^{r,X}f).$$ These are the Banach space valued versions of the standard Monte Carlo method ($r=0$) and the Monte Carlo method with separation of the main part ($r\ge 1$). The following extends the second part of Proposition 1 of [@DH12].
\[pro:2\] Let $r\in{\mathbb N}_0$ and $1\le p\le 2$. Then there is a constant $c>0$ such that for all Banach spaces $X$, $n\in{\mathbb N}$, and $f\in C^r(Q,X)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left({\mathbb E}\, \|S^Xf-A_{n,\omega}^{r,X}f \|^p\right)^{1/p}
&\le& c \sigma_{p,n}(X)n^{-r/d-1+1/p}\|f\|_{C^r(Q,X)}.\label{C4}\end{aligned}$$
Let us first consider the case $r=0$. Let $f\in C(Q,X)$ and put $$\eta_i(\omega)= \int_Q f(t)dt-f(\xi_i(\omega)).$$ Clearly, ${\mathbb E}\,\eta_i(\omega) =0$, $$S^Xf-A_{n,\omega}^{0,X}f=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\eta_i(\omega)$$ and $$\|\eta_i(\omega)\|\le 2\|f\|_{C(Q,X)}.$$ An application of Lemma \[lem:2\] gives (\[C4\]). If $r\ge 1$, we have $$S^Xf-A^{r,X}_{n,\omega}f=S^X(f-P_k^{r,X}f)-A^{0,X}_{n,\omega}(f-P_k^{r,X}f)$$ and the result follows from (\[A3\]) and the case $r=0$.
\[lem:3\] Let $1\le p\le 2$. Then there are constants $c>0$ and $0<\gamma<1$ such that for each Banach space $X$, each $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, and $(x_i)_{i=1}^n\subset X$ there is a subset $I\subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}$ with $|I|\ge \gamma n$ and $${{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\|\sum_{i\in I} {\varepsilon }_ix_i\Big\|
\le cn^{1/p}
\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}).$$
Since for $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ $$\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\ge e_1^{{\rm ran }}(S^{{\mathbb K}},B_{C^r(Q,{{\mathbb K}})})>0,$$ the statement is trivial for $n<8^d$. Therefore we can assume $n\ge 8^d$. Clearly, we can also assume $
\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}>0.
$ Let $m\in {\mathbb N}$ be such that $$\label{A5}
m^d\le n< (m+1)^d,$$ hence $$\label{B8}
m\ge 8.$$ Let $\psi$ be an infinitely differentiable function on ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ such that $\psi(t) > 0$ for $t\in (0,1)^d$ and ${\rm supp\,}\psi \subset [0,1]^d$. Let $(Q_i)_{i=1}^{m^d}$ be the partition of $Q$ into closed cubes of side length $m^{-1}$ of disjoint interior, let $t_i$ be the point in $Q_i$ with minimal coordinates and define $\psi_i\in C(Q)$ by $$\psi_i(t)=\psi(m(t-t_i))\quad (i=1, \dots,m^d).$$ It is easily verified that there is a constant $c_0>0$ such that for all $(\alpha_i)_{i=1}^{m^d}\in [-1,1]^{m^d}$ $$\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^{m^d}\alpha_i x_i\psi_i\Big\|_{C^r(Q,X)}\le c_0 m^r\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}.$$ Setting $$f_i=c_0^{-1}m^{-r}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}^{-1}x_i\psi_i$$ it follows that $$\sum_{i=1}^{m^d}\alpha_i f_i\in B_{C^r(Q,X)} \qquad \mbox{for all} \quad (\alpha_i)_{i=1}^{m^d}\in [-1,1]^{m^d}.$$ Moreover, with $\sigma=\int_Q \psi(t) dt$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^{m^d}\alpha_iS^Xf_i\Big\|
= c_0^{-1}m^{-r}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}^{-1}\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^{m^d}\alpha_ix_i\int_Q\psi_i(t)dt\Big\|\\
&=& c_0^{-1}\sigma m^{-r-d}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}^{-1}\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^{m^d}\alpha_ix_i\Big\|.\end{aligned}$$ Next we use Lemma 5 and 6 of [@Hei05a] with $K=X$ (although stated for $K={\mathbb R}$, Lemma 6 is easily seen to hold for $K=X$, as well) to obtain for all $l\in{{\mathbb N}}$ with $l< m^d/4$ $$\begin{aligned}
e_l^{\rm ran }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})&\ge& \frac{1}{4}\min_{I\subseteq \{1,\dots, m^d\}, |I|\ge m^d-4l}{\mathbb E}\, \Big\| \sum_{i\in I}\varepsilon_iS^Xf_i\Big\|\\
&\ge& cm^{-r-d}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}^{-1}{\mathbb E}\, \Big\| \sum_{i\in I}\varepsilon_ix_i\Big\|.\end{aligned}$$ We put $l= \lfloor m^d/8\rfloor$. Then $$\label{B9}
m^d/16< l\le m^d/8.$$ Indeed, by (\[B8\]) the left-hand inequality clearly holds for $m^d<16$, while for $m^d\ge 16$ we get $ \lfloor m^d/8\rfloor>m^d/8-1\ge m^d/16$. We conclude that there is an $I\subseteq \{1,\dots, m^d\}$ with $|I|\ge m^d-4l\ge m^d/2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb E}\, \Big\| \sum_{i\in I}\varepsilon_ix_i\Big\|
&\le&
cm^{r+d}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}e_l^{\rm ran }(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}) \\
&\le&cm^{r+d}l^{-r/d+1/p-1}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}) \\
&\le& cn^{1/p}
\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}),\end{aligned}$$ where we used (\[A5\]) and (\[B9\]). Finally, (\[A5\]) and (\[B8\]) give $$|I|\ge m^d/2\ge \frac{m^d}{2(m+1)^d}\,n\ge \frac{8^d}{2\cdot9^d}\,n.$$
[*Proof of Theorem \[theo:2\].*]{} The left-hand inequality of (\[A2\]) follows directly from Proposition \[pro:2\], since the number of function values involved in $A_{n,\omega}^{r,X}$ is bounded by $ck^d+n\le cn$, see also (\[D2\]).
To prove the right-hand inequality of (\[A2\]), let $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $x_1,\dots,x_n\in X$. We construct by induction a partition of $K=\{1,\dots,n\}$ into a sequence of disjoint subsets $(I_l)_{l=1}^{l^*}$ such that for $1\le l\le l^*$ $$\label{B3}
|I_l|\ge \gamma \,\Big|K\setminus \bigcup_{j<l}I_j \Big|$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B4}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb E}\,}\, \Big\| \sum_{i\in I_l}\varepsilon_ix_i\Big\|}\nonumber\\
&\le& c\Big|K\setminus \bigcup_{j<l}I_j \Big|^{1/p}
\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}),
\quad\end{aligned}$$ where $c $ and $\gamma$ are the constants from Lemma \[lem:3\]. For $l=1$ the existence of an $I_1$ satisfying (\[B3\]–\[B4\]) follows directly from Lemma \[lem:3\]. Now assume that we already have a sequence of disjoint subsets $(I_l)_{l=1}^m$ of $K$ satisfying (\[B3\]–\[B4\]). If $$J:=K\setminus \bigcup_{j\le m}I_j\ne \emptyset,$$ we apply Lemma \[lem:3\] to $(x_i)_{i\in J}$ to find $I_{m+1}\subseteq J$ with $$\label{B5}
|I_{m+1}|\ge \gamma |J|$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B6}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb E}\,}\, \Big\| \sum_{i\in I_{m+1}}\varepsilon_ix_i\Big\|}\nonumber\\
&\le& c|J|^{1/p}
\|(x_i)_{i\in J}\|_{\ell_\infty(J,X)}\max_{1\le k\le |J|} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)}).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that for $l=m+1$, (\[B5\]) is just (\[B3\]) and (\[B6\]) implies (\[B4\]). Furthermore, (\[B3\]) implies $$\Big|K\setminus \bigcup_{j\le l}I_j \Big|\le (1-\gamma) \,\Big|K\setminus \bigcup_{j\le l-1}I_j \Big|$$ and therefore $$\label{B7}
\Big|K\setminus \bigcup_{j\le l}I_j \Big|\le (1-\gamma)^l n.$$ It follows that the process stops with $K=\bigcup_{j\le l}I_j$ for a certain $l=l^*\in{{\mathbb N}}$. This completes the construction.
Using the equivalence of moments (Theorem 4.7 of [@LT91]), we get from (\[B4\]) and (\[B7\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \left({{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\| \sum_{i=1}^n {\varepsilon }_i x_i\Big\|^p\right)^{1/p} }\\
&\le & c\,{{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\| \sum_{i=1}^n {\varepsilon }_i x_i\Big\|\le c\sum_{l=1}^{l^*}{{\mathbb E}\,}\Big\| \sum_{i\in I_l} {\varepsilon }_i x_i\Big\|\\
&\le &cn^{1/p}\|(x_i)\|_{\ell_\infty^n(X)}\max_{1\le k\le n} k^{r/d+1-1/p}e_k^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\sum_{l=1}^{l^*}(1-\gamma)^{(l-1)/p}.\end{aligned}$$ This gives the upper bound of (\[A2\]).
Let us mention that results analogous to Theorem \[theo:2\] and Corollary \[cor:2\] above also hold for Banach space valued indefinite integration (see [@DH12] for the definition) and for the solution of initial value problems for Banach space valued ordinary differential equations [@Hei12]. Indeed, an inspection of the respective proofs together with Lemma \[lem:2\] of the present paper shows that Proposition 2 of [@DH12] also holds with $\tau_p(X)$ replaced by $\sigma_{p,n}(X)$, and similarly Proposition 3.4 of [@Hei12]. Moreover, in both papers the lower bounds on $e_n^{{\rm ran }}$ are obtained by reduction to (definite) integration and thus the righ-hand side inequality of (\[A2\]) carries over directly.
[99.]{} J. Bourgain, N. J. Kalton, L. Tzafriri, Geometry of finite dimensional subspaces and quotients of $L_p$, GAFA 1987/88, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1376, Springer, 1989, 138–175.
Th. Daun, S. Heinrich, Complexity of Banach space valued and parametric integration, to appear in the Proceedings of Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2012.
S. Heinrich, Monte Carlo approximation of weakly singular integral operators, J. Complexity 22 (2006), 192–219.
S. Heinrich, The randomized information complexity of elliptic PDE, J. Complexity 22 (2006), 220–249.
S. Heinrich, Complexity of initial value problems in Banach spaces, J. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 9 (2013), 73–101.
R. C. James, Nonreflexive spaces of type $2$, Israel J. Math. 30 (1978), 1–13.
M. Ledoux, M. Talagrand, Probability in Banach Spaces, Springer, 1991.
V. Mascioni, On weak cotype and weak type in Banach spaces. Note di Mat. (Lecce) 8 (1988), 67–110.
B. Maurey, G. Pisier, Series de variables aléatoires vectorielles independantes et propriétés geométriques des espaces de Banach, Stud. Math. 58, 45-90 (1976).
E. Novak, Deterministic and Stochastic Error Bounds in Numerical Analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1349, Springer, 1988.
E. Novak, H. Woźniakowski, Tractability of Multivariate Problems, Volume 2, Standard Information for Functionals, European Math. Soc., Zürich, 2010.
J. F. Traub, G. W. Wasilkowski, and H. Woźniakowski, Information-Based Complexity, Academic Press, New York, 1988.
L. Tzafriri, On the type and cotype of Banach spaces, Israel J. Math. 32 (1979), 32–38.
Appendix
========
In this appendix we recall some basic notions of information-based complexity – the framework we used above. We refer to [@Nov88; @TWW88] for more on this subject and to [@Hei05a; @Hei05b] for the particular notation applied here. First we introduce the class of deterministic adaptive algorithms of varying cardinality $
\mathcal{A}^{\det}(C(Q,X),X)
$. It consists of tuples $
A=((L_i)_{i=1}^\infty, ({\varrho }_i)_{i=0}^\infty,({\varphi }_i)_{i=0}^\infty),
$ with $
L_1\in Q$, ${\varrho }_0\in\{0,1\}$, ${\varphi }_0\in X$ and $$L_i : X^{i-1}\to Q\quad (i=2,3,\dots),\quad
{\varrho }_i: X^i\to \{0,1\},\;
{\varphi }_i: X^i\to X \quad (i=1,2,\dots)$$ being arbitrary mappings. To each $f\in C(Q,X)$, we associate a sequence $(t_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ with $t_i\in Q$ as follows: $$t_1=L_1, \quad
t_i=L_i(f(t_1),\dots,f(t_{i-1}))\quad(i\ge 2).$$ Define ${{\rm card}}(A,f)$, the cardinality of $A$ at input $f$, to be $0$ if ${\varrho }_0=1$. If ${\varrho }_0=0$, let ${{\rm card}}(A,f)$ be the first integer $n\ge 1$ with $
{\varrho }_n(f(t_1),\dots,f(t_n))=1,
$ if there is such an $n$, and ${{\rm card}}(A,f)=+\infty$ otherwise. For $f\in C(Q,X)$ with ${{\rm card}}(A,f)<\infty$ we define the output $Af$ of algorithm $A$ at input $f$ as $$Af=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
{\varphi }_0 & \mbox{if} \quad n=0 \\
{\varphi }_n(f(t_1),\dots,f(t_n)) &\mbox{if} \quad n\ge 1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Let $r\in {{\mathbb N}}_0$. Given $n\in{{\mathbb N}}_0$, we let $\mathcal{A}_n^{\det}(B_{C^r(Q,X)},X)$ be the set of those $A\in \mathcal{A}^{\det}(C(Q,X),X)$ for which $$\max_{f\in B_{C^r(Q,X)}} \,{{\rm card}}(A,f)\le n.$$ The error of $A\in \mathcal{A}_n^{\det}(B_{C^r(Q,X)},X)$ as an approximation of $S^X$ is defined as $$e(S^X,A,B_{C^r(Q,X)})=\sup_{f\in B_{C^r(Q,X)}} \|S^Xf-Af\|.$$ The deterministic $n$-th minimal error of $S^X$ is defined for $n\in{{\mathbb N}}_0$ as $$e_n^{{\rm det }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})=\inf_{A\in\mathcal{A}_n^{{\rm det }}(B_{C^r(Q,X)}) }
e(S^X,A,B_{C^r(Q,X)}).$$ It follows that no deterministic algorithm that uses at most $n$ function values can have a smaller error than $e_n^{{\rm det }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})$.
Next we introduce the class of randomized adaptive algorithms of varying cardinality $
\mathcal{A}_n^{{{\rm ran }}}(B_{C^r(Q,X)},X),
$ consisting of tuples $
A=((\Omega,\Sigma,{{\mathbb P}}),(A_\omega)_{\omega\in \Omega}),
$ where $(\Omega,\Sigma,{{\mathbb P}})$ is a probability space, $
A_\omega\in \mathcal{A}^{\det}(C(Q,X),X)
$ for all $\omega\in \Omega$, and for each $f\in B_{C^r(Q,X)}$ the mapping $
\omega\in\Omega\to {{\rm card}}(A_\omega, f)
$ is $\Sigma$-measurable and satisfies $
{{\mathbb E}\,}\,{{\rm card}}(A_\omega, f)\le n.
$ Moreover, the mapping $
\omega\in\Omega\to A_\omega f\in X
$ is $\Sigma$-to-Borel measurable and essentially separably valued, i.e., there is a separable subspace $X_0\subseteq X$ such that $A_\omega f\in X_0$ for ${{\mathbb P}}$-almost all $\omega \in \Omega$. The error of $A\in\mathcal{A}_n^{{{\rm ran }}}(C(Q,X),X)$ in approximating $S^X$ on $B_{C^r(Q,X)}$ is defined as $$e(S^X,A,B_{C^r(Q,X)}) =
\sup_{f \in B_{C^r(Q,X)}} \,{{\mathbb E}\,}\| S^Xf- A_\omega f\|,$$ and the randomized $n$-th minimal error of $S^X$ as $$e_n^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)})=\inf_{A\in\mathcal{A}_n^{{\rm ran }}(B_{C^r(Q,X)}) }
e(S^X,A,B_{C^r(Q,X)}).$$ Consequently, no randomized algorithm that uses (on the average) at most $n$ function values has an error smaller than $e_n^{{\rm ran }}(S^X,B_{C^r(Q,X)},X)$.
Define for ${\varepsilon }>0$ the information complexity as $$n_{\varepsilon }^{{\rm ran }}(S,B_{C^r(Q,X)})
=\min\{n\in{{\mathbb N}}_0:\,e_n^{{\rm ran }}(S,B_{C^r(Q,X)})\le {\varepsilon }\},$$ if there is such an $n$, and $
n_{\varepsilon }^{{\rm ran }}(S,B_{C^r(Q,X)})=+\infty,
$ if there is no such $n$. Thus, if $n_{\varepsilon }^{{\rm ran }}(S,B_{C^r(Q,X)})<\infty$, it follows that any algorithm with error $\le {\varepsilon }$ needs at least $n_{\varepsilon }^{{\rm ran }}(S,B_{C^r(Q,X)})$ function values, while $n_{\varepsilon }^{{\rm ran }}(S,B_{C^r(Q,X)})=+\infty$ means that no algorithm at all has error $\le {\varepsilon }$. The information complexity is essentially the inverse function of the $n$-th minimal error. So determining the latter means determining the information complexity of the problem.
Let us also mention the subclasses consisting of quadrature formulas. Let $n\ge 1$. A mapping $A:C(Q,X)\to X$ is called a deterministic quadrature formula with $n$ nodes, if there are $t_i\in Q$ and $a_i\in {{\mathbb K}}$ ($1\le i\le n$) such that $$A f= \sum_{i=1}^n \, a_if(t_i) \quad(f\in C(Q,X)).$$ In terms of the definition of $\mathcal{A}^{{\rm det }}(C(Q,X),X)$ this means that the respective functions $L_i$ and ${\varrho }_i$ are constant, $
{\varrho }_0={\varrho }_1=\dots={\varrho }_{n-1}=0$, ${\varrho }_n=1$, and ${\varphi }_n$ has the form ${\varphi }_n(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\sum_{i=1}^n a_ix_i$. Clearly, $A\in \mathcal{A}_n^{{{\rm det }}}(B_{C^r(Q,X)}, X)$.
A tupel $A=((\Omega,\Sigma,{{\mathbb P}}),(A_\omega)_{\omega\in \Omega})$ is called a randomized quadrature with $n$ nodes if there exist random variables $t_i:\Omega\to Q$ and $a_i:\Omega\to {{\mathbb K}}$ ($1\le i\le n$) with $$A_\omega f= \sum_{i=1}^n \, a_i(\omega)f(t_i(\omega)) \quad(f\in C(Q,X),\,\omega\in \Omega).$$ For each such $A$ we have $A\in \mathcal{A}_n^{{{\rm ran }}}(B_{C^r(Q,X)}, X)$. Finally we note that the algorithms $A^{r,X}_{n,\omega}$ defined in (\[A8\]) and (\[A9\]) are quadratures. Indeed, for $A^{0,X}_{n,\omega}$ given by (\[A8\]) this is obvious. For $r\ge 1$ we represent $P_k^{r,X}\in \mathscr{L}(C(Q,X))$ as $$P_k^{r,X}f= \sum_{j=1}^{M}f(u_j)\psi_j(t)$$ with $M\le ck^d$, $u_j\in Q$, $\psi_j\in C(Q)$ ($1\le i\le M$), and obtain, setting $b_j=\int_Q \psi_j(t)dt$, $$\begin{aligned}
A^{r,X}_{n,\omega}f
&=&
S^X(P_k^{r,X}f)+A^{0,X}_{n,\omega}(f-P_k^{r,X}f)\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_{j=1}^{M}b_jf(u_j)+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(f(\xi_i(\omega))-\left(P_k^{r,X}f\right)(\xi_i(\omega))\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^{M}b_jf(u_j)+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n f(\xi_i(\omega))-\sum_{j=1}^{M}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\psi_j(\xi_i(\omega))\right)f(u_j).\label{D2}\end{aligned}$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'An alternative proof of the duality of generalized Lie bialgebroid is given and proved a canonical Jacobi structure can be defined on the base of it. We also introduce the notion of morphism between generalized Lie bialgebroids and proved that the induced Jacobi structure is unique upto a morphism.'
address: 'Stat-Math Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700108, West Bengal, India.'
author:
- Apurba Das
title:
-
- On Generalized Lie Bialgebroids
---
Introduction
============
The notion of Lie bialgebroid is introduced by Mackenzie and Xu [@3] as a generalization of Lie bialgebra and infinitesimal version of Poisson groupoid. Roughly, a Lie bialgebroid is a Lie algebroid $A$ over $M$ such that its dual vector bundle $A^*$ also carries a Lie algebroid structure which is compatible in a certain way with that of $A$. It is shown in [@3], [@5] that, if $(A, A^*)$ satisfy the criteria for Lie bialgebroid, then $(A^*, A)$ also satisfy the similar criteria. As an example, if $(M, \pi)$ is a Poisson manifold, then $(TM, T^*M)$ forms a Lie bialgebroid, where $T M$ is the usual tangent Lie algebroid and $ T^*M$ is the Lie algebroid given in the example 2.4 (iii). As a kind of converse, it is also proved that the base space of a Lie bialgebroid carries natural Poisson structure.\
For any smooth manifold $M$, the vector bundle $ TM \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow M $ has a natural Lie algebroid structure with $\phi_0 = (0,1) \in \Gamma (T^*M \times \mathbb{R}) = \Omega ^{1} (M) \times \mathbb{R} $ as its 1-cocycle. Moreover, if $(M, \Lambda, E)$ is a Jacobi manifold, then the 1-jet bundle $T^*M \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow M $ admits a Lie algebroid structure (example 2.4(iv)) and $X_0 = (-E,0) \in \Gamma (TM \times \mathbb{R})$ is a 1-cocycle of it. In general, the pair $(TM \times \mathbb{R}, T^*M \times \mathbb{R})$ is not a Lie bialgebroid. However if we consider the Lie algebroids $TM \times \mathbb{R}$ and $T^*M \times \mathbb{R}$ together with 1-cocycles $\phi_0 = (0, 1)$ and $X_0 = (-E, 0)$ respectively, then they satisfy some compatibility condition. Motivated from this, Iglesias and Marrero [@1] introduced the notion of generalized Lie bialgebroid, so that Jacobi manifold constitutes a generalized Lie bialgebroid. Roughly, a generalized Lie bialgebroid is a pair $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$, where $A$ is a Lie algebroid with 1-cocycle $\phi_0 \in \Gamma A^*$, and the dual vector bundle $A^*$ also carries a Lie algebroid structure with $X_0 \in \Gamma A$ as its 1-cocycle and satisfy some compatibility condition in the presence of 1-cocycles. If $\phi_0 = 0$ and $X_0 = 0$, we recover the definition the Lie bialgebroid. Using the duality result of Lie bialgebroid, it is also proved in [@1] that if $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ is a generalized Lie bialgebroid, then $((A^*, X_0), (A, \phi_0))$ is also a generalized Lie bialgebroid (i.e, self-dual). Moreover the base of a generalized Lie bialgebroid carries a natural Jacobi structure.
In this paper, we give a direct proof of the fact that, the concept of generalized Lie bialgebroid is a self-dual without assuming self duality property of Lie bialgebroid and a canonical Jacobi structure is induced on the base of a generalized Lie bialgebroid. We also introduce the notion of morphism between generalized Lie bialgebroids and proved that the induced Jacobi structure is unique upto a morphism.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we recall few defintions and examples. In section 3, we mainly summarize the calculas on lie algebroids in the presence of 1-cocyle. In section 4, we prove the duality of generalized Lie bialgebroid and induced Jacobi structure on the base. Here we also introduce generalized Lie bialgebroid morphism and proved a theorem. Section 5 consists of Triangular Lie bialgebroids.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we recall the definition of Jacobi manifolds [@1], Lie algebroids and Lie bialgebroids ([@3], [@4]).
\[jacobi manifold\] Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. A Jacobi structure on M $(2 \leqslant dim M)$ is a bilinear skew symmetric map $$\{. , .\} : C^\infty(M) \times C^\infty(M) \rightarrow C^\infty(M)$$ satisfying\
(i) first order diffrential operator in each argument : $$\{fg , h \} = f \{g ,h \} + g \{f ,h \} - fg \{1 ,h \}$$ (ii) Jacobi identity : $$\{\{f,g\},h\} + \{\{g,h\},f\} + \{\{h,f\},g\} = 0$$ for all $f, g, h \in C^\infty(M).$ A manifold $M$ endowed with such a bracket is called a Jacobi manifold.\
If $(M, \{ , \})$ is a Jacobi manifold, then from the skew symmetry and property (i) of the bracket, one can associate a bivector field $\Lambda$ and a vector field $E$ on $M$ such that $$E(\delta f) = \{1, f\}$$ $$\Lambda (\delta f,\delta g) = \{f,g\} - f E(g) + g E(f)$$
Note that if $E = 0,$ then (M,$\Lambda$) is Poisson manifold [@9].
\(i) Any Poisson manifold is a Jacobi manifold with $E= 0$.\
(ii) Contact manifolds and l.c.s manifolds are also Jacobi manifolds [@2].
\[lie algebroid\] A Lie algebroid $(A, [~, ~], \rho)$ over a manifold M is a vector bundle $A$ over M together with a bundle map $\rho : A \rightarrow T M $ , called the anchor and a Lie algebra structure $[~, ~]$ on the space $\Gamma(A)$ of the sections of $A,$ such that\
i) the induced map $ \rho : \Gamma(A) \rightarrow \mathfrak{X}(M) $ is a Lie algebra homomorphism;\
ii) for any $f \in C^\infty (M)$ and $ X, Y \in \Gamma(A) $, then\
$$[X, f Y ] = f [X, Y ] + (\rho(X)f )Y.$$
\(i) any Lie algebra can be considered as a Lie algebroid over a point.\
(ii) For any smooth manifold $M$, its tangent bundle $T M$ is a lie algebroid over $M$ with usual lie bracket on vector fields and the identity map as the anchor map.\
(iii) Let $(M, \pi)$ be a Poisson manifold and $\pi ^{\sharp} : T^*M \rightarrow T M$ be the bundle map given by $\langle \beta, \pi ^{\sharp} (\alpha) \rangle = \pi (\alpha, \beta)$, then $(T^* (M), [~, ~]_{\pi}, \pi ^{\sharp})$ is a Lie Algebroid over $M$ [@9], where $[~ , ~]_{\pi}$ is the bracket of 1-forms defined by $$[\alpha, \beta ]_{\pi} = \mathcal{L}_{\pi ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta - \mathcal{L}_{\pi ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha - \delta (\pi(\alpha, \beta))$$ We denote this Lie algebroid by $T^*M |_{\pi}$.\
(iv) Let $(M, \Lambda, E)$ be a Jacobi manifold, then $T^*M \times \mathbb {R}$ has a Lie algebroid structure $(T^* (M) \times \mathbb {R}, \textlbrackdbl ~ , ~ \textrbrackdbl_{(\Lambda, E)}, \rho_{(\Lambda, E)})$ [@1], where the bracket and anchor is given by\
$$\textlbrackdbl (\alpha, f), (\beta, g) \textrbrackdbl_{(\Lambda, E)} = (\mathcal{L}_{\Lambda ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta - \mathcal{L}_{\Lambda ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha - \delta (\Lambda(\alpha, \beta))+ f \mathcal{L}_E {\beta}\\ - g \mathcal{L}_E {\alpha} - \iota_E (\alpha \wedge \beta) ,$$ $$\Lambda(\beta, \alpha) + \Lambda ^{\sharp} (\alpha)(g) - \Lambda ^{\sharp} (\beta) (f) + f E(g) - g E(f))$$ and $$\rho_{(\Lambda, E)} (\alpha, f) = \Lambda ^{\sharp} (\alpha) + f E$$ for all $(\alpha, f), (\beta, g) \in \Gamma(T^*M \times \mathbb {R}) = \Omega ^1 (M) \times \mathbb {R}.$ When $E= 0$, this reduces to the Lie algebroid on $T^*M$ associated to the poisson manifold $(M, \Lambda)$ defined above. \[example (iii)\]\
Given a Lie algebroid $(A, [~, ~], \rho)$, the exterior algebra of multisections of A, $\Gamma (\wedge ^ {\bullet} A)$, together with the generalized Schouten bracket, forms a Gerstenhaber algebra [@4]. Moreover $\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet} A^*)$ together with the Lie algebroid differential $d$ forms a differential graded algebra, where the differential $d$ has the explicit formula similar to the Cartan differential formula\
$$(d \alpha)(X_0, X_1, \ldots, X_n) = \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^{i} \rho (X_i) \alpha(X_0, .., \hat {X_i},.., X_n)$$ $$+ \sum_{i < j} (-1)^{i+j} \alpha ([X_i,X_j], X_0,.., \hat {X_i},.., \hat {X_j},.., X_n)$$ where $\alpha \in \Gamma(\wedge ^n A^*)$, and $X_0, \ldots, X_n \in \Gamma(A)$. When $A= TM$ is the usual tangent bundle Lie algebroid, denote the differential of the Lie algebroid (i.e, de Rham differential of the manifold) by $\delta$.\
\[lie bialgebroid\] A Lie bialgebroid is a pair $(A, A^*)$ of Lie algebroids in duality, where the differential $d_{*}$ on $\Gamma (\wedge^{\bullet} A)$ defined by the Lie algebroid structure of $A^*$ and the Gerstenhaber bracket on $\Gamma (\wedge^{\bullet} A)$ defined by the Lie algebroid structure of $A$ satisfies\
$$d_{*} [X, Y] = [d_{*} X , Y] + [X, d_{*}Y]$$ for all $X, Y \in \Gamma A.$
\(i) Any Lie bialgebra is a Lie bialgebroid over a point.\
(ii) Let $(M, \pi)$ be Poisson manifold, the $(TM, T^{*} M)$ is a lie bialgebroid, where $T M$ is the usual tangent Lie algebroid and $T^{*} M$ is the Lie algebroid given in the example 2.4 (iii).\
(iii) Let $(M, \pi, N)$ is a Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold, that is $\pi$ is a Poisson structure on $M$ and $N$ is a Nijenhuis operator on $M$ which are compatible, then $(TM |_{N}, T^*M |_{\pi})$ forms a Lie bialgebroid, where $TM |_{N}$ is the Lie algebroid structure on the tangent bundle deformed by the Nijenhuis operator $N$, and $T^*M |_{\pi}$ is the Lie algebroid structure on the cotangent bundle induced from the Poisson structure. (see [@6] for more details).
Cartan calculas on Lie algebroid in the presence of 1-cocycle
=============================================================
[**Identification**]{}:
Let $A \rightarrow M$ be a smooth vector bundle over $M$. Then one can identify the smooth sections of the vector bundle $\wedge^r(A\times \mathbb R) $ with $\Gamma(\wedge^rA) \oplus \Gamma (\wedge^{r-1}A)$, and smooth sections of $\wedge^k(A^\ast\times \mathbb R)$ with $\Gamma(\wedge^kA^\ast) \oplus \Gamma (\wedge^{k-1}A^\ast)$ such that\
$$(P, Q)((\alpha_1, f_1), \ldots , (\alpha_r, f_r)) = P(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r) + \sum_{i=1}^r (-1)^{i+1}f_iQ(\alpha_1, \ldots,\hat{\alpha}_i, \ldots, \alpha_r),$$ $$(\alpha, \beta)((X_1, g_1), \ldots , (X_k, g_k)) = \alpha(X_1, \ldots, X_k) + \sum_{j=1}^k (-1)^{j+1}g_j\beta(X_1, \ldots,\hat{X}_j, \ldots, X_k),$$ for $(P, Q) \in \Gamma(\wedge^rA) \oplus \Gamma (\wedge^{r-1}A), (\alpha ,\beta) \in \Gamma(\wedge^kA^\ast) \oplus \Gamma (\wedge^{k-1}A^\ast),$ $(\alpha_i, f_i) \in \Gamma(A^\ast) \oplus C^{\infty}(M, \mathbb R)$ and $(X_j, g_j) \in \Gamma (A)\oplus C^{\infty}(M, \mathbb R)$.
Under the above identifications, the contraction and the exterior product are given by
$$\iota_{(\alpha, \beta)}(P, Q) = (\iota_{\alpha}P + \iota_{\beta}Q, (-1)^k \iota_{\alpha}Q)$$ $$(P, Q) \wedge (P', Q') = (P\wedge P', Q\wedge P' + (-1)^r P\wedge Q'),$$ for $(P', Q') \in \Gamma\wedge^{r'}A \oplus \Gamma{\wedge^{r'-1}A}$.
Now for a Lie algebroid $(A, [~,~], \rho)$ over $M$, a Lie algebroid structure on $A \times \mathbb R$ is described as $$[(X,f),(Y,g)] = ([X, Y], \rho(X)g - \rho(Y)f),~~\tilde{\rho}(X,f) = \rho(X),$$ where $X,~Y \in \Gamma A,~~ f,~g \in C^{\infty}(M).$ With the above identifications, the coboundary operator $\tilde{d}$ of the cohomology of $A \times {\mathbb{R}}$ is given by $$\tilde{d} (\alpha, \beta) = (d\alpha, -d\beta),~~ (\alpha, \beta) \in \Gamma {\wedge^k(A^\ast \times \mathbb R)}\cong \Gamma (\wedge^kA^\ast) \oplus \Gamma (\wedge^{k-1}A^\ast).$$\
[**Cartan calculas in presence of 1-cocycle**]{}:
Let $(A, [~,~], \rho)$ be a Lie algebroid over $M$ and let $\phi \in \Gamma A^\ast$ be a $1$-cocycle. Then $$\phi([X, Y]) = \rho (X)(\phi(Y)) -\rho(Y) (\phi (X)), ~~ \mbox{for all}~~ X, Y \in \Gamma A.$$ Hence, one has a representation $$\rho^{\phi} : \Gamma A \times C^{\infty}(M) \longrightarrow C^{\infty}(M)$$ of $A$ on the trivial line bundle twisted by $\phi$ given by $$\rho^{\phi}(X)f = \rho(X)f + \phi(X)f,~~ \mbox{for}~~ X\in \Gamma A,~ f \in C^{\infty}(M).$$ The coboundary operator of $A$ associated to this representation is denoted by $d^{\phi}$ is called $\phi$- deformed differential and is related to $d$ by the formula $$d^{\phi}\alpha = d \alpha + \phi\wedge \alpha$$
Using the $\phi$-deformed differential and Cartan’s formula, one defines the $\phi$-deformed Lie derivative $\mathcal L^{\phi}_X : \Gamma {\wedge^{p} A^{\ast}} \rightarrow \Gamma {\wedge^{p} A^\ast}$ by $$\mathcal L^{\phi}_X (\alpha) = d^{\phi}(\iota_X\alpha) + \iota_X(d^{\phi}\alpha), ~~ \mbox{for}~~ X \in \Gamma A,~ \alpha \in \Gamma {\wedge^pA^{\ast}}.$$
Then we have:\
(i) $d^{\phi} (\alpha \wedge \beta) = d^{\phi}\alpha \wedge \beta + (-1)^{|\alpha|} \alpha \wedge d^{\phi}\beta - \phi \wedge \alpha \wedge \beta$\
(ii) $\mathcal L^{\phi}_X f\alpha = f \mathcal L^{\phi}_X \alpha + \rho(X)f \alpha$\
(iii) $ \mathcal L^{\phi}_{fX} \alpha = f L^{\phi}_X \alpha + df \wedge \iota_X \alpha $\
(iv) $\mathcal L^{\phi}_X (\alpha \wedge \beta) = \mathcal L^{\phi}_X (\alpha) \wedge \beta + \alpha \wedge \mathcal L^{\phi}_X (\beta) - \phi (X) \alpha \wedge \beta $
One also has the $\phi$-deformed Schouten bracket on the space of multisection of $A$, defined by $$[P,P']^{\phi} = [P, P'] + (r-1) P\wedge \iota_{\phi}P' - (-1)^{r-1}(r'-1)(\iota_{\phi}P)\wedge P',$$ where $P\in \Gamma{\wedge^rA}$, $P' \in \Gamma{\wedge^{r'}} A.$
([@7]) Let $(A, [~,~], \rho)$ be a Lie algebroid and $\phi \in \Gamma A^\ast$ be a $1$-cocycle. The $\phi$-deformed Schouten bracket satisfies\
(i) $[X, f]^{\phi} = (\rho^{\phi}(X))f$\
(ii) $[X, Y]^{\phi} = [X, Y]$\
(iii) $[P, P']^{\phi} = -(-1)^{(r-1)(r'-1)}[P', P]^{\phi}$\
(iv) $[P, P'\wedge P'']^{\phi} = [P, P']^{\phi} \wedge P'' + (-1)^{(r-1)r'}P' \wedge [P, P'']^{\phi} - (\iota_{\phi}P)\wedge P' \wedge P''$\
where $f \in C^{\infty}(M)$, $X,~ Y \in \Gamma A$, $P \in \Gamma {\wedge^r A}$, $P' \in \Gamma {\wedge^{r'}} A$, $P'' \in \Gamma {\wedge^{r''}} A.$
Then one can define $\phi$-deformed Lie derivative $\mathcal{L}_X^{\phi} : \Gamma{\wedge^r A} \rightarrow \Gamma{\wedge^r A} $ by $$\mathcal{L}_X^{\phi} P = [X, P]^{\phi}$$ which has the analogous properties of Lie derivaties on multisections twisted by $\phi$.
Generalized Lie Bialgebroid and induced Jacobi structure
========================================================
Let $(A, [.,.], \rho)$ be a Lie algebroid over $M$ and $\phi_0 \in \Gamma(A^*)$ a 1-cocyle. Assume that the dual bundle $A^*$ also admits a Lie algebroid structure $([.,.]_*, \rho_*)$ and $X_0 \in \Gamma(A)$ is its 1-cocyle. Denote the Lie derivative of the Lie algebroid $A$ (resp. $A^*$) is denoted by $\mathcal{L}$ (resp. $\mathcal{L}_{*}$).
[@1] The pair $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ is said to be a generalized Lie bialgebroid over $M$ if for all $X, Y \in \Gamma(A)$ and $P \in \Gamma(\wedge^ p A)$ $$d_* ^{X_0} [X,Y] = [d_* ^{X_0} X , Y]^{\phi_0} + [X , d_* ^{X_0} Y]^{\phi_0}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0}^{X_0} P + \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{X_0} P = 0$$
\(i) The condition (2) of the above definition is equivalent to $$\phi_0 (X_0) = 0, \rho(X_0) = - \rho_{*} (\phi_0)\\$$ and $$\mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0} X + [X_0 , X] = 0$$
for all $ X \in \Gamma A .$ These follows from (2) by applying $ P = f \in C^\infty(M) $ and $ P = X \in \Gamma A $\
\
(ii) When $\phi_0 = 0$ and $X_0 = 0,$ we recover the definition of Lie bialgebroid introduced by Mackenzie and Xu [@3].\
Let $(M, \Lambda, E)$ be a Jacobi manifold, then the pair $((T M \times \mathbb{R}, (0,1)), (T^*M \times \mathbb{R}, (-E,0)))$ is a generalized Lie bialgebroid. [@1]\
Another interesting example of generalized Lie bialgebroid is the one provided by strict Jacobi-Nijenhuis manifolds [@8].\
Next we prove the self duality property of generalized Lie bialgebroid. The result will follow from the following sequence of lemmas.\
Let $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ be a generalized Lie bialgebroid over $M$, then for all $f, g \in C^\infty (M), X \in \Gamma(A)$ and $\xi , \eta \in \Gamma(A^*),$ we have
\[1\] $$d_* ^{X_0} [X,f]^{\phi_0} = [d_* ^{X_0} X , f]^{\phi_0} + [X , d_* ^{X_0} f]^{\phi_0} \\$$
Since for any arbitrary $ Y \in \Gamma(A) $, we have $$d_* ^{X_0} [X,fY] = [d_* ^{X_0} X , fY]^{\phi_0} + [X , d_* ^{X_0} (fY)]^{\phi_0}$$ Expand both sides using the derivation property of Lie algebroids, $\phi_0$-deformed bracket of $A$ and $X_0$-deformed differential of $A^*$. Now using the conditions of the generalized Lie bialgebroid (proposition 3.4 in [@1]), we have $$\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* d^{\phi_0}f} X = [X, d^{X_0}_{*}f]$$ which is same as $$\iota_{d^{\phi_0}f} d^{X_0}_{*}X + d^{X_0}_{*} \iota_{d^{\phi_0}f} X = [X, d^{X_0}_{*}f]$$ $$- [d^{X_0}_{*}X, f]^{\phi_0} + d^{X_0}_{*} \langle d^{\phi_0}f, X \rangle = [X, d^{X_0}_{*}f]$$ $$d^{X_0}_{*} [X,f]^{\phi_0} = [d^{X_0}_{*}X, f]^{\phi_0} + [X, d^{X_0}_{*}f]^{\phi_0}$$
\[2\] $$\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* d ^{\phi_0}f} X + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} X = 0$$
since $ d_* ^{X_0} [X,f]^{\phi_0} = [d_* ^{X_0} X , f]^{\phi_0} + [X , d_* ^{X_0} f]^{\phi_0} $\
we have $[d_* ^{X_0} f , X]^{\phi_0} + d_* ^{X_0} [X,f]^{\phi_0} - [d_* ^{X_0} X , f]^{\phi_0} = 0 $\
which is equivalent to $$[d_* ^{X_0} f , X]^{\phi_0} + d_* ^{X_0} [X,f]^{\phi_0} - [d_* ^{X_0} X , f] + f \iota_{\phi_0} d_* ^{X_0} X = 0$$ $$[d_* ^{X_0} f , X]^{\phi_0} + d_* ^{X_0} [X,f]^{\phi_0} + \iota_{df} d_* ^{X_0} X + f \iota_{\phi_0} d_* ^{X_0} X = 0$$ (since, $[a, f] = - \iota_{df} a$ for any $ a \in \Gamma{\wedge^2A})$ $$[d_* ^{X_0} f , X]^{\phi_0} + d_* ^{X_0} \iota_{d^{\phi_0} f} X + \iota_{d^{\phi_0} f} d_* ^{X_0} X = 0$$ $$\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_{*}^{X_0} f} X + \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} X = 0$$
\[3\] $$\langle d^{X_0}_{*} f, d^{\phi_0} g \rangle + \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d^{X_0}_{*} g \rangle = 0$$
Choose any arbitrary $Y \in \Gamma(A)$, from (6) we have $$\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_{*}^{X_0} f} (gY) + \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} (gY) - g ( \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_{*}^{X_0} f} Y + \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y) = 0$$ therefore, $ [{d_{*}^{X_0} f}, gY]^{\phi_0} + g \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y + \rho_{*}(d^{\phi_0} f)g Y - g ( \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_{*}^{X_0} f} Y + \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y ) = 0 $ $$[{d_{*}^{X_0} f}, gY]^{\phi_0} + g \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y + \rho_{*}(d^{\phi_0} f)g Y - g ( \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_{*}^{X_0} f} Y + \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y ) = 0$$ $$g [{d_{*}^{X_0} f}, Y] + \rho(d_* ^{X_0} f)g Y + g \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y + \rho_{*}(d^{\phi_0} f)g Y - g ( \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_{*}^{X_0} f} Y + \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} Y) = 0$$ since $Y$ is arbitrary, this implies $$\rho(d_* ^{X_0} f)g + \rho_{*}(d^{\phi_0} f)g = 0$$ $$\langle d_* ^{X_0} f , dg \rangle + \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d_{*}g \rangle = 0$$ $$\langle d_* ^{X_0} f , d^{\phi_0} g \rangle - \langle d_* ^{X_0} f , g \phi_0 \rangle + \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d_{*}^{X_0} g \rangle - \langle d^{\phi_0} f , g X_0 \rangle = 0$$ $$\langle d_* ^{X_0} f , d^{\phi_0} g \rangle + \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d_{*}^{X_0} g \rangle - g \langle d_{*}f, \phi_0 \rangle - g \langle df, X_0 \rangle = 0$$ $$(\because \langle \phi_0 , X_0 \rangle = 0)$$ that is, $ \langle d_* ^{X_0} f , d^{\phi_0} g \rangle + \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d_{*}^{X_0} g \rangle = 0 ~~ (\because \rho(X_0) = - \rho_{*}(\phi_0))$
\[4\] $$\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} \xi + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} \xi = 0$$
since for any function $g \in C^\infty(M)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} g + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} g =& \iota_{d ^{\phi_0}f} d_{*}^{X_0} g + \iota_{d_* ^{X_0} f} d^{\phi_0} g \\
=& \langle d ^{\phi_0}f , d_* ^{X_0} g \rangle + \langle d_* ^{X_0} f , d^{\phi_0} g \rangle = 0 \end{aligned}$$ therefore the result follows from (6) and the identity $$(\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f}) \langle \xi , X \rangle = \langle \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} \xi + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} \xi , X \rangle +
\langle \xi , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} X + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} X \rangle$$
\[5\] $$d^{\phi_0} [\xi, f]_{*}^{X_0} = [ d^{\phi_0} \xi , f]_{*}^{X_0} + [\xi, d^{\phi_0} f]_{*}^{X_0}$$
since we have $\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{*{d ^{\phi_0}}f} \xi + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} \xi = 0$\
therefore, $ [d^{\phi_0}f, \xi]_{*}^{X_0} + d^{\phi_0} \iota_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} \xi + \iota_{d^{X_0}_{*}f} d^{\phi_0} \xi = 0 $\
which is equivalent to $$[d^{\phi_0}f, \xi]_{*}^{X_0} + d^{\phi_0} [\xi, f]_{*}^{X_0} + \iota_{d_{*}f} d^{\phi_0} \xi + \iota_{fX_0} d^{\phi_0} \xi = 0$$ $$[d^{\phi_0}f, \xi]_{*}^{X_0} + d^{\phi_0} [\xi, f]_{*}^{X_0} - [d^{\phi_0} \xi, f]_{*} + f \iota_{X_0} d^{\phi_0} \xi = 0$$ $$[d^{\phi_0}f, \xi]_{*}^{X_0} + d^{\phi_0} [\xi, f]_{*}^{X_0} - [d^{\phi_0} \xi, f ]_{*}^{X_0}$$ $$d^{\phi_0} [\xi, f]_{*}^{X_0} = [d^{\phi_0} \xi, f ]_{*}^{X_0} + [d^{\phi_0} \xi, f]_{*}^{X_0}$$
\[6\] $$[\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi}] (f) - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} f + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} X} f = \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_* ^{X_0} \langle \xi , X \rangle} f$$
we first observe that, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} f = \iota_{\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} d_{*}^{X_0} f =& \langle \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \phi , d_{*}^{X_0} f \rangle \\
=& \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \langle \xi, d_{*}^{X_0} f \rangle - \langle \xi, \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} d_{*}^{X_0} f \rangle\\
=& \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} f - \langle \xi, [X, d_{*}^{X_0} f]^{\phi_0} \rangle\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} f - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} f = \langle \xi, [X, d_{*}^{X_0} f]^{\phi_0} \rangle $\
similarly one have, $ \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} f - \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} X} f = \langle [ \xi, d^{\phi_0}f]_{*}^{X_0} , X \rangle $\
By subtracting we get, $$[\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi}] f - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} f + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} X} f =
\langle \xi, [X, d_{*}^{X_0} f]^{\phi_0} \rangle - \langle [ \xi, d^{\phi_0}f]_{*}^{X_0} , X \rangle$$ on the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_* ^{X_0} \langle \xi , X \rangle} f = \langle d_* ^{X_0} \langle \xi , X \rangle, d^{\phi_0} f \rangle =& - \langle d_* ^{X_0} f, d^{\phi_0} \langle \xi , X \rangle \rangle \\
=& - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*} f} \langle \xi , X \rangle \\
=& - \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*} f} \xi , X \rangle - \langle \xi, \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{d^{X_0}_{*} f} X \rangle \\
=& \langle \mathcal{L}^{X_0}_{* d^{\phi_0}f} \xi, X \rangle - \langle \xi, [d^{X_0}_{*} f, X]^{\phi_0} \rangle \\
=& - \langle [ \xi, d^{\phi_0}f]_{*}^{X_0} , X \rangle + \langle \xi, [X, d^{X_0}_{*} f]^{\phi_0} \\\end{aligned}$$ hence the result follows.
Now we are in a position to state one of the main result of this paper:
$$d^{\phi_0} [\xi, \eta ]_{*} = [ d^{\phi_0} \xi , \eta ]_{*}^{X_0} + [\xi, d^{\phi_0} \eta ]_{*}^{X_0}$$
From (10) we have, $$([\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi}] - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} X}) \langle \eta , Y \rangle +
([\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{Y} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \eta}] - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{Y} \eta} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \eta} Y}) \langle \xi, X \rangle \\$$ $$= \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_* ^{X_0} \langle \xi , X \rangle} \langle \eta, Y \rangle + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{d_* ^{X_0} \langle \eta , Y \rangle} \langle \xi, X \rangle = 0$$
Now, a direct calculation similar to [@2], shows that\
$ (\mathcal{L}_{X}^{\phi_0} d_{*}^{X_0} Y - \mathcal{L}_{Y}^{\phi_0} d_{*}^{X_0} X - d_{*}^{X_0} [X,Y] ) (\xi, \eta)
- (\mathcal{L}_{* \xi}^{X_0} d^{\phi_0} \eta - \mathcal{L}_{* \eta}^{X_0} d^{\phi_0} \xi - d^{\phi_0} [\xi, \eta]_{*}) (X, Y)$\
$ = ([\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi}] - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \xi} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} X}) \langle \eta , Y \rangle +
([\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{Y} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \eta}] - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{Y} \eta} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \eta} Y}) \langle \xi, X \rangle $ $$- ([\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \eta}] - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{X} \eta} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \eta} X}) \langle \xi , Y \rangle -
([\mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{Y} , \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi}] - \mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{Y} \xi} + \mathcal{L} ^{\phi_0}_{\mathcal{L} ^{X_0}_{* \xi} Y}) \langle \eta, X \rangle$$
since $((A, \phi_0), (A^{*}, X_0))$ is a generalized Lie bialgebroid, therefore the first term of the left hand side vanish, and the right hand side of the above equality is also vanish because of (12).\
hence $\mathcal{L}_{* \xi}^{X_0} d^{\phi_0} \eta - \mathcal{L}_{* \eta}^{X_0} d^{\phi_0} \xi - d^{\phi_0} [\xi, \eta]_{*} = 0 $\
which is equivalent to $ d^{\phi_0} [\xi, \eta ]_{*} = [ d^{\phi_0} \xi , \eta ]_{*}^{X_0} + [\xi, d^{\phi_0} \eta ]_{*}^{X_0} $
[**Observation**]{}:\
In a generalized Lie bialgebroid, we have $$\mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } X + [X_0 , X] =0, ~~ \forall X \in \Gamma A .$$ that is, $\mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } X + \mathcal{L}_{X_0} X = 0 $\
again since we have the identity $$(\mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } + \mathcal{L}_{X_0})\langle \xi, X \rangle = \langle \mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } \xi+ \mathcal{L}_{X_0} \xi , X \rangle + \langle \xi , \mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } X + \mathcal{L}_{X_0} X \rangle$$ therefore we can conclude that, $$\mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } \xi+ \mathcal{L}_{X_0} \xi = 0$$ (since $ \mathcal{L}_{* \phi_0 } f+ \mathcal{L}_{X_0} f = \rho_{*}(\phi_0) f + \rho (X_0) f = 0 ,$ for any $f \in C^\infty (M) $)\
hence $ \mathcal{L}_{X_0} \xi + [\phi_0, \xi]_{*} = 0 ,$ for any $\xi \in \Gamma A^* .$\
From the previous proposition, equation (3) and the observation above, we have the following:
If $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ is a generalized Lie bialgebroid, then $((A^*, X_0), (A, \phi_0))$ is also a generalized Lie bialgebroid.
In the next we will prove that, there is a canonical Jacobi structure on the base of a generalized Lie bialgebroid.\
Let $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ be a generalized Lie bialgebroid. Define a bracket $$\{.,.\}: C^\infty (M) \times C^\infty (M) \rightarrow C^\infty (M)$$ by $$\{f,g\} = \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d^{X_0}_{*} g \rangle$$
The bracket defined above satisfies,\
$$d^{\phi_0} \{f,g\}= [d^{\phi_0} f, d^{\phi_0} g]_{*}$$ $$d_{*}^ {X_0} \{f,g\} = - [d_{*}^ {X_0}f , d_{*}^ {X_0} g]$$
since $ \{f,g\} = \langle d^{\phi_0} f , d^{X_0}_{*} g \rangle = \rho^{X_0}_{*} (d^{\phi_0} f) g = [d^{\phi_0} f , g ]_{*}^{X_0} $ $$\therefore d^{\phi_0} \{f,g\} = [d^{\phi_0} f , d^{\phi_0} g ]_{*}^{X_0} = [d^{\phi_0} f , d^{\phi_0} g ]_{*}$$ similarly, $ \{f,g\} = \rho^{\phi_0} (d_{*}^ {X_0} g) f = [d_{*}^ {X_0} g , f]^{\phi_0} $ $$\therefore d_{*}^ {X_0} \{f,g\} = [d_{*}^ {X_0} g , d_{*}^ {X_0} f]^{\phi_0} = - [d_{*}^ {X_0} f , d_{*}^ {X_0} g]$$
Let $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ be a generalized Lie bialgebroid, then the bracket defined above is a Jacobi structure on the base manifold M.
The bracket is skew-symmetric follows from (7). It is also easy to check that, the bracket satisfies the first order differential operator on each argument.\
To prove the Jacobi identity of the bracket, for any $f \in C^\infty (M),$ define $$X_{f} = - d_{*}^{X_0} f \in \Gamma A$$ then $ \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X_{f})g = - \rho ^ {\phi_0} (d_{*}^{X_0} f) g = - \langle d^{\phi_0} g, d_{*}^{X_0} f \rangle = \{ f, g \} $\
from (15), it follows that, $$[X_{f}, X_{g}] = X_{\{f,g\}}$$
Now consider, $$\begin{aligned}
J =& \{\{f_1,f_2\},f_3\} + \{\{f_2,f_3\},f_1\} + \{\{f_3,f_1\},f_2\} \\
=& \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X_{\{f_1,f_2\}}) f_3 + c.p \\
=& \rho ^ {\phi_0} ([X_{f_1},X_{f_2}]) f_3 + c.p\\
=& \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X_{f_1}) \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X_{f_2}) f_3 - \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X_{f_2}) \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X_{f_1}) f_3 + c.p \\
=& (\{f_1, \{f_2,f_3\}\} - \{f_2, \{f_1, f_3\}) + c.p \\
=& 2J\end{aligned}$$ (here we have used the identity $\rho ^ {\phi_0} ([X,Y])f = \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X) \rho ^ {\phi_0} (Y)f - \rho ^ {\phi_0} (Y) \rho ^ {\phi_0} (X) f$ which follows directly since $\phi_0 $ is a 1-cocycle)\
$\therefore J = 0 $, hence the bracket satisfy the Jacobi identity.
\(i) From (13), we have $\{f, g\} = \langle df, d_{*}g \rangle + f \rho_{*}(\phi_0)g + g \rho(X_0)f $\
therefore the induced Jacobi bivector field $\Lambda$ and the vector field $E$ is given by $$\Lambda (\delta f, \delta g) = \langle df, d_{*}g \rangle = - \langle dg, d_{*}f \rangle$$ $$E = \rho_{*}(\phi_0) = - \rho (X_0)$$ (ii) Let $(M, \Lambda, E)$ be a Jacobi manifold. Consider the generalized Lie bialgebroid $((T M \times \mathbb{R}, (0,1)), (T^*M \times \mathbb{R}, (-E,0)))$ given in Example 4.3, then the induced Jacobi structure on M coincide with the original Jacobi structure.\
(iii) The dual generalized Lie bialgebroid $((A^*, X_0),(A, \phi_0))$ induces the opposite Jacobi structure of the above.
Next we give the very natural definition of generalized Lie bialgebroid morphism.
A morphism between two generalized Lie bialgebroid $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ and $((B, \psi_0), (B^*, Y_0))$ over $M$ is a map $\Phi : A \rightarrow B $ of Lie algebroids such that the dual map $ \Phi^* : B^* \rightarrow A^* $ is also a Lie algebroid map and they preserves the cocycles. i.e, $$\Phi (X_0) = Y_0 , \Phi^* (\psi_0) = \phi_0$$
Let $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ be a generalized Lie bialgebroid over a manifold $M$. Then the map $$\Phi_A : A \rightarrow TM \times \mathbb{R}$$ defined by, $ \Phi_A (X) = (\rho (X), \phi_0 (X)) $ is a morphism between the generalized Lie bialgebroids $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ and $((T M \times \mathbb{R}, (0,1)), (T^*M \times \mathbb{R}, (-E,0))),$ where $\rho$ is the anchor of the Lie algebroid $A$.\
Moreover, if $\Psi : ((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0)) \rightarrow ((B, \psi_0), (B^*, Y_0)) $ is a morphism between generalized Lie bialgebroids over $M$, then the corresponding induced Jacobi structures on the base manifold $M$ are same.\
The map $\Phi_A$ is clearly a Lie algebroid map and $ \Phi_A (X_0) = (\rho(X_0),0) = (-E,0).$\
Now the dual map $\Phi_A^{*} : T^{*}M \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow A^{*}$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_A^{*} (\alpha, f) (X) =& \langle (\alpha, f), \Phi_A (X) \rangle \\
=& \langle (\alpha, f), (\rho(X),\phi_0 (X)\rangle \\
=& \alpha(\rho(X)) + f \phi_0 (X) \end{aligned}$$ therefore, $ \Phi_A ^{*} (\alpha, f) = \rho ^{*}(\alpha) + f \phi_0 $\
hence $\Phi_A ^{*} (0,1) = \phi_0 $.\
It is easy to verify that, $$\Phi_A ^{*} : (T^{*}M \times \mathbb{R}, [.,.]_{(\Lambda,E)}, \rho_{(\Lambda, E)}) \rightarrow (A^{*}, [.,.]_{*}, \rho_{*})$$ preserves the Lie bracket. It also commutes with the anchors, as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{*} \circ \Phi_A ^{*} (\alpha, f) =& \rho_{*} (\rho ^{*}(\alpha) + f \phi_0) \\
=& \rho_{*} (\rho ^{*}(\alpha)) + f \rho_{*} (\phi_0) \\
=& \Lambda^{\sharp} (\alpha) + f E = \rho_{(\Lambda, E)} (\alpha, f) \\\end{aligned}$$ To prove the last part of the theorem, let the Lie algebroid differential of $A$ and $A^{*}$ (resp. $B$ and $B^{*}$) are denoted by $d_A$ and $d_{A^*}$ (resp. $d_B$ and $d_{B^*}$). Similarly the anchors are denoted by $\rho_A$ and $\rho_{A^*}$ (resp. $\rho_B$ and $\rho_{B^*}$).\
$$\begin{aligned}
\{f, g\}_A = \langle d_{A}^{\phi_0} f, d_{A^{*}}^{X_0} g \rangle =& \rho_{A^{*}}^{X_0} (d_{A}^{\phi_0} f) g \\
=& \rho_{A^{*}}^{X_0} (\Phi_{A}^{*} \tilde \delta ^{(0,1)} f) g \\
=& \rho_{A^{*}}^{X_0} (\Psi^{*} \Phi_{B}^{*} \tilde \delta ^{(0,1)} f) g \\
=& \rho_{A^{*}}^{X_0} \Psi^{*} (\Phi_{B}^{*} \tilde \delta ^{(0,1)} f) g \\
=& \rho_{B^{*}}^{Y_0} (d_{B}^{\psi_0} f) g = \{f,g\}_B \\\end{aligned}$$ (where $\tilde \delta ^{(0,1)}$ is $(0,1)$-deformed differential of the Lie algebroid $T M \times \mathbb{R}$ )
Therefore the induced Jacobi structure on the base of a generalized Lie bialgebroid is unique upto a morphism.
Triangular Generalized lie Bialgebroids
=======================================
In this section, we consider a special type of generalized Lie bialgebroids defined by a Lie algebroid $A$ with a 1-cocycle $\phi_0 \in \Gamma A^*$ and a suitable 2- multisection $P \in \Gamma(\wedge^{2}A)$ of it. This includes triangular generalized Lie bialgebra and the generalized Lie bialgebroid associated to the Jacobi manifolds.\
Let $(A, [~,~], \rho)$ be a lie algebroid over $M$ with a 1-cocyle $\phi_0 \in \Gamma A^*$. Let $P \in \Gamma(\wedge^{2}A)$ be a 2-multisection of $A$ such that $$[P,P]^{\phi_0} = 0$$ Define a bracket $[~,~]_{*}$ on $\Gamma A^*$ by $$[\alpha, \beta]_{*} := \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha - d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, \beta))$$ for $\alpha, \beta \in \Gamma A^*$.
Let $(A, [~,~], \rho)$ be a Lie algebroid over $M$ with a 1-cocyle $\phi_0 \in \Gamma A^*$. Let $P \in \Gamma(\wedge^{2}A)$ be such that $ [P,P]^{\phi_0} = 0 $, then the dual bundle $A^{*}$ together with the bracket defined above and the bundle map $\rho_{*} = \rho \circ P^{\sharp} : A^{*} \rightarrow TM $ as anchor is a Lie algebroid. Moreover, $X_0 = - P^{\sharp}(\phi_0) \in \Gamma A$ is a 1-cocycle of it.\
The bracket is skew-symmetric follows from the expression.\
Note that, $$\begin{aligned}
[\alpha, f \beta]_{*} =& \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} f \beta - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (f \beta)} \alpha - d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, f \beta)) \\
=& f \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta + (\rho ({P ^{\sharp} \alpha})f) \beta - f \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha - df \wedge \iota_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha
- f d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, \beta)) - df \wedge P(\alpha, \beta) \\
=& f [\alpha, \beta]_{*} + (\rho ({P ^{\sharp} \alpha})f) \beta \\\end{aligned}$$ The Jacobi identity of the bracket follows from a direct computation and the condition $ [P,P]^{\phi_0} = 0 $. Therefore $(A^*, [~,~]_{*}, \rho_{*})$ is a Lie algebroid.\
Note that, here $ P^{\sharp} : A^{*} \rightarrow A $ is a Lie algebroid morphism. Since it commutes with the anchors and for any $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \Gamma{A^*}$, we have\
$ \langle P^{\sharp} ([\alpha,\beta]_{*}), \gamma \rangle $\
$ = - \langle [\alpha,\beta]_{*} , P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle $\
$ = - \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta , P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle + \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha , P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle + \langle d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, \beta)), P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle $\
$ = - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \langle \beta, P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle + \langle \beta, \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle +
\mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \langle \alpha, P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle -
\langle \alpha, \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle +
\rho ^{\phi_0}(P^{\sharp}\gamma)(P(\alpha, \beta))$\
$ = - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \langle \beta, P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle + \langle \beta, [P^{\sharp}\alpha, P^{\sharp}\gamma] \rangle +
\mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \langle \alpha, P^{\sharp} \gamma \rangle - \langle \alpha, [P^{\sharp}\beta, P^{\sharp}\gamma] \rangle + \rho ^{\phi_0}(P^{\sharp}\gamma)(P(\alpha, \beta)) $\
$ = [P,P]^{\phi_0} (\alpha, \beta, \gamma) + \langle [P^{\sharp} \alpha, P^{\sharp} \beta], \gamma \rangle $\
$ = \langle [P^{\sharp} \alpha, P^{\sharp} \beta], \gamma \rangle $\
therefore, $ P^{\sharp} ([\alpha,\beta]_{*}) = [P^{\sharp} \alpha, P^{\sharp} \beta] $.\
Now to prove that $X_0 = - P^{\sharp}(\phi_0) $ is a 1-cocycle of the Lie algebroid $A^{*}$, we have to show $$X_0 ([\alpha, \beta]_{*}) = \rho_{*}(\alpha) X_0 (\beta) - \rho_{*}(\beta) X_0 (\alpha), \forall \alpha, \beta \in \Gamma A^*$$ Now, $ \rho_{*}(\alpha) X_0 (\beta) - \rho_{*}(\beta) X_0 (\alpha) - X_0 ([\alpha, \beta]_{*})$\
$ = - \rho (P^{\sharp} \alpha) \langle P^{\sharp} \phi_0, \beta \rangle + \rho (P^{\sharp} \beta) \langle P^{\sharp} \phi_0, \alpha \rangle + \langle P^{\sharp} \phi_0 , [\alpha, \beta]_{*} \rangle$\
$ = - \rho (P^{\sharp} \alpha) (P(\phi_0, \beta)) + \rho (P^{\sharp} \beta) (P(\phi_0, \alpha)) + P(\phi_0, [\alpha, \beta]_{*})$\
$ = \rho (P^{\sharp} \alpha) \langle \phi_0, P^{\sharp} \beta \rangle - \rho (P^{\sharp} \beta) \langle \phi_0, P^{\sharp} \alpha \rangle - \langle \phi_0 , P^{\sharp} [\alpha, \beta]_{*} \rangle $\
$ = \rho (P^{\sharp} \alpha) \langle \phi_0, P^{\sharp} \beta \rangle - \rho (P^{\sharp} \beta) \langle \phi_0, P^{\sharp} \alpha \rangle - \langle \phi_0 , [ P^{\sharp} \alpha, P^{\sharp} \beta] \rangle $\
$ =0$ (since $\phi_0$ is a 1-cocyle of $A$)
In fact $ P^{\sharp} : (A^{*}, X_0) \rightarrow (A, \phi_0) $ is a morphism between Jacobi algebroids. $$(P^{\sharp})^{*}(\phi_0) = X_0$$ Since $(P^{\sharp})^{*}(\phi_0)(\alpha) = \phi_0 (P^{\sharp} \alpha) = P(\alpha, \phi_0)$\
on the other hand,\
$X_0 (\alpha) = - P^{\sharp} (\phi_0) (\alpha) = - P(\phi_0, \alpha) = P(\alpha, \phi_0) $\
therefore $ (P^{\sharp})^{*}(\phi_0) = X_0 $. Hence $P^{\sharp}$ is a map between Jacobi algebroids.
The $X_0$-deformed cohomology of the Lie algebroid $A^*$ is given by $$d^{X_0}_{*} X = [P, X]^{\phi_0}, \forall X \in \Gamma{A}$$
For any $\alpha, \beta \in \Gamma{A^*} $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(d^{X_0}_{*} X)(\alpha, \beta) =& \rho ^{X_0}_{*}(\alpha) X(\beta) - \rho ^{X_0}_{*}(\beta) X(\alpha) - X([\alpha, \beta]_{*})\\
=& \rho ^{\phi_0} (P ^{\sharp} \alpha) X(\beta) - \rho ^{\phi_0} (P ^{\sharp} \beta) X(\alpha) - \langle X , \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha - d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, \beta)) \rangle \\
=& \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \langle X, \beta \rangle - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \langle X, \alpha \rangle - \langle X , \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} \beta - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} \alpha - d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, \beta)) \rangle \\
=& \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} X, \beta \rangle - \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} X, \alpha \rangle + \langle X, d^{\phi_0} (P(\alpha, \beta)) \rangle \\
=& \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} X, \beta \rangle - \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_{P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} X, \alpha \rangle + \rho ^{\phi_0}(X) (P(\alpha, \beta)) \\
=& - \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X {P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} , \beta \rangle + \langle \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X {P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} , \alpha \rangle + \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X (P(\alpha, \beta)) \\
=& - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X \langle {P ^{\sharp} (\alpha)} , \beta \rangle +
\langle P ^{\sharp} (\alpha), \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X \beta \rangle +
\mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X \langle {P ^{\sharp} (\beta)} , \alpha \rangle -
\langle P ^{\sharp} (\beta), \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X \alpha \rangle + \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X (P(\alpha, \beta)) \\
=& P(\alpha, \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X \beta ) - P (\beta, \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X \alpha ) - \mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X (P(\alpha, \beta)) \\
=& - (\mathcal{L}^{\phi_0}_X P)(\alpha, \beta) = [P, X]^{\phi_0} (\alpha, \beta)\end{aligned}$$
The pair $((A, \phi_0), (A^*, X_0))$ is a generalized Lie bialgebroid.
since $ d^{X_0}_{*} X = [P, X]^{\phi_0} $, for all $X \in \Gamma{A}$. Therefore the compatibility condition (1) of the generalized Lie bialgebroid follows from the graded Jacobi identity of the $\phi_0$-deformed Schouten bracket of $A$. Conditions (3) and (4) are obvious to check. Hence the proof.
This type of generalized Lie bialgebroids are called Triangular generalized Lie bialgebroids.\
\
\[2\][ [\#2](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1) ]{} \[2\][\#2]{}
[BFGM03]{} D. Iglesias, J. C. Marrero: [[*Generalized Lie bialgebroids and jacobi structure*]{}]{}, J. Geom Phys. [**(40)**]{}, 176-199, (2001).
M. de Leon, B. Lopez, J. C. Marrero, E. Padron: [[*Lichnerowicz Jacobi cohomology and homology of Jacobi manifolds: modular class and duality*]{}]{}, Preprint, 1999. arXiv: math.DG/9910079.
K. Mackenzie, P. Xu: [[*Lie bialgebroids and Poisson groupoids*]{}]{}, Duke Math. J. [**(73)**]{}, 415-452, (1994).
K. Mackenzie: [[*Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids in Differential Geometry*]{}]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1987).
Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach: [[*Exact Gerstenhaber algebras and Lie bialgebroids*]{}]{}, Acta appl. Math. [**(41)**]{}, 153-165, (1995).
Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach: [[*The Lie bialgebroid of Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold*]{}]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**(38)**]{}, 421-428, (1996).
Y. Hagiwara: [[*Nambu-Jacobi structures and Jacobi algebroids*]{}]{}, J. Phys A: Math and Gen. [**(37)**]{}, 6713-6725, (2004).
D. Iglesias , J. C. Marrero: [[*Generalized Lie Bialgebroids and Strong Jacobi-Nijenhuis Structures*]{}]{}, Extracta Mathematicae [**(17)**]{}, 259-271, (2002).
I. Vaisman: [[*Lectures on the Geometry of Poisson manifolds*]{}]{}, Birkhauser Verla, Basel, (1994).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a method of generating collective multi-qubit entanglement via global addressing of an ion chain performing [*blue*]{} and [*red*]{} Tavis-Cummings interactions, where several qubits are coupled to a collective motional mode. We show that a wide family of Dicke states and irradiant states can be generated by single global laser pulses, unitarily or helped with suitable postselection techniques.'
author:
- 'A. Retzker'
- 'E. Solano [^1]'
- 'B. Reznik'
title: 'Tavis-Cummings model and collective multi-qubit entanglement in trapped ions'
---
Introduction
============
Multi-partite entangled states play an important role in quantum information. They are useful in various quantum information applications, such as in Heinsenberg-limited spectroscopy [@leibfried04], secure communication [@wang06], and various schemes related to “one-way” quantum computing [@briegel01]. Fresh theoretical developments on the generation of multipartite entangled states show that sequential techniques may prove to be general and practical for building arbitrary multi-qubit states [@schoen05]. For instance, a recent experiment [@haeffner05] has realized a $W$ state of eight qubits, encoded in the internal ionic levels, by performing a sequence of two-qubit gates on different ion pairs. However, given a set of available interactions in a physical system, there are particular families of entangled states that could be built globally and in fewer steps [@leibfried05]. In the context of cavity QED (CQED), for example, the coupling of a single cavity mode with a two-level atom, the Jaynes-Cummings model (JC), can be extended to the $N$ atom case, leading to the Tavis-Cummings model, with different dynamics and entanglement features [@tavis68; @tessier03].
In this article, we study methods of generating specific classes of multi-qubit entangled states in trapped ions with collective interactions, which are potentially faster and more efficient than individual techniques. They consist of two key ingredients: firstly, the use of global rather than individual addressing of ions and, secondly, the presence of [*invariant subspaces*]{}, i.e., combined (vibronic) internal and motional finite subspaces that are [*closed*]{} with respect to certain dynamical operations.
In Sec. \[collmaps\], we describe realistic collective vibronic interactions coupling the internal degrees of freedom of $N$ ions with a collective motional mode. Specifically, we consider the blue and red excitation versions of the Tavis-Cummings model, taking distance from usual predictions in the Dicke model. In Sec. \[invsub\], we study the invariant subspaces, associated with the proposed interactions, in the search of classes of multipartite entangled states that may be efficiently generated. It will turn out that one of them is the family of symmetric Dicke states [@dicke54; @stockton03; @toth05], from which the $W$ state is just a one-excitation particular case. In Sec. \[deterministic\], we consider the family of entangled states that could be generated by means of purely unitary global operations and, in Sec. \[postselected\], the ones that could be generated by using postselection.
Collective maps {#collmaps}
===============
Let us consider $N$ ions in a linear Paul trap, cooled down to their collective motional ground state. We will not concentrate on a specific experimental setup [@leibfried03], and our derivations could be applied to any ion-trap device. The free-energy Hamiltonian, $H_0$, describing the $N$ two-level ions and their motion around their equilibrium positions is $$\begin{aligned}
H_0 = \frac{\hbar \omega_0}{2} \sum_{n=1}^N
\sigma_z^n + \hbar \sum_{j=1}^{N}
\nu_j a^\dagger_j a_j .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\sigma^n_z$ are $z$-components of Pauli spin vectors describing the two-levels with energy gap $\omega_0$, while $a_j$ and $a_j^\dagger$ are the annihilation and creation operators for the normal modes with frequency $\nu_j$. The interaction between the internal degrees of freedom of each ion and a collective motional mode can be induced by laser light of frequency $\omega$, yielding [@wineland98] $$\begin{aligned}
H^{n}_{\rm int}= \hbar \lambda_n \sigma_x^{n} \cos (k x_n-\omega t +
\phi_n) . \label{hint}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\lambda_n$ is the coupling strength between the laser and the $n$-th ion, $\sigma^n_x$ are $x$-components of Pauli vectors, $k$ is the laser wave vector, $x_n$ is the displacement operator with respect to the equilibrium position, and $\phi_n$ is the phase of the laser at the location of the $n$-th ion.
We will study the case of homogeneous laser excitation, $\lambda_n =
\lambda$, $\forall n$, and of near resonant coupling, $\omega
\approx \omega_0$. For the sake of simplicity, we will also consider all $\phi_n = 0$, although this may play an important role when making experimental considerations. In this case, the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture, after a rotating-wave-approximation RWA) with respect to the two internal levels, reads [@wineland98; @deng05] $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\rm I} & = & \frac{\hbar \lambda}{2} \sum_n(\sigma^n_+e^{-i\delta
t}\exp(i k\sum_j b_{nj} \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2m\nu_j}}(a_j^\dagger
e^{i\nu_j t}+{\nonumber}\\&&a_j e^{-i\nu_j t})) + {\rm H.c.} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $b_{nj}$ denote the amplitudes of the $j$-th normal mode of the ion chain in the position expansions, $\delta=\omega-\omega_0$, and $m$ is the ion mass. In the Lamb-Dicke limit, where all Lamb-Dicke parameters $\eta_j = k \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2 m\nu_j}}$ are small, the exponential can be expanded and set for a RWA with respect to the phonon field. In that case, when the laser frequency is tuned to a particular collective motional sideband frequency, $\omega=\omega_0 \pm \nu_j$, we obtain blue and red sideband transition Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
H^j_{\rm blue} & = & \hbar \tilde{\lambda}_j \sum_n b_{nj}
(\sigma^n_+ a_j^\dagger + \sigma^n_- a_j) , \label{falseblue} \\
H^j_{\rm red} & = & \hbar \tilde{\lambda}_j \sum_n b_{nj}(
\sigma^n_+ a_j + \sigma^n_- a_j^\dagger) , \label{falsered}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\lambda}_j = \eta_j \lambda / 2$. The interaction of Eq. (\[falsered\]) appears naturally in the context of CQED, where a bunch of atoms interact inhomogeneously with a cavity mode and the counter-rotating terms are neglected in the RWA. The dynamics in Eq. (\[falseblue\]) is not usual in CQED but can be easily engineered in trapped ions. Only when $\nu_j$ corresponds to the center-of-mass (COM) mode frequency $\nu_1$, we have $b_{n1} =
b_1$, and we can define the collective angular momentum operators $L_+ = \sum_n \sigma_+^n$ and $L_- = \sum_n \sigma_-^n$. In that case, we could rewrite the Hamiltonians of Eqs. (\[falseblue\]) and (\[falsered\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
H^1_{\rm blue} & = & \hbar \bar{\lambda}_1 (L_+ a^\dagger + L_- a) \label{blue} \\
H^1_{\rm red} & = & \hbar \bar{\lambda}_1 (L_+ a + L_- a^\dagger)
\label{red},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\lambda}_1 = b_1 \tilde{\lambda}_1$. The dynamics associated with the Hamiltonian of Eq. (\[red\]) is named after Tavis and Cummings [@tavis68], who developed the first analytical solutions for this model. When we consider a motional mode different from the center-of-mass one, we could always define $L^j_+ = \sum_n b_{nj} \sigma_+^n$ and $L^j_- = \sum_n b_{nj}
\sigma_-^n$, but these operators do not satisfy the usual angular momentum algebra. If we define $L_z\equiv\sum_n \sigma_z^n$ and $L^2(j)\equiv L_z^2 + \frac{1}{2}(L_+^jL_-^j + L_-^jL_+^j) $, with $j=0,1,\cdots N-1$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \lbrack L_z, L_{\pm}^j \rbrack = \pm L_\pm^j & , \nonumber \\
& \lbrack L_z, L^2 (j) \rbrack = 0 & ,
\nonumber \\
& \lbrack L_\pm^j, L^2(k) \rbrack \neq 0 & , \,\, \lbrace j, k
\rbrace \neq 0 .\end{aligned}$$ In fact, $L_\pm^j$ can still be used to lower and raise the quantum numbers of $L_z$, but they do not commute with $L^2(j)$. For the case of the center-of-mass mode, where all commutations relations are satisfied, we shall denote the eigenstates of $L^2(1)$ and $L_z$ by $|l,m\rangle$, with $l = N/2, N/2-1 ...$, $l > 0$, and $-l\le m
\le l$. States $|l,m\rangle$ are known as the Dicke states [@dicke54; @stockton03; @toth05].
Invariant subspaces {#invsub}
===================
Hamiltonian $H^j_{\rm red}$ conserves the total number of spin and phonon excitations, and commutes with the excitation number operator $\hat R\equiv \sum_m a_m^\dagger a_m + L_z + N/2$, while Hamiltonian $H^j_{\rm blue}$ conserves the difference between the spin and phonon excitations, hence, it commutes with $\hat B \equiv \sum
a_m^\dagger a_m - L_z + N/2$. It is therefore possible to consider vibronic subspaces with a fixed number of excitations associated with $\hat R$ or $\hat B$. If we concentrate on the case $H=H_{\rm
red}^j$, we have the eigenstates $|r,\alpha\rangle$ of $\hat R$, where $r=0, 1, 2 \cdots$, and $\alpha$ denotes other degeneracy lifting quantum numbers. We then obtain the block diagonal structure $H^j_{\rm red} = \oplus_{r=0}^{r=\infty} H_{\rm red}^j(r)$. The dynamical evolution that is generated by $H^j_{\rm red}$ leaves the subspaces invariant.
We proceed to discuss certain examples of such invariant subspaces, for example, the one associated with the case $j=1$. The smallest eigenvalue of $\hat R$, $r=0$, corresponds to the state $ {\cal
H}_{r=0}=\lbrace |l = N/2,m = -N/2 \rangle |0 \rangle \rbrace$, i.e., all atoms in their ground state and no phonons in the system. For the case $r=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{r=1} = {\cal H}_{l=N/2}\oplus {\cal H}_{l=N/2-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\! {\cal H}_{l=N/2} = \lbrace \ |N/2,-N/2\rangle|1\rangle,\
\ |N/2,-N/2+1\rangle|0\rangle \ \rbrace\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\! {\cal H}_{l=N/2-1} = \lbrace \ |N/2-1,-N/2+1,
\alpha=1\rangle|0\rangle ,..,{\nonumber}\\ \ |N/2-1,-N/2+1,
\alpha=N-1\rangle|0\rangle \rbrace .\end{aligned}$$ The quantum number $\alpha=1, ... , N-1$, lifts the $(N-1)$-fold degeneracy of the states with $l = -N/2 + 1$. Hence, values of $\alpha$ enumerate the different angular momentum multiplets. It is important to stress that $H_{\rm red}^1$ does not mix the different multiplets and, since $L_- |N/2-1,-N/2+1,\alpha\rangle =0$, there are no further transitions. This does not follow merely from the conservation of $\hat R$, which does not forbid transition between the state $|N/2-1, -N/2+1,\alpha \rangle | 0 \rangle$, which has terms with one excited atom, and a state with one excited phonon. This non-mixing property of the multiplets reflects the effect of quantum [*irradiance*]{} [@dicke54; @devoe96; @aharonov01]. The construction of higher r-number subspaces is straightforward. For instance, for $r=2$ we shall have ${\cal H}_{r=2} = {\cal
H}_{l=N/2}\oplus{\cal H}_{l=N/2-1}\oplus{\cal H}_{l=N/2-2}$, etc.
A key point in the present work is the use of subspaces which are bidimensional. In this simple case, the evolution of the system resembles that of the well known Rabi oscillations. For example, let us consider the $r=1$ invariant subspace ${\cal H}_{r=1,l=N/2}$. We can start with the non-entangled state containing one phonon and with all the internal spins in their ground states. When we turn on the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm red}^1$ we obtain an oscillation between the states $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\vert N/2,-N/2 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle } \leftrightarrow {\left\vert N/2,-N/2+1 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 0 \right\rangle } .
\label{ssd2}\end{aligned}$$ State ${\left\vert N/2 , -N/2+1 \right\rangle }$ is a symmetric combination of $N$ terms, $( |{\uparrow}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}\cdots\rangle + |{\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}\cdots \rangle +
\cdots |\cdots{\downarrow}{\downarrow}{\uparrow}\rangle ) / \sqrt{N}$, known as the W state. Similarly, we could make use of the invariant space ${\cal
H}_{r=1,l=N/2-1,\alpha}$ and, in that case, we would have the following oscillation $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\vert N/2,-N/2+1 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle } \leftrightarrow {\left\vert N/2,-N/2+2 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 0 \right\rangle }
.\label{ssd3}\end{aligned}$$ In the general case, the invariant subspaces can be of higher dimension, for instance if we start with $n$ phonons in the multiplet $l=N/2$, the relevant states for $r=n$ becomes, up to rotations induced by $H_{\rm red}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\left\vert -N/2 \right\rangle }{\left\vert l \right\rangle } \leftrightarrow {\left\vert -N/2 +
1 \right\rangle }{\left\vert l - 1 \right\rangle } \leftrightarrow ... \leftrightarrow {\left\vert -N/2 +
l \right\rangle }{\left\vert 0 \right\rangle } . \nonumber
\\ &&\label{sub}\end{aligned}$$
So far, we have discussed invariant subspaces which are connected with the Dicke states and the collective angular momentum operators with $j=1$. By tuning the laser to couple other motional collective modes, we can access other $j$ subspaces. As we discuss in the next section, it is sometimes helpful to combine several steps, and in each step to couple a different phonon normal mode. For instance, we can start with the state that contains two different phonon excitations $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\right\rangle }{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle }_i{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle }_j,\end{aligned}$$ couple first the internal levels with the phonon in mode $i$ and later with the phonon in mode $j$. This process connects us with the state $L_+^jL_+^i|l=N/2,m=-N/2\rangle$. It is useful to see that in this type of transitions we have $$\begin{aligned}
\!\! L_-^j&L_+^i&{\left\vert N/2,-N/2 \right\rangle }=L_-^j\sum_n
b_{ni}\vert{\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\underbrace{{\uparrow}}_{n}
{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\rangle{\nonumber}\\
&=& \left(\sum_n
b_{ni}b_{nj}\right){\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\right\rangle }=n\delta_{ij}
{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\right\rangle }, \label{lplm}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used the orthogonality of the normal modes.
Deterministic Creation of Entangled states {#deterministic}
==========================================
With the use of $H_{\rm red}$, many relevant states can be created. We start with the state $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\vert N/2,-N/2 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle } _{\nu_1}={\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}... {\downarrow}\right\rangle }{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle }
_{\nu_1}, \label{state}\end{aligned}$$ where the $j$-th mode is occupied by a single phonon, and the internal state is not entangled. A W-state ${\left\vert W^{N}_1 \right\rangle }\equiv
|N/2, -N/2+1\rangle$ can be created by applying a single collective $\pi / 2$-pulse on the state of Eq. (\[state\]). This can be easily understood by recalling that the above initial state belongs to the bidimensional Hilbert space, ${\cal H}_{r=1,l=N/2}=\lbrace
|N/2,-N/2\rangle |1\rangle, |W^N_1\rangle |0\rangle \rbrace$. In principle, by precise control of the duration and intensity of the laser pulse, a $W$ state can be created between a large number of ions. In fact, a $W$-state shared by eight ions has been created recently using a multi-step sequential procedure based on individual ionic addressing [@haeffner05]. In the present proposal, we would require the previous preparation of a single phonon in the COM mode and the application of a single homogeneous global laser pulse. A related scheme in the context of quantum dots was discussed recently by Taylor [*et al.*]{} [@taylor03].
It is also possible to generate deterministically higher-excitation Dicke states using other bidimensional invariant subspaces. The $r=2$ subspace ${\cal H}_{r=2,l=N/2-1,\alpha}$ is a two-dimensional space that is spanned by the states $|N/2-1,-N/2+1\rangle|1\rangle\sim W_1^N$ and $|N/2-1,-N/2+2\rangle|0\rangle\sim W_2^N$. The first state above is equivalent, up to local operations, to the $W^N_1=|N/2,-N/2+1\rangle$, while the second state, contains terms with two excited atoms and is equivalent, up to local transformations, to the second Dicke state $|N/2,-N/2+2\rangle=W_2^N$. The construction of $W_2^N$ can therefore proceed as follows. We first obtain as described above $W_1^N$, using a single pulse. In the second step, we transform $W_1^N \rightarrow |N/2-1,-N/2+1\rangle$ by changing locally the phases of each ion. This step requires local addressing implementing local rotations. In the final step, we add a single phonon and apply again $H_{\rm red}^1$ to obtain $W_2^N$, the second member of the subspace $r=2$. Unfortunately, it seems that for higher-excitation Dicke states, e.g. $W^N_3$, this “climbing the ladder” method requires also some interaction between the qubits. To overcome this difficulty we shall discuss other methods.
We consider next extended examples of coupling to other modes and show that they can be used for generating [*irradiant states*]{} [@dicke54; @devoe96; @aharonov01]. We start with the state $\psi_0=|N/2,-N/2\rangle|1\rangle_{\nu_j}$ involving one phonon in the $j$-th mode and all the internal levels in their ground state, then, we apply the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm red}^j$. The conservation of $\hat R$ restricts the possible evolution to the subspace of states with $r=1$, i.e., to the states $L_+^j \psi_0 $ and $L_-^kL_+^j\psi_0$, with $k=1,2,...N$. However, we notice from Eq. (\[lplm\]) that only terms with $k=j$ do not vanish, hence, the evolution leads to Rabi oscillations in the bidimensional Hilbert space $\lbrace \psi_0, L_+^j\psi_0\rbrace$. In this way, we can generate the family of entangled irradiant states of the form $$\begin{aligned}
L_+^j{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\right\rangle }, \ \ j=1,2,\cdots N .\end{aligned}$$ Irradiant states are states that do not emit photons and are thus more robust to decoherence than radiant states. In our case, this property is due to the relation in Eq. (\[lplm\]). Since the coupling to the electromagnetic field is through the $L_{\pm}$ operators, as it is for the phonon field, the resultant states are irradiant [@dicke54]. For the the case of two spins, the resulting state is the EPR state. The experimental feasibility of irradiance and superradiance in ion traps was discussed and demonstrated by De Voe and Brewer [@devoe96].
Having produced certain irradiant states, we can use them as a starting point for the deterministic generation of an additional class of states. Irradiant states introduce other bidimensional invariant subspaces. Since $L_-{\left\vert \psi_{irr} \right\rangle }=0$, the subspace $\{{\left\vert \psi_{irr} \right\rangle }{\left\vert 1 \right\rangle },L_+ {\left\vert \psi_{irr} \right\rangle }{\left\vert 0 \right\rangle }\}$ is an invariant subspace of Hamiltonian $H_{\rm red}$ and, therefore, the second state can be produced by Rabi flipping. This is a new kind of entangled state which is a superposition of states with two spins in the upper state, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi&\propto&\left(\vert\underbrace{{\uparrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}{\uparrow}}_{odd}
{\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\rangle+\text{perm}\right){\nonumber}\\
&-&\left(\vert\underbrace{{\downarrow}{\uparrow}...{\downarrow}{\uparrow}}_{even}
{\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\rangle+\text{perm}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ For the case of four spins the outcome of this process is a GHZ state. First, we apply $H^3_{\rm red}$, which couples the internal states with the higher collective mode, $j=N-1=3$, and create the irradiant state $$\begin{aligned}
L_+^3{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}... {\downarrow}\right\rangle }={\left\vert {\uparrow}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}\right\rangle } -{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}\right\rangle }+{\left\vert
{\downarrow}{\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}\right\rangle }-{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}{\uparrow}\right\rangle } .\end{aligned}$$ In the next stage, we apply the $j=0$ red Hamiltonian and get $$\begin{aligned}
L_+^0 L_+^3{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\downarrow}... {\downarrow}\right\rangle }= {\left\vert {\uparrow}{\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}\right\rangle }
-{\left\vert {\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}{\uparrow}\right\rangle } ,\end{aligned}$$ which is, up to a local operation, a GHZ state.
Creation of entangled states with Postselection {#postselected}
===============================================
In the previous section, we have discussed deterministic schemes for producing irradiant states as well as the lowest Dicke states (including the $W$ state). However, the full family of Dicke states could not be generated using only collective unitary transformations. In the present section, we present another approach which is useful for producing the full set of Dicke states $$\begin{aligned}
W_k^N&=&\binom{N}{k}^{-1/2}\left(\vert\underbrace{{\uparrow}{\uparrow}..{\uparrow}}_{k}
{\downarrow}{\downarrow}...{\downarrow}\rangle+\text{perm}\right){\nonumber}\\&\equiv&
{\left\vert N/2,-N/2+k \right\rangle } .\end{aligned}$$ The properties of the Dicke states may be of considerable interest in quantum information, and have been discussed recently by different authors [@stockton03], [@korbicz05], [@toth05], [@korbicz06], [@wang06]. It can be shown that the von Neumann entanglement entropy, with respect to a bi-partite split of $N$ qubits in a Dicke state, increases with $k$ and saturates gradually for large $k$ values. The behavior of the (mixed state) entanglement between two qubits [@korbicz06] can be evaluated by considering, for example, the negativity which increases, almost linearly with $k$.
The basic idea behind our approach is that while a collective unitary transformation cannot be used to create any Dicke state, a suitable choice of the initial phonon state can bring us very close to our goal. In this scheme, however, there will be always a small error due to mixing with other states. Therefore, unlike the previous examples, we propose to postselect the phonon state in order to be certain that the desired Dicke state was produced.
In order to create the Dicke state $W^N_k$, we begin by preparing the initial state $|N/2,-N/2\rangle|k\rangle_{\nu_0}$. We then apply the time evolution of the Hamiltonian $H^j_{\rm red}$, which takes this state into the $r=k$ invariant subspace. It turns out that at a certain time the probability distribution will be sharply peaked around a state with zero phonons and $W^N_k$ for the internal levels. By measuring the number of the phonons it is then possible to remove the admixture of $W_k^N$ with other states. A procedure to create and measure the number operator in an ion trap was introduced by different authors [@cirac93; @eschner95; @solano05]. Experimentally, motional Fock states were already produced in the lab [@leibfried96], although those techniques required a series of consecutive Rabi flips.
The crucial ingredient in our proposed mechanism is that the purity of the state, prior to postselection, is high. The fact that the state containing zero phonons in Eq. (10) is produced with high probability is shown numerically below. The intuition behind this is that there is an analogy between these subspaces and the angular momentum subspaces of $L^2$, though the commutation relations are different. The $L_x$ operator rotates the spin about the $x$ axis, producing states with $L_z=\pm l$ with a probability one. In order to model this dynamics an analogy could be made between this dynamics in Hilbert space and the dynamics of a particle travelling between sites with different coupling strength. Since the couplings are higher at the middle and lower at the edges, the probabilities are maximal at the edges, see Figs. \[pop\] and \[entropy\]. We therefore expect the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm red}$ to rotate the state between the first and last state in Eq. (\[sub\]) with a probability close to unity.
![Population of various states in Hilbert space as a function of time for 100 spins and 40 phonons. It can be seen that the population of the last state is maximal.[]{data-label="pop"}](pop){width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"}
![The entropy of the internal degrees of freedom as a function of time for 100 spins and 40 phonons. It can be seen that the final state is nearly pure (see Fig. 1).[]{data-label="entropy"}](entropy){width="50.00000%" height="0.12\textheight"}
We make now some further considerations concerning our scheme based on postselection. The only states which are created with high probability are ${\left\vert l_z=m \right\rangle }$, where $m$ is the number of phonons. This is due to the fact that the last state is created with high probability, therefore, the number of phonons in the first state determines the final state. The population of states in the subspace of Eq. (\[sub\]) starting with ${\left\vert -2 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 2 \right\rangle }$ are shown in Fig. \[pop22\], where we observe that for specific times the desired state is obtained with high probability. A similar thing is observed in Fig. \[pop55\] starting with ${\left\vert -5 \right\rangle }{\left\vert 5 \right\rangle }$. In spite of the fact that the number of excitations is not negligible compared to the number of spins, the purity of the final state is considerably high. This observation may prove very useful for generating $W_k^N$ states.
![The probability of states ${\left\vert -2 \right\rangle } {\left\vert 2 \right\rangle }$, ${\left\vert -1 \right\rangle } {\left\vert 1 \right\rangle }$, ${\left\vert 0 \right\rangle } {\left\vert 0 \right\rangle }$ as a function of time.[]{data-label="pop22"}](pop22){width="50.00000%" height="0.2\textheight"}
In order to increase the purity of the final state the number of phonons has to be measured and the vacuum state postselected. To achieve that goal, we consider a recently proposed technique [@solano05] for sorting a desired motional Fock state $| N \rangle$ out of any motional distribution. This technique is based on a suitably designed vibronic scheme in a single ion, allowing for a restricted dynamics inside a chosen selected JC subspace $\{ | g \rangle | N + 1 \rangle, | e \rangle | N \rangle
\}$. To adapt it to our present work, we would need an additional idle ion inside the chain, coupled to the motional mode of interest and specifically assigned to postselection purposes. Together with the additional necessity of individual ion addressing for the sake of manipulation and measurement, these requirements for the idle ion are at reach by the state-of-the-art present technology in trapped ions [@haeffner05].
![The population of the various terms. It can be seen that except for the first state, only the last state approaches a value close to $1$. The first state is a state with 10 spins down and 5 phonons[]{data-label="pop55"}](pop55){width="50.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"}
The proposed scheme described hitherto can also be applied to create motional number states via the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm blue}$, which will rotate the state in the proper subspace. Postselecting the spin state will yield the Fock state state $| N \rangle$ and the number of spins measured up would indicate the number of motional excitations $N$.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have presented methods of producing entangled states using homogenous global laser coupling in trapped ion systems. We have considered two schemes, one based on purely (deterministic) unitary operations and the other one based on an ulterior (probabilistic) postselection. Both schemes use the fact that the Tavis-Cummings model, in its blue- and red-excitation versions, possesses invariant subspaces. In the deterministic case, the global laser pulses produce the desired entangled states after rotations in the associated bidimensional invariant subspaces. In the probabilistic case, the allowed rotations produce edge states that are very close to the desired entangled states, requiring a highly efficient postselection technique. We believe that all proposed schemes are realistic and at within reach using present state-of-the-art technology in trapped ions.
We would like to thank Y. Aharonov, H. Haeffner, I. Klich, B. Groisman, S. Markovitz, S. Nussinov, and M. Plenio for helpful discussions. Special thanks to J. Eisert for many useful comments. This work has been supported by the European Commission under the Integrated Project Qubit Applications (QAP) funded by the IST directorate as Contract Number 015848. E.S. acknowledges financial support from DFG SFB 631, EU RESQ and EuroSQIP projects.
[99]{}
D. Leibfried, M.D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W.M. Itano, J.D. Jost, C. Langer, and D.J. Wineland, Science [**304**]{}, 1476 (2004).
J. Wang, Q. Zhang, and C.-J. Tang, quant-ph/0603144.
R. Raussendorf and H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5188 (2001).
C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac, and M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 110503 (2005).
H. Häffner W. Hänsel, C.F. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek-al-kar, M. Chwalla, T. Korber, U.D. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. O. Schmidt, C. Becher, O. Gühne, W. Dür, and R. Blatt, Nature [**438**]{}, 643 (2005).
D. Leibfried, E. Knill, S. Seidelin, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. Chiaverini, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, R. Reichle, and D. J. Wineland, Nature [**438**]{}, 639 (2005).
M. Tavis and F.W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. [**170**]{}, 379 (1968).
T.E. Tessier, I.H. Deutsch, A. Delgado, I. Fuentes-Guridi, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 062316 (2003).
R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. [**93**]{}, 99 (1954).
J.K. Stockton, J.M. Geremia, A.C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. A [**67**]{}, 022112 (2003).
G. Tóth, quant-ph/0511237.
D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 281 (2003).
D.J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W.M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B.E. King, and D.M. Meekhof, J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. [**103**]{}, 259 (1998).
X.-L. Deng, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 063407 (2005).
R.G. DeVoe and R.G. Brewer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2049 (1996).
Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and S. Nussinov, quant-ph/0109130.
J.M. Taylor, C.M. Marcus, and M.D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 206803 (2003).
J.K. Korbicz, J.I. Cirac, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 120502 (2005).
J.K. Korbicz and M. Lewenstein, quant-ph/0601038.
J.I. Cirac, R. Blatt, A.S. Parkins, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 762 (1993).
J. Eschner, B. Appasamy, and P. E. Toschek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2435 (1995).
E. Solano, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 013813 (2005).
D. Leibfried, D.M. Meekhof, B.E. King, C. Monroe, W.M. Itano, and D.J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4281 (1996).
[^1]: Present address: Physics Department, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany, [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present new features of the [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} programs for the automatic computation of decay widths that consistently include channels of arbitrary final-state multiplicity. The implementations are generic enough so that they can be used in the framework of any quantum field theory, possibly including higher-dimensional operators. We extend at the same time the conventions of the Universal [[FeynRules]{}]{} Output (or UFO) format to include decay tables and information on the total widths. We finally provide a set of representative examples of the usage of the new functions of the different codes in the framework of the Standard Model, the Higgs Effective Field Theory, the Strongly Interacting Light Higgs model and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model and compare the results to available literature and programs for validation purposes.
Model building.
address:
- 'Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan'
- |
Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of Durham,\
Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
- 'Theory Division, Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland'
- 'Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien/Département Recherches Subatomiques, Université de Strasbourg/CNRS-IN2P3, 23 Rue du Loess, F-67037 Strasbourg, France'
- 'Center for Cosmology, Particle Physics and Phenomenology, Université Catholique de Louvain, chemin du Cyclotron,2, 1347 Louvain-La-Neuve'
- 'Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Zürich, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland'
- 'California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA'
author:
- Johan Alwall
- Claude Duhr
- Benjamin Fuks
- Olivier Mattelaer
- Deniz Gizem Öztürk
- 'Chia-Hsien Shen'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Computing decay rates for new physics theories with [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}'
---
[**PROGRAM SUMMARY**]{}\
[**Manuscript Title:**]{}Computing decay rates for new physics theories with [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}\
[**Authors:**]{} Johan Alwall, Claude Duhr, Benjamin Fuks, Olivier Mattelaer, Deniz Gizem Öztürk, Chia-Hsien Shen\
[**Program Title:**]{} [[MadWidth]{}]{}\
[**Journal Reference:**]{}\
[**Catalogue identifier:**]{}\
[**Licensing provisions:**]{} None.\
[**Programming language:**]{} [[Mathematica]{}]{} & [[Python]{}]{}.\
[**Computer:**]{} Platforms on which [[Mathematica]{}]{} and [[Python]{}]{} are available.\
[**Operating system:**]{} Operating systems on which [[Mathematica]{}]{} and [[Python]{}]{} are available.\
[**Keywords:**]{} Model building, Feynman rules, Monte Carlo simulations.\
[**Classification:**]{} 11.1 General, High Energy Physics and Computing.\
11.6 Phenomenological and Empirical Models and Theories.\
[**External routines/libraries:**]{} [[FeynRules]{}]{} 2.0 or higher.\
[[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} 2.2 or higher.\
[**Nature of problem:**]{} The program is a module for the [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} packages that allows the computation of tree-level decay widths for arbitrary new physics models. The module consists of two parts:
1. A [[FeynRules]{}]{} part, which allows one to compute analytically all tree-level two-body decay rates and to output them in the UFO format.
2. A [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} part, which allows the numerical computation of many-body decay rates.
[**Solution method:**]{}
1. For the [[FeynRules]{}]{} part, the analytic expressions for the three-point vertices can be squared to obtain analytic formulas for two-body decay rates.
2. For the [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} part, [[MadGraph]{}]{} is used to generate all Feynman diagrams contributing to the decay, and diagrams that correspond to cascade decays are removed.
[**Restrictions:**]{} [[Mathematica]{}]{} version 7 or higher. As the package is a module relying on [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} all restrictions of these packages apply.\
[**Unusual features:**]{} None.\
[**Running time:**]{} The computation of the Feynman rules from a Lagrangian, as well as the computation of the decay rates, varies with the complexity of the model, and runs from a few seconds to several minutes. See Section \[sec:validation\] of the present manuscript for more information.\
Introduction
============
The Monte Carlo simulation of new physics models with new massive unstable particles requires, to be practically useful, the calculation of the total and partial decay widths for all particles. The higher the number of allowed decay channels, the more daunting it is to do this by hand. Furthermore, depending on the mass hierarchy and interactions among the particles, the computation of two-body decay rates might be insufficient, as higher-multiplicity decays might be the dominant decay modes for some of the particles. Finally, the decay channels that are kinematically allowed are highly dependent on the mass spectrum of the model, so that the decay rates need to be reevaluated for every choice of the input parameters. As a consequence, the computation of all the partial widths of all the particles that appear in a model can be a complex task already at leading order. For this reason, several tools dedicated to the computation of decay rates in the context of specific beyond the Standard Model theories have been developed in the past [@Djouadi:1997yw; @Heinemeyer:1998yj; @Allanach:2001kg; @Muhlleitner:2003vg; @Porod:2003um; @Djouadi:2006bz; @Meade:2007js; @SMcalc; @Eriksson:2009ws; @Frisch:2010gw; @Das:2011dg; @Hlucha:2011yk; @Contino:2013kra; @Baglio:2013iia], while many Monte-Carlo event generators are also able to compute partial widths on their own via a dedicated phase-space integration [@Pukhov:2004ca; @Belyaev:2012qa; @Bahr:2008pv; @Maltoni:2002qb; @Alwall:2011uj; @Gleisberg:2003xi; @Kilian:2007gr; @Hahn:2006ig; @Klasen:2002xi]. The aim of this paper is to present a way to compute automatically, using the [[FeynRules]{}]{} [@Christensen:2008py; @Alloul:2013bka] and [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} [@Alwall:2011uj; @amcatnlo] frameworks, all the partial decay widths for large classes of new physics models, in particular when specific width calculators are not publicly available.
[[FeynRules]{}]{} is a [[Mathematica]{}]{} package that allows one to compute the interaction vertices of any high-energy physics model directly from its Lagrangian. The package contains a set of translation interfaces to export the Feynman rules to various matrix element generators. The latter often require the widths of all the particles appearing inside the model to be given explicitly and to be defined as numerical input parameters. The workflow to obtain an implementation of a new physics model that can be used for phenomenological studies has so far been the following[^1]:
1. obtain an implementation of the model into the matrix element generator of choice (for which an interface to [[FeynRules]{}]{} exists) where all the widths are set to some default values.
2. for each choice of the numerical input parameters, run the matrix element generator to compute the numerical values of the widths, and insert them back into the model implementation.
While straightforward, it is clear that this process contains a lot of redundant workload. In particular, in many situations the dominant kinematically allowed decay channels are the two-body decays, which can easily be computed by squaring three-point vertices and multiplying by the appropriate phase-space factors. The first main technical advance of this paper is that we present an extension of the [[FeynRules]{}]{} package that allows one to compute analytically all two-body decay rates, and thus to include their values into the output of the translation interfaces. Moreover, we have extended the Universal [[FeynRules]{}]{} Output format (UFO) [@Degrande:2011ua], which is the standard interface from [[FeynRules]{}]{} to [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}, [GoSam]{} [@Cullen:2011ac] and [[Herwig]{}]{}++ [@Bahr:2008pv; @Bellm:2013lba], to include all these analytic formulas so that they can be used dynamically when generating a scattering process.
Two-body decays might however be insufficient and three (or even more)-body decays might be required for a reliable estimation of the total widths of some of the particles. However, computing all the analytic formulae for an arbitrary mass spectrum is beyond reach. In addition, one has to deal with the double counting coming from an intermediate propagator going on-shell, which corresponds to a cascade of two-body decays. Therefore, the second main technical achievement of this paper is to introduce a new [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} module, dubbed [[MadWidth]{}]{}, which determines automatically the required final state multiplicity to reach a given precision on the total width. In addition, it generates the diagrams without any double counting, estimates the contribution of each decay channel and selects those that should be integrated numerically. The inclusion of higher multiplicities may however still be insufficient in cases where loop-induced decay modes are important or in cases where threshold effect are large so that their resummation needs to be taken into account.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section \[sec:fr\] we give a short review of the [[FeynRules]{}]{} package and we introduce the new functions that can be used to compute two-body decay rates. In Section \[sec:ufo\] we present the extension of the UFO format to include the information on these two-body decays. In Section \[sec:mg5\] we describe the algorithm implemented in [[MadWidth]{}]{} to generate all numerically relevant diagrams associated with $N$-body decay channels and present how the code can be used inside the [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} framework. Finally, in Section \[sec:validation\] we validate our implementations by comparing partial widths for four selected models, namely the Standard Model, the Higgs Effective Field Theory [@Kniehl:1995tn; @Shifman:1979eb], the Strongly Interacting Light Higgs model [@Giudice:2007fh] and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Our conclusions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Automatic computation of two-body decay rates with [[FeynRules]{}]{} {#sec:fr}
====================================================================
The [[Mathematica]{}]{} package [[FeynRules]{}]{}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section we introduce one of the main actors involved in this work, the [[FeynRules]{}]{} package. We start by presenting a short review of the main functionalities of the package, and we focus on the automatic computation of decay rates within the [[FeynRules]{}]{} framework in Section \[sec:decay\_fr\].
In a nutshell, [[FeynRules]{}]{} is a [[Mathematica]{}]{} package that allows one for the automatic computation of the Feynman rules of a quantum field theory model directly from its Lagrangian. It can be used with a large variety of physics models involving fields with spin of at most two [@Christensen:2009jx; @Christensen:2013aua] and/or superfields [@Duhr:2011se; @Fuks:2012im]. The only requirements consist of Lorentz and gauge invariance. In other words, and more technically speaking, all indices appearing inside a Lagrangian must be correctly contracted. Apart from these restrictions, no further assumptions are made on the functional form of the Lagrangian, so that [[FeynRules]{}]{} can also be used to compute vertices associated with operators of dimension greater than four and in the context of any gauge choice.
In addition, [[FeynRules]{}]{} also contains several translation interfaces that allow one to output the Feynman rules into a format readable by various Feynman diagram generators. Currently, dedicated interfaces exist for [[CalcHep]{}]{}/[[CompHep]{}]{} [@Pukhov:1999gg; @Boos:2004kh; @Pukhov:2004ca; @Belyaev:2012qa], [[FeynArts]{}]{}/[[FormCalc]{}]{} [@Hahn:1998yk; @Hahn:2000kx; @Hahn:2006zy; @Hahn:2009bf; @Agrawal:2011tm], [[Sherpa]{}]{} [@Gleisberg:2003xi; @Gleisberg:2008ta] and [Whiz]{}-[ard]{}/[[O’Mega]{}]{} [@Moretti:2001zz; @Kilian:2007gr; @Christensen:2010wz]. Furthermore, it is also possible to output the model information in the so-called *Universal FeynRules Output* (UFO) format, a format for the implementation of beyond the Standard Model theories into matrix element generators that is not tight to any existing code and that does not make any *a priori* assumption on the structure of the interaction vertices that appear in the model. Finally, [[FeynRules]{}]{}also comes with specific computational modules that include, [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, methods dedicated to superspace calculations [@Duhr:2011se] or mass matrix diagonalization [@Alloul:2013fw].
The implementation of a model into [[FeynRules]{}]{} does not only require to enter the Lagrangian, but also the definitions of all particles and parameters that appear inside it. In other words, all symbols that are used to write the Lagrangian in [[Mathematica]{}]{} must be properly declared before Feynman rules may be calculated by [[FeynRules]{}]{}. The syntax for the declaration of the particles and parameters is based on the original format for model files of [[FeynArts]{}]{}, extended by new options required by [[FeynRules]{}]{}. For example, the Standard Model $Z$-boson can be declared by including in the [[FeynRules]{}]{} model description,
V[1] == {
ClassName -> Z,
SelfConjugate -> True,
Mass -> {MZ, 91.1876},
Width -> {WZ, 2.4952}
}
This declares a vector field ([V\[1\]]{}) denoted by the symbol `Z` that is self-conjugate ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, that is equal to its own antiparticle) with a mass $M_Z$ of 91.187 GeV and a width $W_Z$ of 2.4952 GeV. At this stage, the numerical value of the width of the particles must be explicitly given when declaring a new instance of the particle class[^2]. The widths are, however, in general not independent input parameters of a model, but related to other parameters of the theory, such as masses and coupling constants. Any consistent phenomenological analysis therefore requires the widths of all the particles appearing in a model to be re-evaluated every time the numerical values of the independent input parameters (consisting of so-called ‘benchmark points’) are changed. This is at odds with the fact that the widths are given as explicit numerical input parameters in a [[FeynRules]{}]{} model file.
The reason why explicit numerical values need to be specified in a [[FeynRules]{}]{} model lies in the interfacing to the matrix element generators. Indeed, as the only task of [[FeynRules]{}]{} is the computation of the tree-level Feynman rules from the Lagrangian, the widths, and even less so their numerical values, are not directly used at any stage by the code. However, when the Feynman rules are exported to one of the aforementioned matrix element generators, these codes often require the widths of the particles to be provided as numerical inputs, thus requiring the corresponding variables to be defined at the [[FeynRules]{}]{} level and the numerical values computed, [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, by making use of the generator of choice[^3]. Moreover, calculating all the branching ratios of the model particles may also be required by tools such as parton shower programs that are further interfaced to matrix element generators. This has to be repeated for each benchmark point under consideration, which renders the entire approach highly inefficient as it involves a lot of redundant workload.
Functions dedicated to the computation of decay widths {#sec:decay_fr}
------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we describe the new functionalities of the [[FeynRules]{}]{} package related to the computation of all two-body decays of a model analytically. We start by giving a very brief review on two-body decays before presenting the new user functions implemented into [[FeynRules]{}]{}.
The leading-order decay rate of a heavy particle of mass $M$ into $N$ particles of mass $m_i$ is given by $$\label{eq:gamma}
\Gamma = \frac{1}{2|M|S}\int {\rm d} \Phi_N\,|\mathcal{M}|^2\ ,$$ where $S$ denotes the phase space symmetry factor, $|\mathcal{M}|^2$ the averaged squared matrix element and ${\rm d}\Phi_N$ the usual $N$-body phase-space measure in four dimensions $$\begin{split}\label{eq:PS_measure}
{\rm d}\Phi_N &\,= (2\pi)^4\,\delta^{(4)}\left(P-\sum_{i=1}^Np_i\right)\,\prod_{i=1}^N\frac{{\rm d}^4p_i}{(2\pi)^3}\,\delta_+(p_i^2-m_i^2)\\
&\,=(2\pi)^4\,\delta^{(4)}\left(P-\sum_{i=1}^Np_i\right)\,\prod_{i=1}^N\frac{{\rm d}^3p_i}{2\,(2\pi)^3\,E_i}\ .
\end{split}$$ In this expression $P=(M,\vec 0)$ stands for the four-momentum of the heavy decaying particle at rest and $p_i$ and $E_i$ are the momenta and energies of the decay products. The absolute value included in Eq. , rather unconventional, comes from the fact that in certain beyond the Standard Model theories involving Majorana fermions ([[*e.g.*]{}]{}, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model), it is possible to choose the phases of the fermion fields such that the mass is made negative.
In the special case of a two-body decay, $N=2$, Lorentz invariance implies that the matrix element can only depend on the masses of the external particles, and we can write $$\Gamma = \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(M^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)}\,|\mathcal{M}|^2}{16\,\pi\,S\,|M|^3}\,,$$ where the Källén function reads $\lambda(M^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)= (M^2-m_1^2-m_2^2)^2-4m_1^2m_2^2$. The matrix element of a two-body decay only receives contributions from one single three-point vertex $\mathcal{V}$, and so it can be written as $$\label{eq:master}
|\mathcal{M}|^2 = \mathcal{V}_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3}^{a_1a_2a_3}\,\mathcal{P}^{\ell_1\ell'_1}_1\,\mathcal{P}^{\ell_2\ell'_2}_2\,\mathcal{P}^{\ell_3\ell'_3}_3\,(\mathcal{V}^*)_{\ell'_1\ell'_2\ell'_3}^{a_1a_2a_3}\,,$$ where the color and spin indices of the particle $i$ are denoted by $\ell_i^{(')}$ and $a_i$. In addition, we have introduced the polarization tensor of the particle $i$, $\mathcal{P}_i$, which depends on its spin and its mass. As a consequence, the only dependence on the model is through the three-point vertex $\mathcal{V}$ computed by [[FeynRules]{}]{}, so that we have all the necessary ingredients to evaluate the two-body decay widths analytically. The reason why $N$-body decays with $N>2$ are not considered inside the [[FeynRules]{}]{} framework is due to the fact that, on the one hand, the matrix element does no longer trivially decouple from the phase space and, on the other hand, the remaining phase-space integration might contain infrared divergences for massless particles in the final state. Moreover, the double-counting arising from decay channels of different final-state multiplicities requires a special treatment. The restriction to two-body decays provides in general a good estimate of the width of the particles. In some cases, it is however important to include at least three-body decay contributions. We will discuss how such cases are identified and handled in the context of the [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} framework in Section \[sec:mg5\].
Using the vertices provided by [[FeynRules]{}]{}, it is very easy to evaluate Eq. analytically and to obtain the analytic results for *all* two-body decay rates associated with any new physics model. In the rest of this section we describe the new functions included in the [[FeynRules]{}]{} package that allow one to perform this task on the example of the Standard Model implementation, which is included in the distribution of the package.
In order to compute the partial widths of the particles, it is necessary to first compute the vertices associated with the model in the usual way and to store them in some variable, [[*e.g.*]{}]{},
vertices = FeynmanRules[ LSM ];
where [LSM]{} denotes the variable containing the Standard Model Lagrangian. Once the vertices have been computed, we can immediately evaluate all two-body decays by issuing the command
decays = ComputeWidths[ vertices ];
The function [ComputeWidths\[\]]{} first selects all three-point vertices from the list [vertices]{} that involve at least one massive particle and no ghost field and/or Goldstone boson. Next, the squared matrix elements are evaluated (in unitary gauge) using Eq. and the results are stored in a list which contains entries of the form $$\textrm{{\tt\{\{}}\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\,\phi_3 \textrm{{\tt \}, }} \Gamma_{\phi_1\to\phi_2\,\phi_3} \textrm{{\tt \}}}\,.$$ First, we stress that the output of the function [ComputeWidths\[\]]{} contains the analytic results for the decay rates for *all* possible cyclic rotations of the external particles $\{\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3\}$ with a massive initial state, independently whether a given decay channel is kinematically allowed. The reason for this is that, while certain channels might be forbidden/allowed for a chosen set of numerical input parameters, this might not be the case for all possible choices of the external parameters. Second, the output of [ComputeWidths\[\]]{} is also stored internally in the global variable `FR$PartialWidth`. The use of this global variable will become clear below. Every time the function [ComputeDecays\[\]]{} is executed, the value of the global variable is overwritten, unless the option [Save]{} of [ComputeWidths\[\]]{} is set to [False]{} (the default is [True]{}) and in this case `FR$PartialWidth` remains unchanged. Summations over possible internal gauge indices in the analytic results are not performed, unless for indices related to the fundamental and adjoint representations of $SU(3)$ in the case where the user employs the conventional symbols for the representation matrices and the corresponding index names presented in the [[FeynRules]{}]{}manual (see Section 6.1.5 of Ref. [@Alloul:2013bka]).
While all the partial widths for all decay channels (kinematically allowed or not) are stored in the variables [decays]{} and `FR$PartialWidth`, [[FeynRules]{}]{} contains a set of functions that allows the user to read out directly certain entries of these lists. For example, issuing the command
> [PartialWidth\[ {]{}$\phi_1, \phi_2, \phi_3$ [}, decays \]]{}
checks, based on the numerical values of the masses defined in the declaration of the particles, whether the decay $\phi_1\to\phi_2\,\phi_3$ is kinematically allowed, and if so, returns the corresponding partial width $\Gamma_{\phi_1\to\phi_2\,\phi_3}$. The second argument of [PartialWidth\[\]]{} is optional and could be omitted. If omitted, the partial widths stored in the global variable `FR$PartialWidth` are used by default. Similarly
> $\phi_1$[, decays \]]{};\
> [BranchingRatio\[ {]{}$\phi_1, \phi_2, \phi_3$[}, decays \]]{};
return the analytic results for the total decay rate and the branching ratio, whenever kinematically allowed. Like for [PartialWidth\[\]]{} the second argument is optional. Furthermore, we stress that the analytic expressions can easily be evaluated numerically (using the numerical values for the masses and coupling constants defined in the model) with the built-in [[FeynRules]{}]{} function [NumericalValue\[\]]{}. Finally, it can be useful to update the information included in the original particle declarations by replacing the numerical value of the widths of all particles by the numerical values obtained with the function [TotWidth]{}, which can be achieved by issuing the command
UpdateWidths[ decays ];
where, as usual, the argument [decays]{} is optional. After this command has been issued, the updated numerical results for the widths are employed by the translation interfaces to matrix element generators.
Extension of the UFO format to include decay information {#sec:ufo}
========================================================
In the previous section we have seen how [[FeynRules]{}]{} can be used to compute analytically all tree-level two-body decays associated with a beyond the Standard Model theory, how to update the numerical values for the total widths inside [[FeynRules]{}]{} and how to export them to matrix element generators. This approach does however not yet solve the problem that widths are not independent parameters, and so they need to be re-evaluated for every benchmark point. While it is in principle possible to rerun [[FeynRules]{}]{} for each parameter set, this procedure is obviously highly inefficient. In the following, we present an extension of the UFO format [@Degrande:2011ua] that allows one to include the analytic results for the two-body decays. Starting from [[FeynRules]{}]{} 2.0, the UFO interface automatically includes all two-body decays in the output. It is however possible to disable this feature by setting the option [AddDecays]{} of the [WriteUFO\[\]]{} function to [False]{} (the default being [True]{}).
If included, information on the two-body decays is stored into the UFO format in the file [decays.py]{}. The content of this file contains declarations of instances of the class [Decay]{} (defined in `object_library.py`). Each instance of this class can be thought of as a collection of analytic formulas for the two-body partial widths of a given particle. For example, the two-body partial widths of the Higgs boson in the Standard Model are represented inside [decays.py]{} as
> [DecayH = Decay(name = ’DecayH’,]{}\
> \
> $\Gamma_{H\to W^+\,W^-}$[’, ]{}\
> $\Gamma_{H\to Z\,Z}$[’,]{}\
> $\Gamma_{H\to b\,\bar b}$[’,]{}\
> $\Gamma_{H\to \tau^+\, \tau^-}$[’,]{}\
> $\Gamma_{H\to t\,\bar t}$[’]{}\
where $\Gamma_{H\to ij}$ schematically represent the analytic formulas for the partial widths of the Higgs boson. The syntax used to write these analytic formulas in [[Python]{}]{} form is identical to the syntax used in the UFO format for defining internal parameters, and we refer to Ref. [@Degrande:2011ua] for details. Similar to the output of the [ComputeWidths\[\]]{} function described in Section \[sec:decay\_fr\], *all* possible decays are included, even if kinematically forbidden. In our example[^4], this implies that the analytic formula for the decay of a Higgs boson into a top quark pair is also present (even if not kinematically allowed for a light Higgs boson). It is then up to matrix element generators to filter out at run time the kinematically allowed channels and to combine them consistently into the total width and branching ratios for a given particle.
The example of the Higgs is a case where tree-level two-body decays are not sufficient for an accurate estimation of the width. One must indeed include important contributions arising both from loop-induced diagrams and from three-body decays via off-shell effects. While the inclusion of the loop-induced diagrams lies beyond the scope of this paper, the next section will describe how three-body decays can be handled with [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}.
[[MadWidth]{}]{} – a [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} module to compute decay widths {#sec:mg5}
==============================================================================
[[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} is a suite of packages related to the computation of matrix elements [@Alwall:2011uj; @Alwall:2008pm; @Artoisenet:2012st; @Artoisenet:2010cn; @Hirschi:2011pa; @Frederix:2009yq]. Two of its main usages consist of cross section computation and event generation at the leading order (via the [[MadEvent]{}]{} package [@Maltoni:2002qb]) and next-to-leading order (through the [MC@NLO]{} framework [@amcatnlo]) in perturbation theory. In addition to their intrinsic accuracy, the precision of the results provided by the aforementioned packages is limited by the precision of the calculations of the numerical values of the model parameters. In particular, the way in which the widths of the particles have been obtained plays a non-negligible role. Although the total widths are in general estimated fairly well if only two-body decays are considered, it is often necessary to include decays to higher-multiplicity final states. In principle, we can generate all $N$-body tree-level decay processes directly in [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} and find the (partial) widths.[^5] However, in addition to the genuine $N$-body decay processes, this also generates cascade decays and radiation from ($n<N$)-body decays which can be accounted more efficiently from the parent lower-multiplicity decays. Also, often only a small subset of higher-multiplicity final states are relevant for the total width. Both factors hinder a balance between precision and efficiency using [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} alone.
[[MadWidth]{}]{} has been designed with the purpose to solve this issue. It is embedded as a module into [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}, and allows the user to compute $N$-body partial decay widths for arbitrary values of $N$ at tree-level. Assuming the narrow-width approximation[^6], the module iteratively builds diagrams from lower multiplicities while at the same time carefully removes contributions from cascade decays and radiative processes. We stress that [[MadWidth]{}]{} is not the first publicly available code to compute leading-order decay rates, but [[MadWidth]{}]{} has been designed to go beyond what is done by existing tools like [[CalcHep]{}]{}, [Bridge]{} or [[Herwig]{}]{}++ in several aspects. First, while [[CalcHep]{}]{} can evaluate total decay widths on the fly, it only includes contributions from three-body (four-body) decays only if there is no contribution from two-body (three-body) decays. Second, while [[Herwig]{}]{}++ and [Bridge]{} are able to avoid contributions from cascade decays, they are much more limited in the support of beyond the Standard Model theories than [[MadWidth]{}]{}, which can handle, by its very design, any theory for which a UFO implementation exists.
In the remainder of this section we give a brief account of the algorithms underlying [[MadWidth]{}]{}. We first explain the algorithm for the diagram generation in Section \[sec:algo\], followed by the algorithm to estimate numerical relevance of a given channel compared to a total width and for the selection of the proper set of diagrams for event generation in Sections \[sec:decay\_estimator\] and \[sec:diagest\]. Finally, we introduce how to use the [[MadWidth]{}]{} module within the [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} framework in Section \[sec:mg5\_manuel\].
The [[MadWidth]{}]{} algorithm {#sec:algo}
------------------------------
The [[MadWidth]{}]{} module works in an iterative fashion. It begins by generating all two-body decay diagrams, and then iteratively adds extra final state particles to build up higher-multiplicity diagrams[^7], until a certain maximal multiplicity $N_{\max}$ is reached. $N_{\max}$ is either provided as an input by the user or determined dynamically such that a requested numerical precision for the total decay width is reached (see Section \[sec:mg5\_manuel\] for more details). For $N$-body final states, all possible diagrams are first generated, including the so-called contact diagrams that contain a single $N$-point interaction vertex as well as diagrams derived from existing $n$-body decay processes (with $n<N$). Diagrams corresponding to cascade decay and radiative processes are then removed following a procedure which is detailed in the remainder of this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig.lowerdecay\] Example of diagrams describing a schematical decay $S_1\to S_2 S_2^*\to S_2 S_3 S_3$. A cross (tick) on a vertex indicates that the associated decay is kinematically allowed (forbidden) with all three particles being on-shell. In the left-most diagram, the two-body decay $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ is assumed to be kinematically viable, tagged as ‘open’, while the process $S_2\to S_3S_3$ is kinematically forbidden. Hence, this three-body decay mode of the $S_1$ particle must be mediated by an off-shell internal $S_2^*$ particle. [[MadWidth]{}]{} includes this mode as it cannot be captured by a cascade decay of an $S_2$ particle from a first $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ decay (see the central diagram), which would have been discarded. In the right-most diagram, $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ is kinematically forbidden so that $S_2$ is forced to be off-shell. In this case, the three-body decay is possible and cannot be seen as a cascade of two-body decays, thus it is included by [[MadWidth]{}]{}.](decay_af.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig.lowerdecay\] Example of diagrams describing a schematical decay $S_1\to S_2 S_2^*\to S_2 S_3 S_3$. A cross (tick) on a vertex indicates that the associated decay is kinematically allowed (forbidden) with all three particles being on-shell. In the left-most diagram, the two-body decay $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ is assumed to be kinematically viable, tagged as ‘open’, while the process $S_2\to S_3S_3$ is kinematically forbidden. Hence, this three-body decay mode of the $S_1$ particle must be mediated by an off-shell internal $S_2^*$ particle. [[MadWidth]{}]{} includes this mode as it cannot be captured by a cascade decay of an $S_2$ particle from a first $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ decay (see the central diagram), which would have been discarded. In the right-most diagram, $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ is kinematically forbidden so that $S_2$ is forced to be off-shell. In this case, the three-body decay is possible and cannot be seen as a cascade of two-body decays, thus it is included by [[MadWidth]{}]{}.](decay_aa.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig.lowerdecay\] Example of diagrams describing a schematical decay $S_1\to S_2 S_2^*\to S_2 S_3 S_3$. A cross (tick) on a vertex indicates that the associated decay is kinematically allowed (forbidden) with all three particles being on-shell. In the left-most diagram, the two-body decay $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ is assumed to be kinematically viable, tagged as ‘open’, while the process $S_2\to S_3S_3$ is kinematically forbidden. Hence, this three-body decay mode of the $S_1$ particle must be mediated by an off-shell internal $S_2^*$ particle. [[MadWidth]{}]{} includes this mode as it cannot be captured by a cascade decay of an $S_2$ particle from a first $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ decay (see the central diagram), which would have been discarded. In the right-most diagram, $S_1\to S_2 S_2$ is kinematically forbidden so that $S_2$ is forced to be off-shell. In this case, the three-body decay is possible and cannot be seen as a cascade of two-body decays, thus it is included by [[MadWidth]{}]{}.](decay_fa.pdf "fig:")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a first step, the algorithm removes diagrams corresponding to cascade decays. Such diagrams contain at least one intermediate on-shell particle, and they are generated by lower multiplicity processes with one or more subsequent decays. Such diagrams need to be discarded as their contribution to the total width is already accounted for by a lower-multiplicity decay. For example, the decay $t\to b W^+ \to b \ell^+ \nu$ is a cascade decay. The internal $W$-boson is indeed produced on-shell from the $t \to b W^+$ two-body decay, and the $W$-boson further decays into a neutrino-lepton system. In contrast, diagrams such as the one depicted in Fig. \[fig.lowerdecay\] are not defined as cascade decay diagrams and their contribution is thus included into the width calculation. In this case, although the $N$-body decay diagram contains an $n$-body decay subdiagram with $n<N$ ($S_1 \to S_2\, S_2$ in the example of the Fig. \[fig.lowerdecay\]), the $N$-body final state can only be produced if a internal particle ($S_2^*$ in Fig. \[fig.lowerdecay\]) is off-shell.
In order to remove cascade decay diagrams from the width calculation, [[MadWidth]{}]{} tags all diagrams as ‘open’ or ‘closed’ depending on whether or not they are kinematically allowed, and only evaluates $N$-body diagrams that belong to one of the following categories:
1. The $N$-body decay diagram contains a closed $n$-body decay diagram with $n<N$. This configuration is the one of the most common higher-multiplicity decay diagrams.
2. The $N$-body decay diagram contains an open $n$-body decay diagram with $n<N$ but the $N$-body final state can only be produced in the case where one of the internal particles is off-shell (as in Fig. \[fig.lowerdecay\]).
3. The $N$-body decay diagram is a contact diagram (made from a single $N$-point interaction vertex).
Each diagram is then tagged as ‘open’ or ‘closed’ and stored for the generation of higher-multiplicity decays. Diagrams which do not belong to any of the above categories are negligible in the narrow width approximation and are omitted.
In a second step, the algorithm discards radiative diagrams. Indeed, as we perform a tree-level (leading order) computation, we do not include any higher-order contributions and an infrared-finite result can only be obtained after coherently discarding all real-emission diagrams. We first investigate the cascade decay topologies and discard any diagram that contains a particle decaying into itself. This forbids, for example, the $ W^+\, \to\, W^+\,\gamma$, $t \,\to\, t\, g$ and $ W^+\, \to \,W^+\, Z$ transitions. Additionally, we must check that contact decay diagrams (made of a single $N$-point interaction vertex) do not correspond to a radiative configuration. Equivalently, we need to distinguish $N$-point interactions that emerge by imposing gauge invariance on a $n$-point interaction vertex with $n<N$, as it arises when the derivatives of a non-abelian gauge field are replaced by full field strength tensors, from a leading-order new physics contribution. For example the dimension-six operator $H^\dagger\, H\, G_\mu{}^\nu\, G_\nu{}^\mu$ gives rise to both $Hgg$ and $Hggg$ vertices. The second vertex is only necessary to render the first one gauge invariant, and it does therefore not contribute to the width of the Higgs boson into three gluons, because it is a higher-order QCD correction to the $H\,\to g\,g$ decay. In contrast, if we consider the dimension-eight operator $H^\dagger\, H\, G_\mu{}^\nu\, G_\nu{}^\rho\, G_\rho{}^\mu$, the leading-order $h\,\to\,g\,g\,g$ contribution has to be taken into account, even at leading-order in QCD. To disentangle those two cases, we generate all potential diagrams for given initial and final state particles at a specific order in perturbation theory. If a cascade decay topology is found, then the contact decay diagram is considered as radiative and discarded. The definition of the perturbative order of a diagram can be obtained from the UFO library (see Section 6.1.7 of Ref. [@Alloul:2013bka]).
Fast estimation of $N$-body partial widths {#sec:decay_estimator}
------------------------------------------
In order to avoid exporting all the ‘open’ $N$-body decay diagrams to [[MadEvent]{}]{} for numerical integration, [[MadWidth]{}]{}performs a fast estimation of the contribution of each channel assuming the absence of interference between diagrams contributing to the same final state, and passes to [[MadEvent]{}]{} only the numerically relevant decay modes[^8]. The estimation is based on the formula $$\Gamma = \frac{1}{2 |M| S}\int {\rm d}\Phi_N \,|\mathcal{M}|^2
\approx \frac{1}{2 |M| S} \, \textrm{LIPS}_N(M;m_1,\ldots,m_N)\, \langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle\ ,
\label{eq:estim}$$ where $\textrm{LIPS}_N(M;m_1,\ldots,m_N)$ is the Lorentz-invariant $N$-body phase-space volume and $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle$ approximates the squared matrix element. In the following we describe in more detail how we evaluate the approximate decay rates.
![\[fig.ps\_decomposition\] Description of the recursive way of the computation of the phase-space volume factor in Eq. . We denote by $M_{\rm eff}$ the effective mass associated with the other $N-1$ particles. See ref. [@Byckling:1969sx; @James:1968gu] for more details.](phase_space_splitting.pdf "fig:")\
We start by discussing the evaluation of the phase space volume. Inserting $$1 = \int{\rm d}^4Q\,{\rm d} M_{\rm eff}^2\,\delta(Q^2-M_{\rm eff}^2)\,\delta^{(4)}\left(Q-\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}p_i\right)\,,$$ into Eq. , it is easy to see that (see Fig. \[fig.ps\_decomposition\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PS_modified}
&& \textrm{LIPS}_N(M;m_1,\ldots,m_N)\\
\nonumber &&\qquad \ = \int^{M_{\rm max}^2}_{M_{\rm min}^2} \frac{\d M^2_{\rm eff}}{2\pi}\,
\textrm{LIPS}_{2}(M;m_N,M_{\rm eff})\,\textrm{LIPS}_{N-1}(M_{\rm eff};m_1,\ldots,m_{N-1}) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the two-body phase-space volume is given by $$\label{eq:PS_area_2body}
\textrm{LIPS}_2(M;m_1,m_2) =\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(M^2, m_1^2, m_2^2)}}{8\pi M^2}\,.$$ Since the residual $(N-1)$-body phase-space measure is Lorentz invariant, we can conveniently calculate it in the rest frame of $P-p_N$. The mass of the effective mother particle (see Fig. \[fig.ps\_decomposition\]) is deduced from momentum conservation, $$M_{\rm eff}=\sqrt{M^2+m_N^2-2M\,E_N}\ ,$$ where $E_N$ is the energy of $N^{\rm th}$ particle in the rest frame of the mother particle. This quantity $M_{\rm eff}$ ranges from the production threshold of the remaining $N\!-\!1$ particles () to a maximum value $M_{\rm max}=M-m_N$ corresponding to the case where the $N^{\rm th}$ particle is at rest. Finally, we approximate the exact expression of Eq. by $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:PS_approximated}
\textrm{LIPS}_N(M;m_1,\ldots,m_N) &\, \approx c_{ps}(M_{\rm max}^2-M_{\rm min}^2)
\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(M^2, m_N^2, M^2_{\rm mean})}}{16\pi^2 M^2}\\
&\,\times
\textrm{LIPS}_{N-1}(M_{\rm mean};m_1,\ldots,m_{N-1})\ ,
\end{split}$$ where the average effective mass is defined by . Eq. consists of approximating the integral by the area of a rectangle of height $M_{\rm mean}$. As the integrand vanishes at both $M_{\rm max}$ and $M_{\rm min}$ and $\textrm{LIPS}_{N-1}(M_{\rm eff};m_1,\ldots,m_{N-1})$ vanishes at the production threshold, the constant $c_{ps}=0.8$ has been added to refine the estimation. This formula is recursive and the recursion stops by using the analytic result for the two-body phase space of Eq. .
Table \[table\_propa\_pol\]: Simplified Feynman rules for propagators and polarization tensors for particles of different spins. We generically denote by $E$, $M$ and $\Gamma$ the energy, mass and width of the particle under consideration. Concerning the width, the algorithm either employs an estimation of the two-body decay width, if available, or sets $\Gamma$ to zero, the subtraction of any resonant contribution allowing one to avoid divergences (see the text for more details). For massive particles, $f(E,M)=1+E^2/M^2$, and $f(E,M)=1$ for massless particles. Our implementation ignores massless propagator as those particles are stable.\
Spin Propagator Polarization tensor
--------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
$0$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{(E^2-M^2+iM\Gamma)}$ 1
$\frac{1}{2}$ $\displaystyle\frac{E}{(E^2-M^2+iM\Gamma)}$ $2E$
$1$ $\displaystyle\frac{1 - \frac{E^2}{M^2}}{(E^2-M^2+iM\Gamma)}$ $f(E,M)$
$\frac{3}{2}$ $\displaystyle\frac{\frac23 (E)(1-\frac{E^2}{M^2})}{(E^2-M^2+iM\Gamma)}$ $2E\cdot f(E,M) $
$2$ $\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac76-\frac43\frac{E^2}{M^2}+\frac23\frac{E^4}{M^4}\right)}{(E^2-M^2+iM\Gamma)}$ $f(E,M)^2 $
The second ingredient to estimate the decay rate is the average squared matrix element related to the decay process under consideration. This quantity is approximated by mimicking the calculation of standard Feynman diagrams using the dedicated Feynman rules for the propagators and external particles given in Table \[table\_propa\_pol\]. The averaged matrix element square is then given by $$\label{eq:average_M}
\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle=
\frac{N_{\textrm{color}}}{N_{\textrm{s}}} \times \left\vert \prod_{\rm int}
\textrm{Propa}(E)\right\vert ^2\,\times \prod_{\rm ext}\mathcal{P}(E) \,\times
\prod_{\rm vert} \left( \sum_i C_i \,\textrm{Lorentz}_i\right)^2\ .$$
The first factor of this formula includes the average over the initial particle spin states $1/N_{\textrm{s}}$ and the color multiplicity associated with the diagram under consideration $N_{\textrm{color}}$. We recall that only color singlets, triplets, sextets and octets are currently supported by [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}.
The second factor in Eq. describes the internal propagators Propa$(E)$ appearing in the diagram, while the third factor includes a product of the polarization tensors $\mathcal{P}(E)$ of the external particles. The Feynman rules of Table \[table\_propa\_pol\] have been chosen such as to reproduce the correct results after a summation over all polarization and spin states. Moreover, the available kinetic energy is assumed to be uniformly distributed among the final-state particles, so that the energy $E_i$ of the $i^{\rm th}$ final-state particle of mass $M_i$ reads $E_i=(M - \sum_{j=1}^{N}M_j)/N+M_i$. The energy associated with an intermediate propagator is then derived from the energy of the particles which it decays into.
Finally, the last factor of Eq. contains the interaction vertices associated with the considered diagram. Each vertex is split up into the different Lorentz structures $\textrm{Lorentz}_j$ that it contains, the corresponding coupling constants being denoted by $C_j$. The Lorentz structures are further simplified so that they can be evaluated very efficiently. Each object that does not depend on the momenta (Dirac matrices, chirality projectors, [*etc.* ]{}) is replaced by the identity while each object depending on the momenta ($p^\mu$, $\slashed{p}$, [*etc.* ]{}) is replaced by the energy of the relevant particle. We have checked that this treatment is a good approximation also for non-trivial Lorentz structures (such as appearing in new physics models), form factors as well as for derivative couplings.
Table \[table:fast\_estimator\]: Selection of partial decay widths of the heaviest sbottom in the context of the SPS1a MSSM scenario. We confront the estimations derived by [[MadWidth]{}]{} to the exact results. We only show partial widths larger than $10^{-7}$ GeV.\
--------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------- --
Process Estimation of [[MadWidth]{}]{} Exact result
\[GeV\] \[GeV\]
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde \chi_1^-\, t\, h_1$ 1.89e-03 1.04e-03
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde \chi_1^-\, t\, Z$ 1.21e-03 1.27e-03
$ \tilde b_2 \to W^-\, t\, \tilde \chi_2^0$ 9.78e-04 1.36e-03
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde \chi_2^-\, b\, W^+$ 5.99e-04 1.88e-03
$ \tilde b_2 \to b\, Z\, \tilde\chi_2^0$ 1.60e-04 2.88e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_\tau\, t\, \tilde \tau_2^-$ 1.42e-04 3.36e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to W^-\, t\, \tilde\chi_1^0$ 1.34e-04 3.84e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_e\, t\, \tilde e_L^-$ 1.31e-04 3.13e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_\mu\, t\, \tilde \mu_L^-$ 1.31e-04 3.14e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to W^-\, b\, \tilde\chi_1^+$ 1.06e-04 2.04e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde\nu_\tau\, t\, \tau^-$ 7.52e-05 1.70e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde\nu_e\, t\, e^-$ 5.21e-05 1.23e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde\nu_\mu\, t\, \mu^-$ 5.21e-05 1.23e-04
$ \tilde b_2 \to b\, Z\, \tilde\chi_1^0$ 2.20e-05 5.39e-05
$ \tilde b_2 \to b\, h^0\, \tilde\chi_2^0$ 1.97e-05 1.33e-05
$ \tilde b_2 \to W^-\, b\, \tilde\chi_2^+$ 8.53e-06 5.65e-06
$ \tilde b_2 \to b\, h^0\, \tilde\chi_1^0$ 2.70e-06 2.19e-06
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar b\, b\, \tilde b_1$ 1.51e-06 8.58e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_\tau\, t\, \tilde \tau_1^-$ 7.77e-07 2.09e-06
$ \tilde b_2 \to b\, Z\, \tilde \chi_4^0$ 6.86e-07 3.54e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \tilde{b}_1^*\, b\, b$ 6.37e-07 2.04e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to b\, Z\, \tilde\chi_3^0$ 5.34e-07 3.05e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar u\, u\, \tilde b_1$ 2.24e-07 3.48e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar c\, c\, \tilde b_1$ 2.24e-07 3.48e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar s\, s\, \tilde b_1$ 1.77e-07 4.50e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar d\, d\, \tilde b_1$ 1.77e-07 4.50e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \mu^+\, \mu^-\, \tilde b_1$ 1.01e-07 1.02e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to e^+\, e^-\, \tilde b_1$ 1.01e-07 1.02e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_e\, \nu_e\, \tilde b_1$ 5.39e-08 2.03e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_\mu\, \nu_\mu\, \tilde b_1$ 5.39e-08 2.03e-07
$ \tilde b_2 \to \bar \nu_\tau\, \nu_\tau\, \tilde b_1$ 5.39e-08 2.03e-07
--------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------- --
The decay diagram estimation method has been validated in the framework of various models, and especially in the Standard Model and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The validation procedure has shown that the estimator can be safely used to select which decay channels are relevant to be computed numerically. Representative examples of the validation tests are presented in Table \[table:fast\_estimator\], where we compare the estimation of all partial widths of the heaviest bottom squark $\tilde b_2$ to the corresponding exact result derived from a [Bridge]{}-[[MadEvent]{}]{}-[[CalcHep]{}]{} comparison in the context of the SPS1a MSSM benchmark scenario [@Allanach:2002nj]. One can observe that the estimations reproduce, in all cases, the correct order of magnitude for each channel.
Estimation of the numerically relevant Feynman diagrams {#sec:diagest}
-------------------------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:decay\_estimator\], we have presented a method allowing [[MadWidth]{}]{} to estimate whether a given decay channel is numerically relevant once the corresponding Feynman diagrams have been generated. In this section, we present a second routine dedicated to a rough and quick estimate of the partial width associated with any decay process prior to diagram generation. This allows [[MadWidth]{}]{}to proceed with diagram generation only in cases where the considered decay mode can yield a non-negligible contribution to the total width.
This new method relies on the derivation of the partial width related to a kinematically allowed $(N\!+\!1)$-body decay by combining a $N$-body decay with the two-body decay of one of the $N$ final-state particles. The average squared matrix element $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{N+1}$ is hence derived from the knowledge of the average squared matrix elements $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_N$ and $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_i$ that respectively describe the $1\to N$ decay of the mother particle (of mass $M$) and the $1\to 2$ decay of the $i^{\rm th}$ final-state particle (of mass $M_i$). Calculating $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_N$ as in Eq. after approximately fixing the energy of each final-state particle to $M/(N+1)$, the squared matrix element $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{N+1}$ can be written as [^9] $$\label{eq:M_new}
\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{N+1}=
\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{N} \times \langle |\mathcal{M}|^2
\rangle_{i}\times
\frac {\vert\textrm{Propa}(E_i)\vert^2}{\mathcal{P}_i(M/(N+1)) \mathcal{P}_i(M_i)}\ ,$$ where one considers one specific value of $i$ (the summation will be performed below). The last factor of the above formula shows that the external polarization tensors $\mathcal{P}^2_i(M/(N+1))$ and $\mathcal{P}^2_i(M_i)$ of the $i^{\rm th}$ particle that are included in the matrix elements are replaced by a propagator $\vert\textrm{Propa}(E_i)\vert^2$. In addition, the color multiplicity and spin average factor have been neglected.
Since the decay of the $i^{\rm th}$ particle is a two-body decay, the related matrix element is related to the associated partial width as $$\label{eq:M_2}
\Gamma_i = \frac{1}{2|M_i|}\textrm{LIPS}_2(M_i) \times
\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{i} \approx
\frac{1}{16 \pi |M_i|} \times
\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{i}\ ,$$ where $\textrm{LIPS}_2(M_i) \approx 1/(8\pi)$ is the two-body phase-space volume given in Eq. evaluated by neglecting, for simplicity, all final-state particle masses.
In order to get an estimate of the $N\!+\! 1$-body decay partial width, it is also necessary to estimate the $N\!+\!1$-body phase space volume given by Eq. . To this aim, we naively assume that $(M_{\rm max}^2-M_{\rm min}^2)
\approx (M/2)^2$ and that $\sqrt{\lambda(M^2, m_N^2, M^2_{\rm mean})} \approx M^2$. Both of these approximations give the correct orders of magnitude and allow one, by iterating, to evaluate the phase space volume as $$\label{eq:PS_Nadd1}
\textrm{LIPS}_{N+1}(M) \approx c_{ps}\times
\left(\frac{M}{8\pi}\right)^2\textrm{LIPS}_N(M) \\
\sim \left(c_{ps} \left(\frac{M}{8\pi}\right)^2\right)^{N-2}\times \frac{1}{8\pi}$$ The estimation of the $1\to N\!+\!1$ partial width is then given by combining Eq. , Eq. , and Eq. , $$\Gamma_{N+1} \approx \widetilde{\Gamma}_N \times \sum_{i} c_{ps}\Gamma_i \frac{M_i M^2}{4 \pi}
\frac {\vert\textrm{Propa}(E_i)\vert^2}{\mathcal{P}_i(M_0/(N+1)) \mathcal{P}_i(M_i)},$$ where $\widetilde{\Gamma}_N$ is obtained from the phase space volume computed as in Eq. and $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_N$ calculated as described previously. Additionally, the summation over $i$ includes all possible decays of any of the $N$ final-state particles of the $1\to N$ process.
Table \[tab:valid\_fastest\_diag\]: Relative contribution of the three-body decays to the total width of all massive particles in the context of the SPS1a MSSM scenario. We approximate the total width by neglecting any decay to four particles or more and confront the estimated results of [[MadWidth]{}]{} (third column) to the exact results (second column). The partial widths of three-body decays are conservatively constrained by our analytical estimation. This shows that the order of magnitude is either correctly evaluated or over-estimated which is conservative.\
Particle $\Gamma_3/(\Gamma_3+\Gamma_2)$ Estimation
------------------- -------------------------------- ------------
$ t$ 7.06e-09 4.62e-06
$ Z$ 5.16e-07 3.46e-04
$ W^+$ 0.00e+00 0.00e+00
$ h^0$ 6.76e-02 1.82e+00
$ H^0$ 1.55e-03 2.42e-03
$ A^0$ 1.30e-03 2.13e-03
$ H^+$ 2.53e-03 3.99e-03
$ \tilde d_L$ 8.19e-03 5.92e-03
$ \tilde d_R$ 1.44e-04 9.35e-02
$ \tilde s_L$ 8.15e-03 5.92e-03
$ \tilde s_R$ 1.44e-04 9.35e-02
$ \tilde b_1$ 5.08e-03 1.21e-03
$ \tilde b_2$ 1.07e-02 3.83e-02
$ \tilde u_L$ 9.06e-03 5.46e-03
$ \tilde u_R$ 1.45e-04 2.38e-02
$ \tilde c_L$ 9.08e-03 5.46e-03
$ \tilde c_R$ 1.44e-04 2.38e-02
$ \tilde t_1$ 2.28e-03 1.89e-03
$ \tilde t_2$ 4.74e-03 4.47e-04
$ \tilde e_L^-$ 3.77e-05 2.65e-04
$ \tilde e_R^-$ 1.63e-11 2.08e-06
$ \tilde\mu_L^-$ 3.80e-05 2.65e-04
$ \tilde\mu_R^-$ 1.65e-11 2.08e-06
$ \tilde\tau_1^-$ 0.00e+00 0.00e+00
$ \tilde\tau_2^-$ 5.99e-04 4.14e-04
$ \tilde\nu_e$ 1.26e-08 1.01e-04
$ \tilde\nu_\mu$ 1.27e-08 1.01e-04
$ \tilde\nu_\tau$ 3.76e-04 2.44e-04
$ \tilde g$ 4.94e-04 1.12e-02
$ \tilde\chi_2^0$ 5.08e-03 9.18e-02
$ \tilde\chi_3^0$ 1.16e-03 9.88e-03
$ \tilde\chi_4^0$ 1.34e-03 1.20e-01
$ \tilde\chi_1^+$ 8.09e-03 7.78e-01
$ \tilde\chi_2^+$ 1.45e-03 2.93e-02
This method to estimate whether a given process is relevant has been carefully validated in the context of many new physics theories. For illustrative purposes, we focus on the SPS1a MSSM scenario [@Allanach:2002nj] and present in Table \[tab:valid\_fastest\_diag\] the relative contribution of the three-body decay modes to the total width (computed by neglecting any decay to four particles or more) of all massive particles of the model. We compare the exact results to those estimated by [[MadWidth]{}]{}. This shows that the order of magnitude is either correctly evaluated or over-estimated, which is conservative since this implies that the diagrams related to a non-negligible channel are always generated.
The [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} interface to [[MadWidth]{}]{} {#sec:mg5_manuel}
------------------------------------------------------------
The [[MadWidth]{}]{} module is fully embedded into the [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} framework and there are currently two ways to use it. Either [[MadWidth]{}]{} is directly called from a [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} or [[MadEvent]{}]{} shell, or it is instead run on the fly, at the time of event generation or cross section computation. In all situations, using [[MadWidth]{}]{}requires a valid UFO model. In the cases where the file `decays.py` is available (see Section \[sec:ufo\]), the analytic results for two-body decays are directly used by [[MadWidth]{}]{}. Otherwise, all partial widths are computed numerically.
The first way to use [[MadWidth]{}]{} is to call it from a [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}or [[MadEvent]{}]{} command interface, respectively initiated via the commands [./bin/mg5aMC]{} and [./bin/madevent]{}. This method is in particular useful for creating a valid `param_card.dat`. Width calculations are performed by issuing the command
compute_widths PARTICLE_NAME [OTHER PARTICLE] [OPTIONS]
where `PARTICLE_NAME` refers either the name of a particle or its associated Particle Data Group (PDG) code. The user can enter more than one particle name or PDG code, and can also use the keyword `all` to calculate the width of all the particles[^10]. The following options are allowed:
- [–body\_decay=value]{} \[default: 4.0025\]. The code ignores $N$-body decay contributions when either $N$ is larger than the integer part of `value` or when the estimated error for the total width is lower than the decimal part of `value`. In the case where the integer/decimal part of `value` is set to zero, the associated condition is ignored. For instance,
- [–body\_decay=3]{} enforces the computation of all two- and three-body decay channels.
- [–body\_decay=0.01]{} stops width computations when the estimated error on the total width is lower than 1%.
- [–body\_decay=3.01]{} stops a width computation either when all three-body decay contributions have been included or when the estimated error on the total width is lower than 1%.
- [–min\_br=value]{} \[default: 0.000625\]. If the estimation of the branching ratio associated with a given decay mode is found below `value`, the channel is not integrated numerically and the mode will not appear in the decay table. If not specified explicitly, `value` is set to the decimal part of the `body_decay` parameter divided by four.
- [–precision\_channel=value]{} \[default: 0.01\]. Required relative precision on each individual channel when integrated numerically.
- [–path=value]{} \[default value for [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}: path to the UFO model\] \[default value for [MadEvent]{}: `./Cards/param_card.dat`\]. The path to the [param\_card.dat]{} file to use during the numerical evaluation.
- [–output=value]{} \[default: overwrite input file\]. The path where to store the new [param\_card.dat]{} file that includes the computed widths.
The second way to use [[MadWidth]{}]{} is to run it on the fly either through a [[MadEvent]{}]{} or a [aMC@NLO]{} session. Both programs start by checking the `param_card.dat` file. If any of the widths is set to the value `Auto` then [[MadWidth]{}]{} is called on the fly (with the default options) to evaluate these quantities. The `param_card.dat` file is then overwritten before any further computation. For instance, if the [param\_card.dat]{} file provided to [[MadEvent]{}]{} contains the lines
DECAY 6 Auto # WT
DECAY 23 Auto # WZ
DECAY 24 2.047600e+00 # WW
DECAY 25 5.753088e-03 # WH
[[MadEvent]{}]{} then calls [[MadWidth]{}]{} to compute the total width and decay table of the top quark and the $Z$-boson, the widths of the $W$-boson and Higgs boson remaining unchanged. The original [param\_card]{}.dat file is subsequently overwritten, the above lines being replaced by
# PDG Width
DECAY 6 1.491472e+00
# BR NDA ID1 ID2 ...
1.000000e+00 2 24 5 # 1.49147214391
# PDG Width
DECAY 23 2.441755e+00
# BR NDA ID1 ID2 ...
1.523651e-01 2 3 -3 # 0.372038381506
1.523651e-01 2 1 -1 # 0.372038381506
1.507430e-01 2 5 -5 # 0.368077510282
1.188151e-01 2 4 -4 # 0.290117391009
1.188151e-01 2 2 -2 # 0.290117391009
6.793735e-02 2 16 -16 # 0.165886384843
6.793735e-02 2 14 -14 # 0.165886384843
6.793735e-02 2 12 -12 # 0.165886384843
3.438731e-02 2 13 -13 # 0.0839653943458
3.438731e-02 2 11 -11 # 0.0839653943458
3.430994e-02 2 15 -15 # 0.0837764784469
#
# PDG Width
DECAY 24 2.047600e+00
#
# PDG Width
DECAY 25 5.753088e-03
where the corresponding partial widths are given under the form of a comment, at the end of each line. Since the code returns not only the total widths, but also all partial widths, the output file is perfectly suitable to be passed to a parton shower program that can then further decay the unstable particles possibly present in the hard events.
Illustrative examples {#sec:validation}
=====================
As examples of usage of the tools presented in the previous sections, we focus on two-body and three-body partial width computations and compare, for a set of specific new physics theories, results provided by [[FeynRules]{}]{}, [[MadWidth]{}]{}, several public tools and analytic formulas available in the literature.
Two-body decays
---------------
In this section, we focus on two-body decay widths and perform various calculations in the framework of the Standard Model, the Strongly Interacting Light Higgs (SILH) model [@Giudice:2007fh] and the SPS1a MSSM benchmark scenario [@Allanach:2002nj]. We first compute for each of these models all two-body partial widths with [[FeynRules]{}]{} and then numerically compare the results to those returned by the [[MadWidth]{}]{} module of [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}. Moreover, in the case of the MSSM, we also confront the [[FeynRules]{}]{} results to the analytic formulas of Ref. [@Bozzi:2007me]. Agreement has been found in all cases, which validates our implementations in particular for theories involving higher dimensional operators (*cf*. the SILH model) and those with Majorana fermions (*cf*. the MSSM). A selection of numerical results can be found in Table \[SMtable\], Table \[SILHtable\] and Table \[MSSMtable\] for the Standard Model, the SILH model and the MSSM, respectively.
Table \[SMtable\]: Selection of partial decay widths in the framework of the Standard Model, as computed by [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadWidth]{}]{}.\
Decay mode [[FeynRules]{}]{} \[GeV\] [[MadWidth]{}]{} \[GeV\]
---------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
$h \to b \, \bar{b}$ $0.005390$ $0.005391$
$h \to \tau \, \bar{\tau}$ $0.0002587$ $0.0002587$
$h \to c \, \bar{c}$ $0.0003967$ $0.0003967$
$W^+ \to e^+ \, \nu_e $ $0.2225$ $ 0.2225$
$W^+ \to \tau^+ \, \nu_{\tau} $ $0.2223$ $ 0.2224$
$W^+ \to u \, \bar{d}$ $0.6336$ $ 0.6336$
$W^+ \to c \, \bar{s}$ $0.6333$ $0.6334$
$W^+ \to c \, \bar{d}$ $0.03401$ $0.03402$
$W^+ \to u \, \bar{s}$ $0.03403$ $ 0.03403$
$Z \to e^- \, e^+$ $0.08329$ $0.08329$
$Z \to \tau^- \, \tau^+$ $0.0831$ $ 0.0831$
$Z \to \nu_{e} \, \bar{\nu}_{e}$ $0.1658$ $ 0.1659$
$Z \to u \, \bar{u}$ $0.2841$ $0.2842$
$Z \to d \, \bar{d}$ $0.3667$ $0.3667$
$Z \to c \, \bar{c}$ $0.2838$ $ 0.2839$
$Z \to b \, \bar{b}$ $0.3627$ $ 0.3628$
$t \to b \, W^+$ $1.466$ $1.467$
Table \[SILHtable\]: Higgs boson partial decay widths in the framework of the SILH model, as computed by [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadWidth]{}]{}.\
Decay mode [[FeynRules]{}]{} \[GeV\] [[MadWidth]{}]{} \[GeV\]
----------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
$h \to \gamma \gamma$ $6.447 \, \mbox{e-10}$ $6.447 \, \mbox{e-10}$
$h \to g\, g$ $ 7.523 \, \mbox{e-06}$ $ 7.524 \,\mbox{e-06}$
$h \to \gamma \, Z $ $4.026 \, \mbox{e-11}$ $4.026 \, \mbox{e-11}$
Table \[MSSMtable\]: Selection of partial decay widths in the framework of the SPS1a MSSM scenario, as computed by [[FeynRules]{}]{} and [[MadWidth]{}]{}.\
Decay mode [[FeynRules]{}]{} \[GeV\] [[MadWidth]{}]{} \[GeV\]
------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
$\tilde{\chi}^0_4 \to \tilde{\chi}^+_1 \, W^-$ $0.6451 $ $0.6451$
$ \tilde{\chi}^0_4 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \, Z$ $0.05567 $ $ 0.05568$
$ \tilde{\chi}^+_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \, W^+$ $0.1682 $ $0.1683$
$ \tilde{\chi}^+_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^+_1 \, Z$ $0.5755$ $0.5756 $
$ \tilde{u}_6 \to \tilde{u}_3 \, Z$ $1.39 $ $1.4$
\[1ex\]
Three-body decays
-----------------
In this section, we address the calculation of tree-body decay widths and compare results obtained with [[MadWidth]{}]{} to those available in the literature. We first consider the Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT) [@Kniehl:1995tn; @Shifman:1979eb] where the Standard Model Lagrangian is supplemented by an additional dimension-six operator allowing the Higgs boson to directly couple to gluons and photons with coupling strengths tuned to reproduce the corresponding loop-induced vertices of the Standard Model[^11]. Next, as a second example, we focus on the MSSM, which allows us to further test the programs in the case of processes with Majorana particles.
Table \[table:higgs\_decay\]: Higgs boson partial decay widths in the framework of the HEFT model, as computed by [[MadWidth]{}]{} and by [SMCalc]{}.\
Decay mode: [[MadWidth]{}]{} \[GeV\] [SMCalc]{} \[GeV\]
---------------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
$h \to b \, \bar{b}$ $ 0.00430 $ $ 0.00430 $
$h \to c \bar c$ $0.000496$ $0.000496$
$h \to \tau \, \bar{\tau}$ $0.000259 $ $ 0.000259 $
$h \to g \, g $ $ 0.000195 $ $0.000195 $
$h \to W\, W^{*}\to W\, f\, f $ $ 0.000771 $ $0.000775$
$h \to Z\, Z^* \to Z\, f\, f $ $8.44\mbox{e-05}$ $ 8.40\mbox{e-05} $
$h \to \gamma \, \gamma $ $ 9.70\mbox{e-06} $ $ 9.731\mbox{e-06}$
In Table \[table:higgs\_decay\], we present results for Higgs boson decays in the framework of the HEFT model and compare partial widths calculated by [[MadWidth]{}]{} to results returned by [SMCalc]{}[^12]. For the sake of completeness, we have included both two-body and three-body decay channels and found good agreement between the two programs.
Table \[table:maddecay\_mssm\]: Selection of total decay widths in the framework of the SPS1a MSSM scenario, as computed from the `decay.py` file generated by [[FeynRules]{}]{} (first column), [[MadWidth]{}]{} with default option values (second column) and by enforcing three-body decays (third column) and by [Bridge]{} (fourth column).\
--------------------- ------------------- ------------------ -------------------- --------------------
Particle [[FeynRules]{}]{} [[MadWidth]{}]{} [[MadWidth]{}]{} [Bridge]{}
Two-body \[GeV\] Default \[GeV\] Three-body \[GeV\] Three-body \[GeV\]
$ \tilde \chi_1^+$ 1.704e-02 1.718e-02 1.718e-02 1.724e-02
$ \tilde \chi_2^+$ 2.487 2.488 2.488 2.485
$ H^+ $ 6.788e-01 6.788e-01 6.802e-01 6.780e-01
$ \tilde b_1 $ 3.736 3.736 3.740 3.731
$ \tilde b_2 $ 8.016e-01 8.071e-01 8.094e-01 8.100e-01
$ \tilde \chi^0_2 $ 2.078e-02 2.087e-02 2.088e-02 2.082e-02
$ \tilde \chi^0_3 $ 1.916e+00 1.916e+00 1.916e+00 1.914e+00
--------------------- ------------------- ------------------ -------------------- --------------------
In Table \[table:maddecay\_mssm\], we consider the SPS1a MSSM scenario and compare the results obtained with the `decay.py` file generated by [[FeynRules]{}]{} (that only includes two-body decay modes), with [[MadWidth]{}]{} when using all the default option values described in Section \[sec:mg5\_manuel\], with [[MadWidth]{}]{} by enforcing the calculation of all three-body decay channels and with [Bridge]{} (when including all three-body decay modes). Agreement below the percent level has been found. Additionally, this shows that for the SPS1a MSSM scenario, three-body decay contributions to the total widths are negligible in a very good approximation.
Table \[table:maddecay\_speed\]: Time necessary to compute all particle total widths in the context of the HEFT model and the SPS1a MSSM scenario by making use of the `decay.py` file generated by [[FeynRules]{}]{} only (first column), [[MadWidth]{}]{} with all default option values and [Bridge]{} by restricting the computation to two-body decays only (second column) and after including three-body decays too (fourth column). For the tests, we have employed a machine with a 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 processor and 16 GB of memory (1600 MHz DDR3).\
--------------------- -------------------- ------------- ------------------- -------------
Model [[FeynRules]{}]{} [Bridge ]{} [[MadWidth]{}]{} [Bridge ]{}
Two-body Two-body Default Three-body
HEFT model 0.6 s 60s 40s 114 s
SPS1a MSSM scenario 12 s 13min 43s 84 s 1h47
--------------------- -------------------- ------------- ------------------- -------------
Finally, we compare the speed of [[MadWidth]{}]{} (using the `decay.py` file generated by [[FeynRules]{}]{}) to the one of [Bridge]{} and indicate in Table \[table:maddecay\_speed\] the time necessary to compute the total widths of all model particles in the context of both the HEFT model and the SPS1a MSSM scenario. When only the analytic formulas for the two-body decays (implemented in the `decay.py` file generated by [[FeynRules]{}]{}) are used (first column of the table), [[MadWidth]{}]{} turns out to be much faster than [Bridge]{} (second column of the table) as no diagram generation has been required at all for the first case. The time necessary to generate the `decay.py` UFO file has however not been included (a few seconds and minutes for the HEFT model and MSSM, respectively) as this has to be performed only once for each model. When including three-body decay contributions, one can note the formidable gain in time when using [[MadWidth]{}]{} instead of [Bridge]{} (last two columns of the table) thanks to the usage of the fast estimator of [[MadWidth]{}]{} which allows one to only compute numerically relevant diagrams.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusions}
==========
In this paper, we have presented new routines of the [[FeynRules]{}]{} package dedicated to the computation of two-body partial widths, so that the latter can now be calculated automatically and analytically from the knowledge of the Lagrangian alone. The UFO format has been extended accordingly to include all the relevant information. This extension is currently supported by [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}, which uses it to calculate particle widths at run-time. In addition, a new module of [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}, named [[MadWidth]{}]{}, has been developed with the aim of computing $N$-body decay widths in full generality and in an efficient manner (possibly at run-time when using the matrix-element generator). The [[MadWidth]{}]{} routines automatically remove all the subprocesses that are numerically negligible, tune the final-state multiplicity to reach a given target precision on the total widths and avoid the double-counting of any channel. All the computations are done at tree level/leading order and rely on the narrow width approximation. As such, [[MadWidth]{}]{} cannot be used to obtain reliable predictions for the widths in cases where higher-order effect are important. Our codes have been carefully validated against existing older programs and published results in the literature in the case of the Standard Model, Higgs Effective Field Theories, the Strongly Interacting Light Higgs model and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. The widths obtained by [[MadWidth]{}]{} are accurate enough to be used in any LO Monte-Carlo generator as long as the narrow width approximation holds.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We want to thank C. Degrande and F. Maltoni for useful discussions on this project and D. Goncalves Netto and K. Mawatari for their constructive bug reports. O.M. want to thank the IPPP center for its hospitality during the time of this project. B.F. was supported in part by the French ANR 12 JS05 002 01 BATS@LHC and by the Theory-LHC-France initiative of the CNRS/IN2P3. CHS is supported by the DOE under grant number DE-SC0010255. DGO is supported by Theoretische Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Elementarteilchen (SNF). OM is ‘Chercheur scientifique logistique postdoctoral F.R.S.-FNRS’, Belgium. This work was partly supported by the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Union under the Grant Agreement number PITN-GA-2010-264564 (LHCPhenoNet), by MCnetITN FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network PITN-GA-2012-315877, by the IISN “MadGraph” convention 4.4511.10, by the IISN “Fundamental interactions” convention 4.4517.08, and in part by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office through the Interuniversity Attraction Pole P7/37.
[^1]: For the sake of generality, we ignore here external width calculators.
[^2]: If no numerical value is provided through the [Width]{} attribute of the particle class, a default value of 1 GeV is assigned by [[FeynRules]{}]{}.
[^3]: Some tools offer the possibility to compute the widths of all particles on the fly when generating the matrix element associated with a given process. In this case, including the numerical values of the widths at the [[FeynRules]{}]{}level is not mandatory.
[^4]: We consider the first two generations massless.
[^5]: The same can be done with any Monte-Carlo generator with the same limitation.
[^6]: Even if those two assumptions are quite generic, there are often particles for which they are not satisfied, such as the Standard Model Higgs boson that has significant loop-induced decay modes or particles whose decay modes are threshold enhanced and where therefore resummation effects are important.
[^7]: The program identifies stable particles in the very beginning and hence avoids the generation of their decay diagrams. The identification of the stable particles is based on the mass spectrum and the particle interactions.
[^8]: The interference is only neglected for the estimation of the width. All interference effects are of course correctly taken into account when computing the results for the partial widths.
[^9]: As an order of magnitude estimate, we take $\vert\textrm{Propa}(E_i)\vert^2 \approx 1/(0.5 M^2)^2$ for every propagator in $\langle |\mathcal{M}|^2 \rangle_{N}$. This also avoids the propagators to be accidentally on-shell.
[^10]: It is recommended to compute as many widths as possible in one single execution of the command to reduce the overhead.
[^11]: We stress that only these dimension-six operators are included, and not the full set of such operators.
[^12]: [SMCalc]{} is a program that contains analytical formulæ for all leading-order SM partial widths. It is available from Ref. [@SMcalc].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the convex set $\Gamma_{m,n}$ of $m\times n$ stochastic matrices and the convex set $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi\subset \Gamma_{m,n}$ of $m\times n$ centrosymmetric stochastic matrices (stochastic matrices that are symmetric under rotation by 180$\degree$). For $\Gamma_{m,n}$, we demonstrate a Birkhoff theorem for its extreme points and create a basis from certain $(0,1)$-matrices. For $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$, we characterize its extreme points and create bases, whose construction depends on the parity of $m$, using our basis construction for stochastic matrices. For each of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ and $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$, we further characterize their extreme points in terms of their associated bipartite graphs, we discuss a graph parameter called the fill and compute it for the various basis elements, and we examine the number of vertices of the faces of these sets. We provide examples illustrating the results throughout.'
author:
- 'Lei Cao ^1,2^'
- Darian McLaren ^3^
- Sarah Plosker ^3^
title: Centrosymmetric Stochastic Matrices
---
[^1] [^2] [^3]
Introduction
============
Doubly stochastic matrices are widely studied in the literature, in particular with regards to majorization theory. The extreme points of the set $\Omega_n$ of $n\times n$ doubly stochastic matrices have been characterized by permutation matrices via the infamous Birkhoff’s theorem. A basis for $\Omega_n$ and faces of $\Omega_n$ are considered in [@BCD1967] and [@BG], respectively. Various generalizations or relaxations of doubly stochastic matrices have also been studied, including a Birkhoff theorem for panstochastic matrices [@AlvisKinyon], a geometric characterization of unistochastic matrices for small dimensions [@BengtssonEtAl], extremal matrices of plane stochastic matrices of dimension 3 [@BrualdiCsisma], line stochastic matrices of dimension 3 [@FischerSwart], classes of substochastic matrices [@Fischer], transportation polytopes [@ChoNam], and multistochastic tensors [@CuiLiNg; @KeLiXiao]. Symmetric, Hankel-symmetric, and centrosymmetric doubly stochastic matrices were recently considered in [@BC2018].
We add to this body of literature by considering $m\times n$ stochastic matrices and $m\times n$ centrosymmetric stochastic matrices (symmetric or Hankel-symmetric stochastic matrices are in fact doubly stochastic, so they fall under the results in [@BC2018]). We characterize the extreme points of the set of $m\times n$ stochastic matrices and the extreme points of the set of $m\times n$ centrosymmetric stochastic matrices, and we create bases for these sets. We consider the bipartite graphs associated to these matrices, giving alternate characterizations of the extreme points of these sets, and discuss a graph parameter called the fill. Finally, we describe the faces of these two sets.
Throughout, we let $m,n\in \mathbb{N}$ (positive integers) and $[n]=\{1, \dots, n\}$. We use $ M_{m,n}$ to denote the set of all $m\times n$ real-valued matrices, and $M_n$ when $m=n$.
A matrix $A=(a_{i,j})\in M_{m,n}$ is *stochastic* if $a_{i,j}\geq 0$ for all $i\in [m], j\in [n]$ and $\sum_{j=1}^na_{i,j}=1$ for all $i\in [m]$. A matrix $A\in M_n$ is *doubly stochastic* if $a_{i,j}\geq 0$ for all $i, j\in [n]$, $\sum_{j=1}^na_{i,j}=1$ for all $i\in [n]$, and $\sum_{i=1}^na_{i,j}=1$ for all $j\in [n]$.
Note that the term stochastic refers to row stochasticity; one can consider the notion of column stochasticity by taking the transpose of a stochastic matrix. The convex set of all doubly stochastic matrices in $M_n$ will be denoted by $\Omega_n$ and the convex set of all stochastic matrices in $M_{m,n}$ by $\Gamma_{m,n}$; their corresponding sets of extreme points will be denoted $\mathcal E(\Omega_n)$ and $\mathcal E(\Gamma_{m,n})$, respectively.
For any $n\in \mathbb{N}$, let $\mathcal S_n$ be the set of permutations on $[n]$. Any permutation $\sigma\in \mathcal S_n$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a permutation matrix: a matrix $P=(p_{i,j})\in M_n$ such that $p_{i, \sigma(i)}=1$ for all $i\in [n]$ and $p_{i,j}=0$ for $j\neq \sigma(i)$. Put more simply, a permutation matrix is a $(0,1)$-matrix with exactly one 1 in each row and each column. For fixed $n$, the set of all permutation matrices is denoted $\mathcal{P}_n$.
Extreme Points
==============
Extreme Points of the Set of Stochastic Matrices
------------------------------------------------
The famous Birkhoff’s theorem states that the set of doubly stochastic matrices $\Omega_n$ is the convex hull of the set $\mathcal{P}_n$ of all permutation matrices. It follows that the set of extreme points $\mathcal E(\Omega_n)= \mathcal{P}_n$.
With Birkhoff’s theorem for doubly stochastic matrices in mind, it is intuitively clear that $\mathcal E(\Gamma_{m,n})$, the set of all extreme points of the stochastic matrices, is precisely the $(0,1)$-matrices with exactly one 1 in each row. Many proofs of Birkhoff’s theorem can easily be found; the analogue for stochastic matrices is somewhat more elusive, but does appear in [@Gubin Lemma 1.2]. In the interest of being self-contained, we provide a proof for the stochastic case below. The proof is similar to the proof of Birkhoff’s theorem using Hall’s marriage theorem (see [@MOA Chapter 2] and the references therein).
We shall refer to the $(0,1)$-matrices in $M_{m,n}$ with exactly one 1 in each row as *rectangular permutation matrices* (analogous results can be obtained for column stochastic matrices by considering $(0,1)$-matrices with exactly one 1 in each column). We note that $m$ may or may not equal $n$ (when $m$ and $n$ are certainly equal, as in the case of doubly stochastic matrices, we revert back to the terminology of ‘permutation matrix’ rather than ‘rectangular permutation matrix’).
The extreme points of the set of $m\times n$ stochastic matrices are precisely the rectangular permutation matrices.
It suffices to show that every $m\times n$ stochastic matrix can be expressed as a convex combination of $m \times n$ rectangular permutation matrices. We proceed by finite induction on the number of nonzero elements of the matrix while keeping $m$ and $n$ fixed. From the row constraint on a stochastic matrix it is clear that the minimum number of nonzero elements is $m$, in which case the stochastic matrix is in fact a rectangular permutation matrix. Now, consider a stochastic matrix $A_0$ with a number of nonzero elements greater than $m$. For each row, mark the smallest positive element (if this element is not unique, mark the leftmost; this is done simply for the sake of making a choice and in fact one can randomly choose any positive element in each row). Let $a_0\in (0,1)$ denote the minimum of all of the marked elements and let $E_0$ denote the $m\times n$ $(0,1)$-matrix with a 1 in each of the marked positions. The matrix $A_1=(A_0-a_0E_0)/(1-E_0)$ is therefore an $m\times n$ stochastic matrix with fewer nonzero elements than $A_0$. By the induction hypothesis, there then exists coefficients $a_1,\dots,a_k\in (0,1]$ and $(0,1)$-matrices with exactly one 1 in each row $E_1,\dots,E_k$ such that $A_1=\sum_{i=1}^k a_i E_i$, where $\sum_{i=1}^k a_i=1$. Expressing $A_0$ in term of $A_1$ and $E_0$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
A_0=a_0 E_0 + (1-a_0)A_1 = a_0 E_0 + (1-a_0)\sum_{i=1}^k a_i E_i,\end{aligned}$$ yielding $A_0$ as a linear combination of rectangular permutation matrices, with coefficients of the linear combination in the range of $(0,1)$. To see that this is in fact a convex combination, we take the sum of the coefficients $$a_0 + (1-a_0)\sum_{i=1}^k a_i = a_0 + (1-a_0)(1)=1.$$
We provide an example to illustrate the proof.
Let $$\displaystyle A=\begin{pmatrix}1/2 & 0 & 1/2 & 0 \\ 7/10 & 0 & 0& 3/10 \\ 2/5 & 1/5 & 2/5 &0 \end{pmatrix}\in \Gamma_{3,4}.$$
To write $A$ as a convex combination of rectangular permutation matrices, one can do the following:
1. Randomly select a positive element from each row. Since the row sum is $1$ for each row, there must be positive entries in each row.
$A=\left(\begin{tabular}{cccc}\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}$1/2$ & $0$ & $1/2$ & $0$ \\ $3/10$ & $0$ & $0$& \cellcolor[gray]{0.9}$7/10$ \\ \cellcolor[gray]{0.9}$2/5$ & $1/5$ & $2/5$ &$0$ \end{tabular}\right)$
2. Subtract a $(0,1)$-matrix which has $1$’s at the same positions as selected positive entries multiplied by the least number among these three selected positive entries. Let $$E_0=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0& 0& 0 \\ 0&0&0&1 \\ 1& 0& 0 &0 \end{pmatrix}$$ $$A_1=\big(A- \frac{2}{5} E_0\big)/\big(1-\frac{2}{5}\big)=\begin{pmatrix}1/6 & 0 & 5/6 & 0 \\ 1/2 & 0 & 0 &1/2 \\ 0 &1/3 & 2/3 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then $A_1$ is in $\Gamma_{3,4}$ and $A_1$ has fewer positive elements than $A.$
3. Repeat this process. Let $$E_1=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0& 1& 0 \\ 1&0&0&0 \\ 0& 0& 1 &0 \end{pmatrix}$$ $$A_2=\big(A_1- \frac{1}{2} E_1\big)/\big(1-\frac{1}{2}\big)=\begin{pmatrix}1/3 & 0 & 2/3 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 &1 \\ 0 &2/3 & 1/3 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$
4. Let $$E_2=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0& 1& 0 \\ 0&0&0&1 \\ 0& 1& 0 &0 \end{pmatrix}$$ $$A_3=\big(A_2- \frac{2}{3} E_2\big)/\big(1-\frac{2}{3}\big)=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 &1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}=E_3.$$
Then we have,
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber A&=&\frac{2}{5}E_0+\frac{3}{5}A_1\\
\nonumber &=&\frac{2}{5}E_0+\frac{3}{5}\big(\frac{1}{2}E_1+\frac{1}{2}A_2\big)\\
\nonumber &=& \frac{2}{5}E_0+\frac{3}{10}E_1+\frac{3}{10}A_2\\
\nonumber &=&\frac{2}{5}E_0+\frac{3}{10}E_1+\frac{3}{10}\big(\frac{2}{3}E_2+\frac{1}{3}E_3\big)\\
\nonumber &=&\frac{2}{5}E_0+\frac{3}{10}E_1+\frac{1}{5}E_2+\frac{1}{10}E_3.\end{aligned}$$
Given a matrix $A\in M_n$, one can consider the usual definition of $A$ being symmetric if $A=A^t$, i.e. $a_{i,j}=a_{j,i}$ for all $i,j\in [n]$ (that is, $A$ is symmetric about its diagonal). Another type of symmetry is symmetry about the anti-diagonal: a matrix $A$ is *Hankel symmetric* (also called persymmetric or mirror symmetric), denoted $A=A^h$, if $a_{i,j}=a_{n+1-j, n+1-i}$ for all $i,j\in [n]$. A third type of symmetry is symmetry when rotated by 180$\degree$: a matrix $A\in M_{m,n}$ is *centrosymmetric*, denoted $A=A^\pi$, if $a_{i,j}=a_{m+1-i, n+1-j}$ for all $i\in [m], j\in [n]$. Note that if a matrix is either symmetric or Hankel symmetric, as well as stochastic, then the matrix is automatically doubly stochastic, so we focus on the study of centrosymmetric stochastic matrices.
Extreme Points of the Set of Centrosymmetric Stochastic Matrices
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are interested in characterizing the extreme points of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$, the set of all $m\times n$ centrosymmetric stochastic matrices. We will see that the parity of $m$ plays an important role.
\[lemext\] All extreme points of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ can be written in the form $\frac{1}{2}(R+R^\pi)$ where $R$ is a rectangular permutation matrix.
Let $A\in \Gamma^\pi_{m,n}\subset \Gamma_{m,n}.$ Then $$\label{eq1} A=c_1R_1+c_2R_2+\ldots+c_kR_k$$ where $R_1,R_2,\ldots,R_k$ are rectangular permutation matrices, $c_i\geq 0$ and $c_1+c_2+\ldots+c_k=1.$ Then $$\label{eq2} A=A^\pi=c_1R_1^\pi+c_2R_2^\pi+\ldots+c_kR_k^\pi.$$ Take the average of and , $$\nonumber A=\frac{1}{2}(A+A^\pi)=\frac{1}{2}[c_1(R_1+R_1^\pi)]+\frac{1}{2}[c_2(R_2+R_2^\pi)]+\ldots+\frac{1}{2}[c_k(R_k+R_k^\pi)],$$ which shows that any matrix in $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ can be written as a convex combination of matrices in the form $\frac{1}{2}(R+R^\pi)$ for rectangular permutation matrices $R.$
\[lemnotcent\] Let $R$ be a $m \times n$ rectangular permutation matrix where $m$ is an even number. If $R$ is not centrosymmetric then there exists $m \times n$ centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrices $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ such that $R+R^\pi=Q_1+Q_2$ where $Q_1\neq Q_2$.
Let $\tilde{R}=R+R^\pi$ and so $\tilde{R}$ is a $m\times n$ centrosymmetric matrix where each row sums to 2. Let $\{\tilde{r}_i\}_{i=1}^m$ be the set of $m$ row vectors for $\tilde{R}$. From $R$ being a rectangular permutation matrix, each vector $\tilde{r}_i$ will either have a component with value 2, or two components with value 1. As $R$ is not centrosymmetric, there must exist a natural number $k\leq\frac{m}{2}$ such that $\tilde{r}_k$ satisfies the latter case. Either way, for every $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ there exists unit vectors $a_i$ and $b_i$ (that may or may not be equal) such that $\tilde{r}_i=a_i+b_i$. Define the $m\times n$ matrices $P=[p_i]_{i=1}^m$ and $Q=[q_i]_{i=1}^m$ and their respective row vectors $p_i$ and $q_i$ by $$\begin{aligned}
p_i=\begin{cases}
a_i & i\leq \frac{m}{2}\\
0 & i>\frac{m}{2} \\
\end{cases},\quad
q_i=\begin{cases}
b_i & i\leq \frac{m}{2}\\
0 & i>\frac{m}{2} \\
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ We have that $P\neq Q$ (as there is at least one instance where $a_i\neq b_i$) and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}=(P+P^\pi)+(Q+Q^\pi).\end{aligned}$$ To see that this equality holds, note that by construction the first $\frac{m}{2}$ rows of $(P+P^\pi)+(Q+Q^\pi)$ must equal those of $\tilde{R}$ and so the equality of the remaining rows then follows from the centrosymmetry of both $(P+P^\pi)+(Q+Q^\pi)$ and $\tilde{R}$. The matrices $(P+P^\pi)$ and $(Q+Q^\pi)$ are $m\times n$ centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrices and are not equal, which completes the proof.
We illustrate the above lemma with the following examples.
Let $m=n=4$ and $$R=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$$ which is not centrosymmetric. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber R+R^\pi&=&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 2\end{pmatrix}\\
\nonumber &=&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ both of which are centrosymmetric stochastic matrices.
Let $m=4$ and $n=5$ $$R=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0&0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1&0\end{pmatrix}$$ which is not centrosymmetric. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber R+R^\pi&=&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1& 0\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0& 1& 0 \\ 0 & 0& 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0& 0& 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1& 1\end{pmatrix}\\
\nonumber &=&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}0&1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 &0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0&0 \\ 0& 0 & 0 & 1& 0\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ both of which are centrosymmetric stochastic matrices.
Note that if $m$ is odd and $n$ is even, we may have extreme points containing $\frac{1}{2}.$ For example, $$S=\begin{pmatrix}1&0 & 0 &0 \\ 0& \frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{2} &0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 &1\end{pmatrix}$$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{3,4}.$
\[lemeven\] Let both $m$ and $n$ be positive integers with $m$ even ($n$ could be either even or odd). $A\in \Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ is an extreme point if and only if $A$ is a centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix.
First assume $A\in \Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ is an extreme point. Then $A=\frac12(R+R^\pi)$ for some rectangular permutation matrix $R$ by Lemma \[lemext\]. If $R$ is centrosymmetric, then $A=R$ and so $A$ is a centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix. If $R$ is not centrosymmetric, then by Lemma \[lemnotcent\], $A=\frac12(R+R^\pi)=\frac12(Q_1+Q_2)$ where $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are distinct centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrices. Thus $A$ can be written as a non-trivial convex combination of centrosymmetric stochastic matrices, so $A$ is not an extreme point, a contradiction. Thus $A$ is a centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix.
Conversely, any centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix $A$ must be an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$: since there is exactly one 1 in each row, the only way to decompose $A$ as a convex combination of matrices in $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ is to have a single non-zero entry in each row in the exact same position as the 1 in each row of $A$. But, since the matrices are stochastic, a single non-zero entry in a row must be 1. Thus any decomposition into a convex combination is trivial.
Lemma \[lemext\] gives the general decomposition for all extreme points of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$; therefore the following theorem characterizes the extreme points of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$.
\[thm:ExtCentroStoc\] Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers. Let $R$ be an $m\times n$ rectangular permutation matrix. Then $\frac{1}{2}(R+R^\pi)$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ if and only if one of the following:
(i) $m$ is even and $R$ is a centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix;
(ii) $m$ is odd and $\tilde{R}$ is an $(m-1)\times n$ centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix, where $\tilde{R}$ is the rectangular permutation matrix obtained by removing the center row from $R.$
\(i) follows from Lemmas \[lemeven\] and \[lemext\]. Thus for $m$ even, $\frac{1}{2}({R}+{R}^\pi)$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ if and only if $R$ is a centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix.
For (ii), for $m$ odd, we need to establish that $\frac{1}{2}({R}+{R}^\pi)$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ if and only if $\tilde{R}$ is a centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrix. Note that when $m$ is odd, the entries of the center row of $\frac{1}{2}(R+R^\pi)$ can only be $0$, $1$, or $1/2$. Let ${A}=\frac{1}{2}({R}+{R}^\pi)$, $\tilde{A}=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{R}+\tilde{R}^\pi)$ , $\vec{r}$ be the center row of $R$ and $\vec{a}$ be the center row of $A$. We proceed by proving the contrapositive of the forward direction. Assume that $\tilde{R}$ is not centrosymmetric. Since $\tilde{R}$ has an even number of rows, by Lemma \[lemnotcent\] there exists $(m-1) \times n$ centrosymmetric rectangular permutation matrices $\tilde{Q}_1$ and $\tilde{Q}_2$ such that $\tilde{A}=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{R}+\tilde{R}^\pi)=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{Q}_1+\tilde{Q}_2)$ where $\tilde{Q}_1\neq \tilde{Q}_2$. Now, let $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ be the $m\times n$ centrosymmetric stochastic matrices, with respective center rows $\vec{r}$ and $(\vec{r})^\pi$, such that removing these center rows produces, respectively, the matrices $\tilde{Q}_1$ and $\tilde{Q}_2$. We then have $A=\frac{1}{2}({Q}_1+{Q}_2)$, which is clearly not an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$.
Conversely, assume that $\tilde{R}$ is centrosymmetric and hence, by (i), $\tilde{A}$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma^\pi_{(m-1),n}$. Consider now a decomposition of $A$ into a convex combination of linearly independent centrosymmetric stochastic matrices $\{B_1,B_2,\dots,B_z\}$: $A=\sum_{i=1}^z c_iB_i$ for $c_i> 0, \sum_{i=1}^z c_i=1$. Deleting the center row of each of these matrices would then produce a decomposition of $\tilde{A}$, which must be trivial by part (i), and hence the matrices $\{B_1,B_2,\dots,B_z\}$ are identical up to their respective center rows. Let $\vec{b}_i$ for $i\in[z]$ be the center row for the matrix $B_i$. Since the maximum amount of non-zero entries of $\vec{a}$ is two and all the vectors $\vec{a},\vec{b}_1,\dots,\vec{b}_z$ are centrosymmetric, each vector $\vec{b}_i$ must have the same zero/nonzero pattern as $\vec{a}$. Moreover, since ${A}=\frac{1}{2}({R}+{R}^\pi)$ where $R$ is a rectangular permutation matrix, we note that there is a maximum of two non-zero entries in $\vec{a}$ that must sum to 1, and therefore the values for these entries will be uniquely determined. Hence, since $B_1, \dots, B_z$ are stochastic and have the same zero/nonzero pattern as $A$, it follows that $\vec{a}=\vec{b}_i=\dots=\vec{b}_z$. Therefore $B_1=\cdots=B_z$ and so every decomposition of $A$ will be trivial.
Bases
=====
A Basis for the Set of Stochastic Matrices
------------------------------------------
The set of $m\times n$ stochastic matrices, $\Gamma_{m,n}$, is an affine space, but not a vector space. For any matrix in $\Gamma_{m,n}$, given $n-1$ entries of a row, the remaining entry is fixed by the constraint of $\sum_{j=1}^n a_{i,j}=1$. Since this occurs for each of the $m$ rows, the dimension of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ is thus $m(n-1)$. Therefore, a basis for $\Gamma_{m,n}$ contains $m(n-1)+1=mn-m+1$ linearly independent vectors.
For the set of all $n\times n$ doubly stochastic matrices, $\Omega_n$, the additional constraint of $\sum_{i=1}^n a_{i,j}=1$ fixes one entry for each column as well as each row; the dimension of $\Omega_n$ is thus $(n-1)^2$, and a basis for $\Omega_n$ contains $(n-1)^2+1$ linearly independent vectors. A basis of $n\times n$ permutation matrices is given in [@BCD1967]; we outline the construction below, as we make use of this basis when creating a basis (of $n^2-n+1$ elements) for $\Gamma_n$. This construction does not appear to generalize to $\Gamma_{m,n}$ (where $m\neq n$), as the process leads to too few linearly independent matrices. We provide an alternate construction of a basis $\Gamma_{m,n}$. We single out the square case as it makes use of the technique in the literature for a construction of a basis for $\Omega_n$.
Following [@BCD1967], we renumber the $(i,j)$-th position of an $l\times l$ matrix as the $[i+(j-i)l](\operatorname{mod} l^2)$-th position. For each integer $1\leq i\leq l^2$, let $A_i\in M_l$ be a $(0,1)$-matrix in which all elements are $0$ except the elements in positions $i, i+1, \dots, i+l-2(\operatorname{mod} l^2)$, which are all 1’s. Each $A_i$ is thus “almost” a permutation matrix, except it has a row of all zeros. Now, for each integer $1\leq i\leq (n-1)^2$, let $P_i\in \mathcal P_n$ be the unique permutation matrix such that if one deletes the first row and first column of $P_i$, the submatrix obtained is $A_i\in M_{n-1}$. A consequence of the analysis in [@BCD1967] is that $\{P_1, P_2, \dots, P_{(n-1)^2}\}$ is a linearly independent set in $M_n$. Note that we will only use the renumbering of the positions of a matrix discussed in this paragraph in order to build the $P_i$.
Denote by $C_i \in \Gamma_{m,n}$ the $(0,1)$-matrix in which all elements are $0$ except the elements in the $i$-th column which are all $1$’s.
The matrices $$\begin{aligned}
P_1,P_2,\dotsc,P_{(n-1)^2},C_1,C_2,\dotsc,C_n\in M_n\end{aligned}$$ are linearly independent.
Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{linDepRelation}
\sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)^2}\alpha_i P_i + \sum_{i=1}^n \beta_i C_i = O\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i$,$\beta_i\in\mathbb{R}$ and O is the $n\times n$ zero matrix. It suffices to show that $\alpha_1=\dotsb=\alpha_{(n-1)^2}=\beta_1=\dotsb=\beta_n=0$. To this end, for some $j\in[n]$ consider equation (\[linDepRelation\]) in terms of the $j$-th column vector for each respective matrix. This now gives a sequence of $n$ relations of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{linDepRelationCol}
\sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)^2}\alpha_i (P_i)_j + \beta_j (C_j)_j = (O)_j\end{aligned}$$ where $(\cdot)_j$ represents of the $j$-th column vector of the corresponding matrix. Note that the summation over the $C$’s is no longer needed as each $C$ matrix only has a single column with non-zero entries. Now, as the vector on the left hand side of equation (\[linDepRelationCol\]) is the zero vector, the sum of its elements must also be 0. Hence the $n$ relations simplify to $$\sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)^2} \alpha_i + n\beta_j=0.$$ By subtracting various pairs of these relations (for different $j$’s) we get $\beta_1=\beta_2=\dotsb=\beta_n$. But, as $C_1$ is the only matrix with a non-zero number in the $(1,1)$ entry we must have $\beta_1 =0$ and therefore $\beta_j=0$ for every $j\in[n]$. Equation (\[linDepRelation\]) is simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)^2}\alpha_i P_i = O\end{aligned}$$ where it follows that $\alpha_i=0$ for every $i\in\{1,2,\dotsc,(n-1)^2\}$ as $P_1,P_2,\dotsc,P_{(n-1)^2}$ have already been shown to be linearly independent in [@BCD1967].
Since the matrices $P_1,P_2,\dotsc,P_{(n-1)^2},C_1,C_2,\dotsc,C_n$ are linearly independent stochastic matrices, and there are $n^2-n+1$ of them, the following result is immediate.
The set $\{P_1,P_2,\dotsc,P_{(n-1)^2},C_1,C_2,\dotsc,C_n\}$ is a basis for the set of stochastic $n\times n$ matrices $\Gamma_{n}$.
We now describe a method for constructing a basis for the more general setting of $\Gamma_{m,n}$. For each $i\in [m]$ and $j\in [n-1]$, denote by $B_{i,j}$ the $(0,1)$ matrix whose $(i,j)$ entry is $1$, all entries in the $(j+1)$-th column are $1$ except the $(i,j+1)$ entry which is 0, and all other entries are 0.
In $\Gamma_{5,3}$ there are 10 such $B$ matrices, which are listed below. $$B_{1,1}=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{2,1}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{3,1}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{4,1}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{5,1}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$$$B_{1,2}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{2,2}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{3,2}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{4,2}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\quad
B_{5,2}=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$
\[linDepOfB\] The matrices $$B_{1,1},\dotsc,B_{m,(n-1)},C_n\in M_{m,n}$$ are linearly independent.
Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{linDepRelationB}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\beta_{i,j} B_{i,j} + \gamma_n C_n = O\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_{i,j}$,$\gamma_n\in\mathbb{R}$ and O is the $m\times (n-1)$ zero matrix. It suffices to show that $\beta_{1,1}=\dotsb=\beta_{m,(n-1)}=\gamma_n=0$. We proceed by strong finite induction on $j$. For $j=1$ we wish to show that $\beta_{1,1}=\beta_{2,1}=\dotsc=\beta_{m,1}=0$. By construction of the $B$ matrices, the only matrix in the collection $\{B_{1,1},\dotsc,B_{m,(n-1)},C_n\}$ with a $1$ in the $(1,1)$ entry is the matrix $B_{1,1}$. It follows immediately from equation (\[linDepRelationB\]) that $\beta_{1,1}=0$. Similarly, by considering the matrices $B_{2,1},\dotsc,B_{m,1}$ we get that $\beta_{2,1}=\dotsb=\beta_{m,1}=0$. Now, let $k\in[n-2]$ and assume that the hypothesis holds for $j\in [k]$ (i.e. that $\beta_{1,1}=\beta_{2,1}=\dotsb=\beta_{m,1}=\beta_{1,2}=\beta_{2,2}=\dotsb=\beta_{m,2}=\dotsb=\beta_{m,k}=0$). Equation (\[linDepRelationB\]) simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=k+1}^{n-1}\beta_{i,j} B_{i,j} + \gamma_n C_n = O.\end{aligned}$$ By noting that $B_{1,(k+1)}$ is the only matrix in the collection $\{B_{(k+1),1},\dotsc,B_{m,(n-1)},C_n\}$ with a $1$ in the $(1, k+1)$ entry, $B_{2,(k+1)}$ is the only matrix with a $1$ in the $(2, k+1)$ entry, and so on, we get $\beta_{1,(k+1)}=\beta_{2,(k+1)}=\dotsb=\beta_{m,(k+1)}=0$. Therefore $\beta_{i,j}=0$ for every $i\in[m]$ and $j\in[n-1]$. In which case $\gamma_n$ must also be 0.
Since the matrices $B_{1,1},\dotsc,B_{m,(n-1)},C_n$ are linearly independent stochastic matrices, and there are $m(n-1)+1$ of them, the following result is immediate.
The set $\{B_{1,1},\dotsc,B_{m,(n-1)},C_n\}$ is a basis for the set of stochastic $m\times n$ matrices $\Gamma_{m,n}$.
A Basis for the set of Centrosymmetric Stochastic Matrices
----------------------------------------------------------
A basis for the real vector space generated by the $n\times n$ centrosymmetric permutation matrices, for even $n$, was given in [@BC2018 Theorem 14]. The basis was built using a block structure. In light of this and the previous section, we provide a basis for the set of centrosymmetric stochastic matrices.
Recall we denote by $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ the set of centrosymmetric $m\times n$ stochastic matrices. If $m$ is even, and so $m=2k$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$, then $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ has dimension $\frac{m}{2}(n-1)=k(n-1).$ Let $\mathcal{B}=\{B_1, B_2, \ldots, B_{k(n-1)+1}\}$ be a basis of $\Gamma_{k,n}$.
If $m$ is even, then the collection $\hat{\mathcal{B}}=\{\hat{B}_1, \hat{B}_2,\ldots, \hat{B}_{k(n-1)+1}\}\subset M_{m,n}$, where $$\hat{B}_i=\begin{pmatrix}B_i \\ B_i^\pi \end{pmatrix},$$ is a basis for $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$.
This follows immediately from the matrices in the collection $\mathcal{B}$ being linearly independent.
On the other hand, consider if $m$ is odd, and so $m=2k+1$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$. The dimension of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ can be expressed as $(\frac{m-1}{2})(n-1)+\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil-1.$ There exists $l\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $n=2l$ or $n=2l+1$ depending on whether $n$ is, respectively, even or odd. In the case where $n$ is even the dimension of $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$ simplifies to $k(n-1)+l-1$, and for $n$ odd it simplifies to $k(n-1)+l.$ We recall $C_i$ are stochastic $(0,1)$-matrices having all entries zero except all ones in the $i$th column. In Theorem \[basisOddCentro\] below, the $C_i$ are of size $k\times n$.
\[basisOddCentro\] If $m$ is odd, the collection $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}=\{\tilde{B}_1, \tilde{B}_2,\ldots, \tilde{B}_{k(n-1)+1}, \tilde{C}_1, \tilde{C}_2,\dotsc, \tilde{C}_{\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil-1}\}\subset M_{m,n}$ is a basis for $\Gamma^\pi_{m,n}$, where the $\tilde{C}_i$ are defined to be $$\tilde{C}_i=\begin{pmatrix}C_i \\ \vec{d}_i \\C_i^\pi \end{pmatrix},$$where $\vec{d}_i$ is an $n$-dimensional row vector with $\frac{1}{2}$ in the $i$ and $(n-i+1)$-th entries and all other entries 0. If $n$ is even, the $\tilde{B}_i$ are defined to be $$\tilde{B}_i=\begin{pmatrix}B_i \\ \vec{d}_{\frac{n}2} \\B_i^\pi \end{pmatrix}.$$ If instead $n$ is odd, then the $\tilde{B}_i$ are defined to be $$\tilde{B}_i=\begin{pmatrix}B_i \\ \vec{e}_{\lceil\frac{n}2\rceil} \\B_i^\pi \end{pmatrix},$$ where $\vec{e}_{\lceil\frac{n}2\rceil} $ is the $n$-dimensional unit row vector with a 1 in the $\lceil\frac{n}2\rceil$-th entry (the $(l+1)$-th entry for $n=2l+1)$.
Regardless of whether $n$ is even or odd it follows that the $\tilde{B}_i$’s are linearly independent as the matrices in the collection $\mathcal{B}$ are linearly independent. Additionally, $\tilde{C}_1$ is the only matrix in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ with a non-zero value in the $(k+1,1)$ entry, $\tilde{C}_2$ is the only matrix with a non-zero value in the $(k+1,2)$ entry, and so forth. Therefore all of the matrices in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ are linearly independent and hence form a basis.
\[ex:basis\] Using a basis for $\Gamma_{2,4}$ as described in theorem \[linDepOfB\] we get the following basis for $\Gamma^\pi_{5,4}$: $$\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad$$$$\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0.5 & 0 & 0 & 0.5 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad$$
Graphs Associated to these Matrices
===================================
Given a matrix $A\in \Gamma_{m,n}$, consider the corresponding $(0,1)$-matrix $B$ having the same zero/non-zero pattern, and construct the bipartite graph associated to $B$ (such a graph has two vertex sets, one corresponding to the rows $R=\{r_1, \dots, r_m\}$ and the other corresponding to the columns $S=\{s_1, \dots, s_n\}$; an edge connects $r_i$ and $s_j$ if and only if $b_{i,j}=1$, i.e. $a_{i,j}\neq 0$); in this way, $B$ can be seen as the biadjacency matrix associated to the constructed bipartite graph. We note that the bipartite graph corresponding to a centrosymmetric stochastic matrix $A\in \Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$ is centrosymmetric: there is an edge between vertices $r_i$ and $s_j$ if and only if there is an edge between vertices $r_{m+1-i}$ and $s_{n+1-j}$, for all $i\in [m], j\in[n]$.
The following is an immediate corollary of Theorem 1.
\[cor:extStoc\] $P$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ if and only if the bipartite graph associated with $P$ satisfies both of the following.
(i) It is a forest.
(ii) The degree of all row vertices is $1$ or, equivalently, all row vertices are leaves.
Note that item (ii) of Corollary \[cor:extStoc\] implies that the sum of degrees of all column vertices is $m$, and there is no path longer than 2.
For the extreme points of centrosymmetric stochastic matrices, we have the following immediate corollary of Theorem \[thm:ExtCentroStoc\].
\[cor:extCentroStoc\] Let $m$ be even. $P$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$ if and only if the bipartite graph associated with $P$ satisfies (i) and (ii) of Corollary \[cor:extStoc\] above. Let $m$ be odd. $P$ is an extreme point of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$ if and only if the bipartite graph associated with $P$ satisfies both of the following.
(i) It is a forest.
(ii) The degree of the middle row vertex $r_{k+1}$ where $m=2k+1$ can be either 1 or 2; the degree of all other row vertices is $1$.
Note that item (ii) of Corollary \[cor:extCentroStoc\] implies that the sum of degrees of all column vertices is $m$ (if the degree of $r_{k+1}$ is 1) or $m+1$ (if the degree of $r_{k+1}$ is 2), and there is no path longer than 4.
We illustrate Corollary \[cor:extCentroStoc\] with the following example.
Consider the basis element and extreme point$$\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0.5 & 0 & 0 & 0.5 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ of $\Gamma_{5,4}^\pi$ given in Example \[ex:basis\]. The corresponding bipartite graph is given below.
\[scale=1,auto=left, ns/.style=[circle,fill=white!20,draw=black,minimum size=1mm]{}, blank/.style=[circle,fill=white!20,minimum size=1mm]{}, es/.style=[draw=black]{}, dash/.style=[draw=black]{} \] (r1) at (0,2) ; (r2) at (0,1) ; (r3) at (0,0) ; (r4) at (0,-1) ; (r5) at (0,-2) ; (s1) at (5,1.5) ; (s2) at (5,0.5) ; (s3) at (5,-0.5) ; (s4) at (5,-1.5) ;
(r1) edge node\[below\] (s4); (r2) edge node\[above\] (s4); (r3) edge node\[above\] (s1); (r3) edge node\[above\] (s4); (r4) edge node\[above\] (s1); (r5) edge node\[above\] (s1);
The *fill* of a graph is a graph parameter in (social) network analysis, giving some indication of the global connectivity of the graph. In particular, the fill of a graph is described as the probability that for two randomly chosen vertices, there is an edge between them; see [@KunegisKONECT]. It is defined for general graphs as $\displaystyle f(G)=\frac{E}{(|V||V-1|)/2}$ and for bipartite graphs $G=(V_1, V_2, E)$ as $$f(G)=\frac{|E|}{|V_1|\, |V_2|},$$ where $|X|$ denotes the size of the set $X$ [@Kunegis]. The fill of a graph also arises in older literature on random graph theory [@ErdosRenyi], and more recently as an important topic in the realm of physics and society, as the intra-cluster density of a graph [@Fortunato]. Fill is also called the connectance of a graph, most often in the ecology literature when describing food networks; see, e.g. [@PoisotGravel; @DFBG].
Let $\lfloor \cdot\rfloor$ denote the floor function and $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ denote the ceiling function. The following can be readily verified.
The fill of the bipartite graphs associated to the various matrices we’ve discussed is easily computed. We summarize in the table below.
Matrices Space Fill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------
$B_{i,j}$, $i\in [m]$, $j\in [n-1]$ $M_{m,n}$ $\frac1n$
$C_j$, $j\in [n]$ $M_{m,n}$ $\frac1n$
$P_1, P_2, \dots, P_{(n-1)^2}$ $M_n$ $\frac1n$
$\hat{B}_1, \hat{B}_2, \dots, \hat{B}_{\frac{m}2(n-1)+1}$ $M_{m,n}$, $m$ even $\frac1n$
$\tilde{C}_1, \tilde{C}_2, \dots, \tilde{C}_{\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil-1}$ $M_{m, n}$ $ \frac{m+1}{mn}$
$\tilde{B}_1, \tilde{B}_2, \dots, \tilde{B}_{\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor(n-1)+1}$ $ M_{m,n}$, $m$ odd, $n$ even $\frac{m+1}{mn}$
$\tilde{B}_1, \tilde{B}_2, \dots, \tilde{B}_{\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor(n-1)+1}$ $ M_{m,n}$, $m$ odd, $n$ odd $\frac1n$
In particular, we note that our basis elements for $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$ have larger fill when $m$ is odd and $n$ is even, versus the three other possible choices of parities ($\frac{m+1}{mn}>\frac1n$).
The faces of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ and of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$
=====================================================
The faces of $\Omega_n$ were characterized via the permanent function in [@BG]. The faces of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ can be found by letting $K$ be a subset of pairs of indices $(i,j)$, and constructing a $(0,1)$-matrix $B$ such that $b_{i,j}=1\Leftrightarrow (i,j)\in K$. Then the face of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ associated to the matrix $B$ is $F(B)=\{X\in \Gamma_{m,n}\,|\, 0\leq x_{i,j}\leq b_{i,j}\,\forall i\in[m], j\in[n]\}$. In other words, the face $F(B)$ is the collection of all $m\times n$ stochastic matrices that are entry-wise less than or equal to $B$. The vertices of $F(B)$ are precisely the rectangular permutation matrices $P$ (that is, the extreme points of $\Gamma_{m,n}$), such that $p_{i,j}\leq b_{i,j}$ for all $i\in[m], j\in[n]$. To determine all non-empty faces of $\Gamma_{m,n}$ one can restrict to considering all $(0,1)$-matrices $B$ having *row support*: that is, all $(0,1)$-matrices $B$ such that if $b_{r,s}=1$ for some $r\in[m], s\in[n]$, then there exists a rectangular permutation matrix $P$ such that $p_{r,s}=1$ and $p_{i,j}\leq b_{i,j}$ for all $i\in[m], j\in[n]$.
For any matrix $A\in M_{m,n}$, for a fixed row $i\in[m]$, let $a_{i, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}=\sum_{j=1}^na_{i,j}$ be the row sum. The following proposition is immediate.
The number of vertices of a face $F(B)$ of $\Gamma_{m,n}$, where $B$ is without loss of generality a $(0,1)$-matrix having row support, is $\Pi_{i\in [m]} b_{i, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}\,$.
Consider $B=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\1 & 1\\0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$. Then there are four rectangular permutation matrices that are entrywise less than or equal to $B$: $P_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0\\1& 0\\0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$, $P_2=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0\\0&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}$, $P_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\1& 0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}$, $P_4=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\0&1\\0&1 \end{pmatrix}$.
When considering faces $F(B)$ of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$ we consider all $m\times n$ centrosymmetric stochastic matrices which are entry-wise less than or equal to $B$. To determine all non-empty faces of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$ one can restrict to considering all $(0,1)$-matrices $B$ having a generalized notion of row support; in the case of centrosymmetric matrices, this refers to all $(0,1)$-matrices $B$ such that if $b_{r,s}=1$ for some $r\in[m], s\in[n]$, then there exists a matrix $C\in \mathcal E(\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi)$ such that $c_{r,s}=1$ and $c_{i,j}\leq b_{i,j}$ for all $i\in[m], j\in[n]$. The aforementioned extreme points $\mathcal E(\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi)$ in this case are those characterized in Theorem \[thm:ExtCentroStoc\].
\[prop:facescentrosym\] The number of vertices of a face $F(B)$ of $\Gamma_{m,n}^\pi$, where $B$ is without loss of generality a $(0,1)$matrix having row support, is
(i) $\displaystyle \Pi_{i\in [\frac{m}{2}]} b_{i, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}\,$ if $m$ is even, and
(ii) $\displaystyle \left\lceil\frac{b_{\left\lceil\frac{m}{2}\right\rceil, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}}2\right\rceil\Pi_{i\in [\frac{m-1}{2}]} b_{i, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}\, $ if $m$ is odd
While the proof of the above proposition is a simple counting argument, due to the complexity of the value for the $m$ odd case, we illustrate part (ii) in the following example.
Consider $B=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1\\1 & c& 1\\1 & 1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$, where either $c=0$ or $c=1$. We have $b_{1, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}=3$, and in the case where $c=1$, we have $b_{2, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}=2$. Proposition \[prop:facescentrosym\] therefore states that the number of vertices is $$\displaystyle \left\lceil\frac{b_{2, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}}2\right\rceil b_{1, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}=\displaystyle \left\lceil\frac{2}2\right\rceil3=3.$$ Working through the extreme points of $\Gamma_{3,3}^\pi$ we note that there are three that are entrywise less than or equal to B (as expected). They are: $$P_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0 & 0\\0.5& 0& 0.5\\0 & 0&1\end{pmatrix}\, P_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0& 1 & 0\\0.5& 0& 0.5\\0 & 1&0\end{pmatrix}\,P_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 & 1\\0.5& 0& 0.5\\1 & 0&0\end{pmatrix}.$$ Considering now the case where $c=1$, we have $b_{2, {\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{.5}{$\bullet$}}}}}}=3$ instead. Therefore Proposition \[prop:facescentrosym\] now gives six vertices, which are listed below. $$\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0 & 0\\0.5& 0& 0.5\\0 & 0&1\end{pmatrix},\, \begin{pmatrix} 0& 1 & 0\\0.5& 0& 0.5\\0 & 1&0\end{pmatrix},\,\begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 & 1\\0.5& 0& 0.5\\1 & 0&0\end{pmatrix},\,
\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0 & 0\\0& 1& 0\\0 & 0&1\end{pmatrix},\, \begin{pmatrix} 0& 1 & 0\\0& 1& 0\\0 & 1&0\end{pmatrix},\,\begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 & 1\\0& 1& 0\\1 & 0&0\end{pmatrix}.$$
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Sarah Plosker is supported by NSERC Discovery Grant number 1174582, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) grant number 35711, and the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) Program grant number 231250.
[50]{} D. Alvis and M. Kinyon, *Birkhoff’s theorem for panstochastic matrices*, The American Mathematical Monthly [**108**]{} (2001), no. 1, 28–37. I. Bengtsson, . Ericsson, M. Kuś, W. Tadej, and K. Życzkowski, *Birkhoff’s polytope and unistochastic matrices*, $N=3$ and $N=4$, Communications in Mathematical Physics [**259**]{} (2005), no. 2, 307–324. G.R. Blakley, W.E. Coppage, and R.D. Dixon, *A set of linearly independent permutation matrices*, The American Mathematical Monthly **74**, no. 9 (1967): 1084-1085. R.A. Brualdi and L. Cao, *Symmetric, Hankel-symmetric, and centrosymmetric doubly stochastic matrices*, Acta Mathematica Vietnamica **43**, no. 4 (2018): 675-700. R.A. Brualdi and J. Csima, *Extremal plane stochastic matrices of dimension three*, Linear Algebra and its Applications [**11**]{} (1975), no. 2, 105–133. R.A. Brualdi and P.M. Gibson, *Convex polyhedra of doubly stochastic matrices. I. Applications of the permanent function*, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A **22**, no. 2 (1977): 194-230. S. Cho and Y. Nam, *Convex polytopes of generalized doubly stochastic matrices*, Communications of the Korean Mathematical Society [**16**]{} (2001), no. 4, 679–690. L.-B. Cui, W. Li and M.K. Ng, *Birkhoff–von Neumann theorem for multistochastic tensors*, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications [**35**]{} (2014), no. 3, 956–973. C.F. Dormann, J. Fründ, N. Blüthgen and B. Gruber, *Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks*, The Open Ecology Journal **2** (2009), no. 1, 7–24. P. Erdös and A. Rényi, *On Random Graphs I*, Publicationes Mathematicae (Debrecen) **6** (1959), 290–297. P. Fischer, *Substochastic matrices and von Neumann majorization*, Linear Algebra and its Applications [**93**]{} (1987), 247–254. P. Fischer and E.R. Swart, *Three-dimensional line stochastic matrices and extreme points*, Linear Algebra and its Applications [**69**]{} (1985), 179–203. S. Fortunato, *Community detection in graphs*, Physics Reports [**486**]{} (2010), no. 3-5, 75–174. S. Gubin, *On Subgraph Isomorphism*, arXiv preprint <arXiv:0802.2612v1> (2008). R. Ke, W. Li and M. Xiao, *Characterization of extreme points of multi-stochastic tensors*, Computational Methods in Applied Mathematics [**16**]{} (2016), no. 3, 459–474. J. Kunegis, *Exploiting the structure of bipartite graphs for algebraic and spectral graph theory applications*, Internet Mathematics, **11** (2015), no. 3, 201–321. J. Kunegis, *Handbook of Network Analysis \[KONECT–the Koblenz Network Collection\]*, arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.5500 (2014). A.W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B.C. Arnold, *Inequalities: theory of majorization and its applications*, 2nd ed. (2011), Springer: New York. T. Poisot and D. Gravel, *When is an ecological network complex? Connectance drives degree distribution and emerging network properties*, PeerJ **2** (2014), e251.
[^1]: ^1^School of Mathematics and Statistics, Shandong Normal University, Shandong, 250358, China
[^2]: ^2^Department of Mathematics, Halmos College, Nova Southeastern University, FL 33314, USA
[^3]: ^3^Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Brandon University, Brandon, MB R7A 6A9, Canada
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'V. Punjabi, C.F. Perdrisat, M.K. Jones, E.J. Brash, and C.E. Carlson'
bibliography:
- 'EPJA\_bibli\_feb-18-2015.bib'
date: 'Received: / Revised version: '
title: 'The Structure of the Nucleon: Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors'
---
[nuc\_ff\_review.eps]{} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore
Introduction
============
One of the fundamental goals of nuclear physics is to understand the structure and behavior of strongly interacting matter in terms of its basic constituents, quarks and gluons. Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of the strong interaction, responsible for binding quarks through the exchange of gluons to form hadrons (baryons and mesons). The electromagnetic form factors are among the most basic quantities containing information about the internal structure of the proton and neutron, together known as nucleons. The challenge of understanding the nucleon’s structure and dynamics has occupied a central place in nuclear physics. High energy electron scattering provides one of the most powerful tools to investigate the structure of nucleons.
Early electron scattering experiments with nuclei were motivated by a need to verify predictions of the then current models of the electromagnetic interaction of electrons with nuclei, and in particular with the proton and neutron; Rosenbluth predicted that high energy electrons would be scattered dominantly by the magnetic moment of the proton [@rosenbluth]. Available accelerators in the early fifties had energies smaller than 50 MeV, and provided information on the nuclear radius of elements from Be to Pb. The first clear evidence that the proton has a structure was obtained at the High Energy Physics Laboratory (HEPL) at Stanford in the period form 1953 to 1956, under the leadership of Robert Hofstadter [@hofs55]. A proton charge radius of 0.77 fm was extracted by Chambers and Hofstadter [@Chambers] from the electron-proton data obtained using the electron beams with energies up to 550 MeV at the HEPL, confirming that the proton has a finite size. In his review paper Hofstadter [@hofstadter56] discussed in detail the extraction of proton charge and magnetization radii between 0.72 and 0.80 fm using different models. Almost sixty years after the work of Hofstadter [@hofstadter56], the question of whether the proton radius is 0.8775 (51) fm, the CODATA [@Mohr:2012tt] value from $ep$ elastic scattering, or is 0.84087 (39) fm [@pohl:2013], the muonic hydrogen value, which is a difference of seven standard deviations, is being discussed intensely.
A similar change in accepted concepts occurred when the data, which was obtained at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) or Jefferson Lab (JLab) for the proton’s electric to magnetic form factor ratio, $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ from double polarization experiments and completed in 2000 at a four momentum transfer squared, $Q^2$, of up to 5.6 GeV$^2$ [@jones; @punjabi05B; @gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011], differed drastically from the form factor results obtained with the cross sections data using the Rosenbluth separation method [@hand63; @janssens; @price; @litt; @berger; @bartel; @bork; @simon; @walker; @andivahisA; @christy; @qattan05]. The standard form factor database up to 1990’s had been entirely defined by cross section measurements, and suggested that, for $Q^2 \lesssim 6$ GeV$^2$, the ratio $\mu_p G_{Ep}/G_{Mp} \approx 1$, where $\mu_p$ is the magnetic moment of the proton. The double polarization experiments at JLab demonstrated that $\mu_p G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ decreased approximately linearly with $Q^2$ for $Q^2 > 0.5$ GeV$^2$, dropping to a value of 0.35 at $Q^2$ = 5.6 GeV$^2$ which was the highest $Q^2$ investigated at that time.
In the last several years, the field of nucleon structure has been investigated extensively. Two recent experiments at JLab have increased the $Q^2$ range of the $G_{En}$ and $ \mu_{p}G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ data. These data have triggered much activity in the determination of the flavor separated form factors of the dressed up- and down quarks in the nucleon. Experiments at Mainz, JLab and MIT-Bates have resulted in a much better coverage of the low $Q^2$ range for $G_{Ep}$, contributing to the intensive discussion of a possible disagreement between electron elastic scattering and muonic hydrogen data used to determine the proton radius. Several experiments have measured the e$^{+}$/e$^{-}$ cross section ratio for the proton with a level of precision that tests recent calculations which included two photon exchange contributions to the cross sections. A direct measurement of the two photon contribution to the double polarization observables was undertaken at JLab. The results confirm the expectation that two photon exchange affects the proton form factor ratio at less than the percent level. Combining these various experiments and theoretical calculations, the possible role of two photon exchange in bridging the gap in the extraction of the proton form factors from cross section and double polarization observables can be investigated.
History of Elastic Electron Scattering on the Nucleon
-----------------------------------------------------
Elastic electron proton scattering has evolved since the history making series of experiments with electron beams of the HEPL at Stanford in 1950s. Under the leadership of R. Hofstadter, a series of crucial results were obtained from cross section measurements [@hofs53]. Several fundamental pieces of information were established following these experiments, including the approximate $1/Q^8$ decrease of the cross section with $Q^2$, establishing the approximate shape of the charge distribution, and a first value for the proton radius. Theoretical work evolved in parallel with these experimental “firsts”, leading to the description of the elastic electron scattering in terms of the lowest order process, the exchange of a single virtual photon with negative invariant mass squared; this lowest order contribution, also called the Born term, was expected to be dominant because of the smallness of the electromagnetic coupling constant $\alpha_{EM}$. Fundamental expressions for the hadronic current and the definition of two invariant form factors, $F_1$ and $F_2$, later named the Dirac and Pauli form factors, of the Born term, were issues of this period. In 1957 Yennie, Levy and Ravenhall [@yennie57] derived an expression for the ${ep}$ cross section in terms of these two form factors, $F_1$ and $F_2$, following Rosenbluth’s work [@rosenbluth], as given in Eq. \[eq:csF2F1\].
The possibility of measuring either the polarization transferred to the recoil proton, or the asymmetry if the target proton or neutron is polarized, with longitudinally polarized electrons, was discussed in a paper by Akhiezer [*et al.*]{} [@akhiezer1957] in 1957. It was to be more than 30 years before such experiments, which require a polarized electron beam, could be performed with good accuracy. Further papers on double polarization experiments followed, including Scofield [@Scofield:1959zz], Akhiezer and Rekalo [@akh1B; @akh2B], Dombey [@dombey], and Arnold, Carlson and Gross [@arnold].
The construction of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at JLab, in Virginia, led to an intensive program of nucleon form factor measurements, first for the proton and then for the neutron, and a significant breakthrough in our understanding of the proton structure. In the Born approximation the transferred polarization has only two non-zero components, both in the reaction plane defined by the beam and scattered electron, one along the recoil proton momentum, and the other perpendicular to it. For the proton, polarization transfer has been used most often at JLab [@jones; @punjabi05B; @gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011]; it requires a re-scattering of the proton to measure its polarization. For the neutron, target asymmetry has now been used successfully [@zhu; @warren; @Riordan:2010] for the determination of the $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ ratio; this requires a polarized target of either ${}^2\pol{\rm{H}}$ or ${}^3\pol{\rm{He}}$, which limits the maximum electron current that can be tolerated without significant depolarization of the target.
Among the earliest electron-proton scattering polarization experiments is a search in 1963 at the Orsay linear accelerator, for a one-photon/two-photon interference effect with an un-polarized electron beam and an un-polarized target. They searched for normal and transverse polarization components. The normal polarization component was found to be 0.040 $\pm$ 0.027; the transverse polarization component was 0.000 $\pm$ 0.028 at $Q^2$ of 0.61 GeV$^2$[@bizot].
A similar single-spin experiment in 1970 with an un-polarized 15–18 GeV electron beam at the Stanford linear accelerator, and a polarized proton target with polarization perpendicular to the reaction plane to characterize the interference of the two-photon exchange with the single photon exchange (Born) process, produced asymmetries of order 1 to 2 % in the range of $Q^2$ 0.38 to 0.98 GeV$^2$ [@Powell:1970].
On the neutron side, the pioneering experiment of Madey [*et al.*]{} performed the first recoil polarization measurement of $G_{En}$ at a $Q^2$-value of 0.255 GeV$^2$ in 1994 [@eden:1994] at the MIT BATES Linear Accelerator; and the first double polarization measurement of the proton form factor ratio, $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$, was also carried out at the same lab in 1994-1995 by measuring the two polarization transfer components P$_{\ell}$ and P$_t$, at $Q^2$-values of 0.38 to 0.50 GeV$^2$ [@milbrathA; @milbrathB; @barkhuff].
Also the mid nineties saw a number of double polarization experiments at Nationaal Instituut voor Kernfysica en Hoge Energie Fysica (NIKHEF) [@passchier] and Mainz Microtron (MAMI) [@herberg; @ostrick] to determine the neutron electric form factor up to $Q^2\sim $1 GeV$^2$. All experiments used polarized electron beams and a polarized target, either ${}^2\pol{\rm{H}}$ or ${}^3\pol{\rm{He}}$.
In this review, we will focus on the space-like nucleon form factors, as in the past 15 years they have been studied more extensively both experimentally and theoretically, compared to the time-like nucleon form factors [@Mirazita]. Also the strangeness form factors are not discussed in this review; see Ref. [@Armstrong] for a review of the field of parity violating electron scattering and strangeness form factors.
This review is organized as follows. Section \[sec:formal\] describes the formalism of elastic electron scattering on the nucleon. In subsection \[subsec:dpff\], the use of elastic differential cross section data to extract the two electromagnetic form factors of proton and neutron by the Rosenbluth, or longitudinal and transverse (LT)-separation technique is reviewed. Subsection \[subsec:formalpol\] discusses how the form factors are measured in the double polarization experiments. The two photon exchange formalism is explained in subsection \[subsec:twophoton\].
Section \[sec:expstatus\] is devoted to discuss the experimental status. Subsection \[subsec:xsection\] describes the experiments which extracted the electric and magnetic form factors for the proton and the neutron from measurements of cross sections. Subsection \[subsec:poltransfer\] reviews the status of the double polarization experiments and discuss the results for the proton and the neutron, obtained from the recoil polarization method and beam-target asymmetry measurements. The role of two photon exchange contributions in the elastic $ep$ reaction in resolving the discrepancy between the proton’s electric form factor extracted by recoil polarization versus the Rosenbluth separation technique are discussed in subsection \[subsec:discrepancies\]. Subsection \[subsec:protonradius\] reviews the present status of the proton charge radius. Subsection \[flavor\] discusses the present status of flavor separation of nucleon form factors.
Section \[sec:theory\] deals with the theoretical interpretations of the electromagnetic nucleon form factors. Subsection \[subsec:models\] reviews the models of the nucleon form factors. These models include conformal fits to the form factors, vector meson dominance, dispersion analysis, constituent quark models, pion cloud models, transverse densities, and correspondences with higher dimensional theories. Subsection \[subsec:dse\] describes the Dyson-Schwinger equations and diquark models. Subsection \[subsec:dis\] discusses links between deep-inelastic scattering and nucleon form factors which includes perturbative QCD inspired models and generalized parton distribution (GPD) models. Subsection \[subsec:lattice\] describes lattice QCD calculations of nucleon form factors.
Section \[sec:conclusion\] summarizes the current issues and challenges in the area of electromagnetic form factors. This section closes with a discussion of future experiments at Jefferson Lab which will measure the proton and neutron form factors to $Q^2$ =10 GeV$^2$ or greater.
Formalism of Elastic Electron Nucleon Scattering {#sec:formal}
================================================
The lowest order approximation for electron nucleon scattering is the single virtual photon exchange process, or Born term. The Born approximation is expected to provide a good lowest order description of elastic $eN$ scattering (with $N=p,n$) because of the weak electro-magnetic coupling of the photon with the charge and the magnetic moment of the nucleon. The amplitude for the process is the product of the four-component leptonic and hadronic currents, $\ell_{\mu}$ and ${\mathcal J}_{\mu}$, and can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
i{\mathcal M}&=&\frac{-i}{q_{\mu}^2}\ell_{\mu}{\mathcal J}^{\mu} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}}{q_{\mu}^2}\left[ie\bar{u}(k')\gamma^{\nu}u(k)\right]\left[-ie\bar{v}(p')\Gamma^{\mu}(p',p)v(p)\right],\,\end{aligned}$$ where $k,k',p,p'$ are the the four-momenta of the incident and scattered, electron and proton, respectively, $\Gamma^{\mu}$ contains all information of the nucleon structure, and $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric tensor. To insure relativistic invariance and the correct parity property of the amplitude $\mathcal M$, $\Gamma^{\mu}$ can only contain p, p’ and $\gamma^{\nu}$, besides numbers, masses and $Q^2$, defined as, $Q^2=-(\vec{q}^{~2}-\omega^2)=-q_{\mu}^{ 2}$, is the negative of the square of the invariant mass, $q_{\mu}$, of the virtual photon exchanged in the one-photon approximation of $e{\it N}$ scattering.
The most general form for the hadronic current for the spin $\frac{1}{2}$-nucleon, satisfying relativistic invariance and current conservation, and including an internal structure is:\
$${\mathcal J}^{\mu}=ie\overline{\nu}(p')\left[\gamma^{\mu}{{F_1(Q^2)}}+
\frac{i\sigma^{\mu\nu}q_{\nu}}{2M}\kappa_{j}{{F_2(Q^2)}}\right]\nu(p), \\
\label{eq:Jhadron}$$ where $M$ is the nucleon mass; $\kappa_j,\ \mbox{with}\ j=p,n$ is the anomalous magnetic moment, in units of the nuclear magneton, $\mu_N=e\hbar/(2M_p)$. The Dirac and Pauli form factors, $F_1(Q^2)$ and $F_2(Q^2)$ are the only structure functions allowed in the Born term by relativistic invariance. As is now the most frequently used notation, $\kappa_jF_2\ \mbox{with}\ j=p,n$ will be written as $F_{2p}$ and $F_{2n}$, respectively. In the static limit, $Q^2=0$, $F_{1p}=1$, $F_{2p}=\kappa_p=1.7928$ and $F_{1n}=0$ and $F_{2n}=\kappa_n=-1.9130$, for the proton and neutron, respectively.
Cross Section Experiments {#subsec:dpff}
-------------------------
The Lab frame differential cross section for detection of the electron in elastic $ep$ or $en$ scattering is then: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega_e} &=& \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{Mott}\frac{E_e}{E_{beam}} \Big(F_1^2(Q^2) \nonumber \\
& + & \mbox{} \tau\Big[F_2^2(Q^2) + 2[F_1(Q^2)+F_2(Q^2)]^2\tan^2\frac{\theta_e}{2}\Big]\Big),
\label{eq:csF2F1} \end{aligned}$$ with $\tau=Q^2/4M^2$. The Mott cross section is: $$\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{Mott}=\frac{\alpha^2\cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}}{4E_{beam}^2\sin^4\frac{\theta}{2}}.
\label{eq:csmott}$$
The incident electron (beam) and scattered electron energies are labeled $E_{beam}$ and $E_e$, respectively. The fraction $E_{e}/E_{beam}$ in Eq. (\[eq:csF2F1\]) is the recoil correction to the Mott cross section.
Experimental cross section data are most easily analyzed in terms of another set of form factors, the Sachs form factors $G_{E}$ and $G_{M}$ [@walecka; @ernst]. The relations between $G_{E}$ and $G_{M}$ and $F_1$ and $F_2$ for proton and neutron are: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{E({p,n})}& = & F_{1({p,n})}-\tau F_{2({p,n})} \nonumber \\
G_{M({p,n})}& = & F_{1({p,n})}+F_{2({p,n})}.
\label{eq:gepgmp}\end{aligned}$$ The scattering cross section Eq. (\[eq:csF2F1\]) can then be written in a simpler form, without an interference term, leading to a separation method for $G_{E}^2$ and $G_{M}^2$ known as Rosenbluth (or Longitudinal-Transverse) technique, as will be seen below. Now the cross section is: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega_e} &=& \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{Mott}\frac{E_e}{E_{beam}}\frac{1}{1+\tau} \left( G_{E}^2 +
\frac{\tau}{\epsilon}G_{M}^2\right),
\label{eq:csgegm}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the polarization of the virtual photon defined as:
$$\epsilon=\frac{1}{1+2(1+\tau)\tan^2\frac{\theta_e}{2}}.
\label{eq:epsilon}$$
The Rosenbluth separation technique takes advantage of the linear dependence in $\epsilon$, in the reduced cross section $\sigma_{red}$, based on Eq. (\[eq:csgegm\]), as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{red} &=& \frac{\epsilon(1+\tau)}{\tau}\frac{E_{beam}}{E_e}\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{e})
/ \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{Mott} \nonumber \\
&=& G_{M}^2+\frac{\epsilon}{\tau} G_{E}^2,
\label{eq:redcs}\end{aligned}$$ showing that $\sigma_{red}$ is expected to have a linear dependence on $\epsilon$, with the slope proportional to $G_{E}^2$ and the intercept equal to $G_{M}^2$.
Double Polarization Experiments {#subsec:formalpol}
-------------------------------
In 1968 and 1974 Akhiezer and Rekalo [@akh1B; @akh2B] discussed the interest of measuring an interference term of the form $G_{E}G_{M}$ by observing the transverse component of the recoiling proton polarization in $\pol{e} p~\rightarrow~e \pol {p}$ at large $Q^2$, to obtain $G_E$ in the presence of a dominating $G_M$. In a review paper Dombey [@dombey] emphasized the virtues of measurements with a polarized lepton beam on a polarized target to obtain polarization observables. Also later in 1981 Arnold, Carlson and Gross [@arnold] discussed in detail, that the best way to measure the neutron and proton form factors would be to use the $^2{\rm H}(\pol{e},e' \pol{n})p$ and $^1{\rm H}(\pol{e},e' \pol{p})$ reactions, respectively.
Indeed, both the recoil polarization and target asymmetry measurement methods have been used successfully to measure the proton and neutron form factors to high four momentum transfer, $Q^2$, at JLab. The same methods have been used also at MIT-Bates, MAMI, and NIKHEF, to make precise proton and neutron form factor measurements at lower $Q^2$. Both methods are discussed below, with benefits and drawbacks of using polarized target and/or focal plane polarimeter.
### Recoil Polarization Method {#subsubsec:poltrans}
With a longitudinally polarized electron beam and an unpolarized target, the polarization of the incoming electron is transferred to the nucleon (proton or neutron) via exchange of a single virtual photon as shown in Fig. \[fig:nlt\]. For elastic $ep$ scattering, in the single photon exchange approximation, with a longitudinally polarized electron beam, the only non-zero polarization transfer components are the longitudinal and transverse, $P_{\ell}$ and $P_t$. The normal polarization transfer component, $P_{n}$, is zero. For single photon exchange, the transferred polarization components can be written in terms of the Sachs form factors as:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_o P_n & = & 0 \nonumber \\
I_oP_\ell & = & hP_e\frac{(E_{beam}+E_{e})}{M}\sqrt{\tau(1+\tau)}\tan^2\frac{\theta_e}{2} G_M^2 \nonumber \\
I_oP_t & = & -hP_e2 \sqrt{\tau(1+\tau)}\tan\frac{\theta_e}{2} G_EG_M \nonumber \\
I_o & = & G_E^2+\frac{\tau}{\epsilon}G_M^2
\label{eq:plpt}\end{aligned}$$
where $h = \pm 1$ are the beam helicity states, $P_e$ is the magnitude of polarization, and $\theta_{e}$ is the electron scattering angle.
The ratio of $G_E$ to $G_M$ is then directly obtained from the ratio of the two polarization components $P_t$ and $P_{\ell}$ as: $$\frac{G_{E}}{G_{M}}=-\frac{P_{t}}{P_{\ell}}\frac{(E_{beam}+E_{e})}
{2M}\tan \frac{\theta_{e}}{2}.
\label{eq:ratio}$$
The double-polarization approach to obtain the ratio at the large momentum transfer by measuring two polarization components simultaneously was first proposed at JLab in 1989 [@perpun]; it is based on a combination of spin precession in a magnetic spectrometer and using a proton polarimeter. The major advantage of the method, compared to cross section measurements, is that in the Born approximation, for each $Q^2$, a single measurement of the azimuthal angular distribution of the proton scattered in a secondary target gives both the longitudinal, $P_{\ell}$, and transverse, $P_t$, polarization. Thus the ratio of electric to magnetic form factors of the proton is obtained directly from a simultaneous measurement of the two recoil polarization components. The knowledge of the beam polarization and of the analyzing power of the polarimeter is not needed to extract the ratio, $G_{E}/G_{M}$, strongly decreasing the systematic uncertainties. The kinematic factors in Eq. (\[eq:ratio\]) are typically known to a precision far greater than the statistical precision of the recoil polarization components.
### Asymmetry with Polarized Targets {#subsubsec:Asymmetry}
It was discussed by Dombey [@dombey] in a review paper in 1969 that the nucleon form factors can be extracted from the scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons off a polarized nucleon target. In the one photon exchange approximation, the elastic electron nucleon scattering cross section can be written as a sum of two parts: $\Sigma$, which corresponds to the unpolarized elastic differential cross section given by Eq. (\[eq:csgegm\]), and a polarized part, $\Delta$, which is non-zero only if the electron beam is longitudinal polarized [@donnelly; @raskin];
$$\sigma_{h} = \Sigma + h P_e \Delta. \\
\label{eq:asymm}$$
The polarized part of the cross section, $\Delta$, with two terms related to the directions of the target polarization, $\vec{P}(\theta^{\ast} \phi^{\ast})$, is given by [@donnelly; @raskin]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta & = & -2 \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{Mott} \frac{E_e}{E_{beam}}\tan\frac{\theta_e}{2} \sqrt{\frac{\tau}{1+\tau}} \nonumber \\
& &\Big(\sin\theta^{\ast}\cos\phi^{\ast}G_E G_M \nonumber \\
&+& \sqrt{\tau\big[1+(1+\tau)\tan^2\frac{\theta_e}{2}\big]} \cos\theta^{\ast}G_M^2 \Big)
\label{eq:delta}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ are the polar and azimuthal laboratory angles of the target polarization vector with $\vec q$ in the $\vec z$ direction and $\vec y$ normal to the electron scattering plane, as shown in Figure \[fig:epkin\_asym\].
The physical asymmetry $A$ is then defined as $$A=\frac{\sigma_{+} -\sigma_{-}}{\sigma_{+} + \sigma_{-}}=\frac{\Delta}{\Sigma},
\label{eq:asy}$$ where $\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$ are the cross sections for the two beam helicity states.
For a longitudinally polarized beam and polarized target, the measured asymmetry, $A_{meas}$, is related to the physical asymmetry, $A$, by $$A_{meas}=h P_{e}P_{target}A,
\label{eq:asy1}$$ where $P_{e}$ and $P_{target}$ are electron beam and target polarization, respectively, and $A$ can be obtained using Eqs. (\[eq:csgegm\]) and (\[eq:delta\]), $$\begin{aligned}
A &=&-\frac{2\sqrt{\tau(1+\tau)}\tan\frac{\theta_e}{2}}{G_E^2+\frac{\tau}{\epsilon}G_M^2}
\Big[ \sin\theta^{\ast}\cos\phi^{\ast}G_E G_M \nonumber \\
&+& \sqrt{\tau\big[1+(1+\tau)\tan^2\frac{\theta_e}{2}\big]} \cos\theta^{\ast}G_M^2 \Big].
\label{eq:asy2}\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[eq:asy2\]), it is apparent that to extract $G_{E}$, the target polarization in the laboratory frame must be perpendicular with respect to the momentum transfer vector ${\vec q}$ and within the reaction plane, with $\theta^{\ast}= \pi/2$ and $\phi^{\ast}= 0^o$ or $180^o$. For these conditions, the physical asymmetry $A$ in Eq. (\[eq:asy2\]) simplifies to: $$A_{perp}=\frac{-2\sqrt{\tau(1+\tau)}\tan\frac{\theta_e}{2} \frac{G_E}{G_M}}{(\frac{G_E}{G_M})^2+\frac{\tau}{\epsilon}}.
\label{eq:asy3}$$ As $(G_E/G_M)^2$ is quite small, $A_{perp}$ is approximately proportional to $G_E/G_M$. In practice, the second term in Eq. (\[eq:asy2\]) is not strictly zero due to the finite acceptance of the detectors, but these effects are small and depend on kinematics only in first order and can be corrected for, so the ratio $G_E/G_M$ is not affected directly. One can also note that $A_{perp} = P_t/(hP_e)$.
The discussion above is only applicable to a free electron-nucleon scattering. For a quasi-elastic electron scattering from a nuclear targets, like $^2$H or $^3$He, corrections are required for several nuclear effects.
Two-photon exchange {#subsec:twophoton}
-------------------
In the one-photon exchange process, the form factors depend only on $Q^2$ but not on other kinematic variables. A deviation in the form factors from constant when varying the kinematics (i.e. $E_{beam}$ and the scattered electron angle, keeping $Q^2$ constant) would indicate the presence of a mechanism beyond the Born approximation.
In the general case, elastic $eN$ scattering can be described by three complex amplitudes [@guichon; @afanbrod; @kivel:2012]: $\tilde{G}_M$, $\tilde{G}_E$, and $\tilde{F}_3$, the first two chosen as generalizations of the Sachs electric and magnetic form factors, $G_E$ and $G_M$, and the last one, $\tilde{F}_3$, vanishing in case of Born approximation. The reduced cross section, $\sigma _{red}$ can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{red}&=& G_M^2 + \frac{\varepsilon}{\tau} G_E^2 + 2 G_M\Re\left(\delta \tilde{G}_M + \frac{\varepsilon}{M^2} \tilde F_3\right)
\nonumber \\
&+& 2 \frac{\varepsilon}{\tau} G_E \Re \left(\delta\tilde G_E + \frac{\nu}{M^2}\tilde F_3\right),
\label{eq:siggen}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Re\tilde{G_M}(Q^2,\varepsilon)&=&G_M(Q^2)+\Re\delta \tilde{G_M}(Q^2,\varepsilon) \\
\label{eq:regm}
\Re\tilde{G_E}(Q^2,\varepsilon)&=&G_E(Q^2)+\Re\delta \tilde{G_E}(Q^2, \varepsilon)~.
\label{eq:rege} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\nu}{M^2}=\frac{s-u}{4M^2}=\sqrt{\tau(1-\tau)}\frac{1+\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}.
\label{eq:nu2gamma}\end{aligned}$$ The polarization transfer components can be written as: $$\begin{gathered}
P_n = \sqrt{\frac{2\varepsilon(1+\varepsilon)}{\tau}} \frac{h P_e}{\sigma _{red}} \Big[ -G_M \Im(\delta\tilde{G}_E + \frac{\nu}{M^2}\tilde F_3) \\
+ G_E \Im (\delta \tilde{G}_M +\frac{2\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\frac{\nu}{M^2}\tilde{F}_3) \Big]
\label{eq:pngen}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
P_t=-\sqrt{\frac{2\varepsilon(1-\varepsilon)}{\tau}} \frac{h P_e}{\sigma _{red}} \Big[ G_E G_M \\
+ G_E\Re(\delta \tilde{G}_M) + G_M\Re(\delta \tilde{G}_E+\frac{\nu}{M^2}\tilde F_3) \Big]
\label{eq:ptgen}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
P_{\ell}=\sqrt{(1-\varepsilon ^2)}\frac{h P_e}{\sigma _{red}}
\Big[ G_M^2 \\ + 2 G_M \Re(\delta \tilde G_M+\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\frac{\nu}{M^2}\tilde F_3)\Big]
\label{eq:plgen}\end{gathered}$$ While the Sachs form factors depend only on $Q^2$, in the general case the amplitudes depend also on $\varepsilon$. The reduced cross section and the polarization transfer components, $P_t$ and $P_{\ell}$ are sensitive only to the real part of the two-photon amplitudes. The normal polarization transfer component, $P_n$, is sensitive to the imaginary parts of the two-photon amplitudes. In the Born approximation, only the first term remains from $\sigma_{red}$, $P_t$ and $P_{\ell}$ in Eqs. (\[eq:siggen\]), (\[eq:ptgen\]) and (\[eq:plgen\]) while $P_n$ is zero.
Experimental Status {#sec:expstatus}
===================
The structure of the nucleons has been investigated experimentally with rigor over last 70 years using elastic electron scattering. The two Sachs form factors, $G_{E}$ and $G_{M}$, required to describe the nucleon charge- and magnetization distribution have been traditionally obtained by cross section measurements. In the static limit, the proton, $G_{Mp}$, and neutron, $G_{Mn}$, magnetic form factors are equal to the proton, $\mu_p$, and neutron, $\mu_n$, magnetic moments while the proton, $G_{Ep}$, and neutron, $G_{En}$, electric form factors are equal to unity and zero, respectively. The earliest experiments at low $Q^2$ found: $$G_{Ep} \approx \frac{G_{Mp}}{\mu_p} \approx \frac{G_{Mn}}{\mu_n} ,$$ The $Q^2$ dependence of these form factors can be approximately characterized by a dipole form factor: $$G_D = \Big(1+\frac{Q^2}{0.71}\Big)^{-2},$$ The data for $G_{Mp}$ have shown good consistency between different experiments up to 30 GeV$^2$, however, the determination of $G_{Ep}$ at $Q^2$ greater than 2 GeV$^2$ has suffered from large error bars. The neutron electric form factor, $G_{En}$, is small and difficult to extract from cross section experiments. New experimental methods using spin observables were needed which pushed the development of polarized targets and new accelerators with high duty factor and polarized electron beams.
The recent generation of electron accelerators with high polarization and high current electron beams, at MIT-Bates, MAMI and JLab, have made it possible to investigate the internal structure of the nucleon with precision. In particular, the new series of experiments that measured spin observables, like beam-target asymmetry and recoil polarization, have allowed experiments to obtain the proton and neutron electromagnetic form factors accurately to large $Q^2$. In this section we describe the proton and neutron form factors obtained from cross sections and double polarization experiments.
Cross Section Experiments {#subsec:xsection}
-------------------------
The electric and magnetic form factors of the nucleon can be extracted from measurements of cross sections at a constant $Q^{2}$ and different beam energies using Eq. (\[eq:redcs\]). This is known as the Rosenbluth separation technique. The strict linearity of the reduced cross section is based on the dominance of one-photon exchange in the elastic electron-nucleon scattering reaction. In principle, only two $\epsilon$ points are needed to determine the slope, $G^2_{E}/\tau$, and intercept, $G^2_{M}$, from Eq. (\[eq:redcs\]). Usually experiments have measured more than two $\epsilon$ points for a given $Q^2$. From a practical experimental viewpoint, more $\epsilon$ points allow better understanding and checks of systematic errors. From a theoretical viewpoint, the linearity of the $\epsilon$ dependence of the reduced cross section can be investigated with more $\epsilon$ points. One clear sign of a two-photon exchange contribution to the cross section would be a non-linearity in the $\epsilon$-dependence of the reduced cross section. Unfortunately, the two-photon exchange contribution can have a linear $\epsilon$-dependence which cannot be experimentally separated out in the cross section measurement and must be calculated theoretically. The form factor data presented in the following sections were not corrected for hard two-photon exchange contributions when they were extracted from the elastic scattering measurements.
### Proton Form Factors {#subsubsec:gmp}
Extraction of the proton form factors from the cross section data is complicated by the strong dependence of the Mott cross section on the scattering angle. In addition, as can be seen in Eq. (\[eq:redcs\]), the relative contribution of the two form factors to the reduced cross section changes with $Q^2$. This difficulty in measuring both form factors within the same experiment with small errors bars was a problem from the first experiments using the Rosenbluth separation technique. Ref. [@hand63] contains a tabulation of measurements of $G_{Mp}$ and $G_{Ep}$ from the early 1960’s which are plotted as open triangles in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\]. From Ref. [@hand63], we have selected to plot only data which have relative error bars of less than 10%. One can see that $G_{Ep}$ is measured with this precision only to $Q^2 < 0.2$ GeV$^2$ while the $G_{Mp}$ data points are plotted only above $Q^2 = 0.2$ GeV$^2$.
Throughout the 1960’s, experiments increased their precision. Measurements were done at the Stanford Mark III accelerator of cross sections to 2% statistical precision at $Q^2$ between 0.18 to 0.8 GeV$^2$ [@janssens]. Their $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ values are plotted as multiplication sign symbol in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\]. In 1971, results on $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ were published which combined cross section measurements at the Cambridge Electron Accelerator with previous cross section measurements to cover a range of $Q^2$ between 0.13 to 1.75 GeV$^2$. The results are plotted in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\] as open circles [@price]. There is good agreement with the $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ of Ref. [@janssens] in the region of overlap, while $G_{Ep}/G_D$ for $Q^2 > 1$ GeV$^2$ starts to drop-off below unity. In 1970, a SLAC experiment measured $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ at $Q^2$ between 1 to 3.8 GeV$^2$ and found $G_{Ep}/G_D > 1$, which is opposite to the trend of Ref. [@price]. These data are plotted as filled diamonds in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\]. In this same time period, $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ measurements were done at Bonn [@berger] for $Q^2$ between 0.34 to 1.94 GeV$^2$ and at DESY [@bartel] for $Q^2$ between 0.67 to 3.0 GeV$^2$. The data from Ref. [@berger] and [@bartel] are plotted in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\] as filled square and crossed diamond, respectively. Both of these data sets agree with the downward trend in $G_{Ep}/G_D$ for $Q^2 > 1$ GeV$^2$ seen in Ref.[@price], which disagrees with the rise in $G_{Ep}/G_D$ observed in Ref. [@litt].
In the 1970’s, a series of experiments at Mainz sought to measure the $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ form factors at $Q^2$ below 0.1 GeV$^2$ with greater precision. The first [@bork] measured cross sections at $Q^2$ between 0.014 to 0.12 GeV$^2$. The second [@simon] did measurements up to $Q^2$ of 0.055 GeV$^2$ with an emphasis on extracting the charge radius of the proton. The $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ form factors of Ref. [@bork] and [@simon] are plotted as crossed square and open square in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\]. These experiments demonstrate the precision that can be obtained in the measurement of $G_{Ep}$ at extremely low $Q^2$. In Sec. \[subsec:protonradius\], results from these experiments for the proton charge radius are shown in Fig. \[Rp\_vs\_t\].
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, experiments at SLAC [@kirk:1972xm] pushed the limits of the $ep$ cross section measurements to $Q^2$ = 25 GeV$^2$. In the 1990’s, an experiment [@sill] at SLAC measured the $ep$ cross section at forward angles for $Q^2$ from 3 to 30 GeV$^2$ with improved statistical precision. Both experiments extracted $G_{Mp}$ under the assumption that $\mu_p$$G_{Ep}$/$G_{Mp}$ = 1. The data from Ref. [@kirk:1972xm] (open squares) and [@sill] (open stars) are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gmpgd\]. The data are consistent with each other and show a drop-off in $G_{Mp}$/$\mu_p$$G_{D}$ above $Q^2~=~7$ GeV$^2$.
In the 1990’s, at SLAC, two experiments were done which extended the precision and upper range of $Q^2$ for measurement of $G_{Ep}$ by the Rosenbluth separation technique. Ref. [@walker] measured at $Q^2$ of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 GeV$^2$. Ref. [@andivahisA] measured at $Q^2$ between 1.75 and 9 GeV$^2$ and this experiment pushed the measurement of $G_{Ep}$ to the maximum $Q^2$ that has been done at this time. In Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\], the data of Ref.[@walker] and [@andivahisA] are plotted as filled stars and open diamonds, respectively. The $G_{Mp}$ data of both experiments agree with each other and previous experiments, while the $G_{Ep}/G_D$ are very different at $Q^2$ = 3 GeV$^2$. The $G_{Ep}/G_D$ of Ref. [@andivahisA] agrees well with the early measurements of Ref. [@price] at $Q^2$ = 1.75 GeV$^2$ and have a flat $Q^2$ dependence with a slight rise for $Q^2 > 1.75~$GeV$^2$. A global reanalysis of cross section experiments was done by Ref. [@arring03] in 2003. This reanalysis found that the cross section measurements from different experiments were consistent with each other in extraction of both $G_E$ and $G_M$, though it excluded the small angle data of Ref. [@walker] from the global analysis.
The $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ data measured by the recoil polarization method will be discussed in the upcoming Sec. \[subsec:poltransfer\], but the effect on the extraction of $G_{Mp}$ will be briefly discussed here. In 2002, an extraction of $G_{Mp}$ was done from the cross section data of the previous experiments using the constraint that $$G_{Ep}/G_{Mp} = 1.0 - 0.13\times(Q^2 - 0.04), \nonumber$$ which originates from a fit to $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ from the recoil polarization experiments [@brash]. The fit to the extracted $G_{Mp}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:gmpgd\] as a dashed line and the fit is a few percent larger than $G_{Mp}$ from the standard Rosenbluth method. Also shown in Fig. \[fig:gmpgd\] as a solid line is a fit by Ref. [@kelly04] to the $G_{Mp}$ extracted by Ref. [@brash] with additional low $Q^2$ $G_{Mp}$ values from Ref. [@hohler]. Since the time of these fits, the effects of two-photon exchange on the extraction of $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ have been calculated by theorists and this topic will be discussed in Sec. \[subsec:discrepancies\].
Taking advantage of the high duty factor of modern accelerators, cross-sections can be measured to high precision over a range of $\epsilon$ in a relatively short time period. This was recently done with spectacular precision by an experiment at MAMI. Cross sections were measured at 1422 kinematic settings covering a $Q^2$ range from 0.004 to 1.0 GeV$^2$ with average point-to-point systematic error of 0.37% [@Bernauer:2010wm]. Data were taken with the three separate spectrometers of MAMI at 6 different beam energies. With this large data set, the authors extracted $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ by fits to their cross section data rather than the traditional Rosenbluth separation technique. The group has published a long paper [@Bernauer:2013tpr] on the same data set and included other world data in their fits. The sensitivity to different functional forms for the fits was investigated by using many different spline and polynomial forms. The fits also included 31 normalization parameters for possible systematic effects with cross sections measured with the different spectrometers and in different run periods. The fits which had a reduced $\chi^2 < 1.16$ had a maximum difference in their cross sections of 0.7%.
At JLab, $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ were measured using the Rosenbluth separation method at $Q^2$ between 0.4 to 5.5 GeV$^2$ as part of an experiment to measure inelastic cross sections on a range of nuclei [@christy]. The results are plotted in Figs. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\] as asterisk and agree with previous measurements.
Instead of detecting the elastically scattered electron, $(e,e^{\prime})$, an experiment which detected the elastically scattered proton to identify elastic reactions, $(e,p)$, was run at JLab in 2002 [@qattan05]. The same experimental approach of extracting the form factors by measuring elastic cross sections at fixed $Q^2$ and different $\epsilon$ by varying the beam energy was used. The experimental method takes advantage of the fact that the proton momentum is constant for all $\epsilon$ at a fixed $Q^2$. In addition for $(e,p)$, the detected proton rate and the radiation corrections have a smaller dependence on $\epsilon$ compared to $(e,e^{\prime})$ experiments. All this combines to reduce the $\epsilon$ dependent systematic error compared to $(e,e^{\prime})$ experiments. The form factors were measured at $Q^2$ = 2.64, 3.10 and 4.60 GeV$^2$. In Fig. \[fig:gepgd\] and \[fig:gmpgd\], the measurements of $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ from the $(e,p)$ reaction are plotted. The agreement between the form factors extracted by the different experiments is excellent. Experiments which detect either the scattered electrons or the scattered protons have different systematics, so the agreement between the two techniques indicates that the experimental systematic errors are understood.
With the success of the first JLab $(e,p)$ experiment, a subsequent experiment, E05-017, was run at JLab in Hall C in 2007 [@e05017]. The experiment measured cross-sections at a total of 102 kinematic settings covering a wide $Q^2$ range from 0.4 to 5.76 GeV$^2$ with at least three $\epsilon$ points per $Q^2$. The emphasis was to measure at each $Q^2$ as wide an $\epsilon$ range as possible. Fig. \[fig:super-rosen\] plots the $Q^2$ versus $\epsilon$ for all kinematic points of E05-017. To obtain multiple $\epsilon$ at the each $Q^2$, 17 different beam energies were needed for the experiment. This number of beam energies in a relatively short time period demonstrate the amazing capabilities in the operation of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator at JLab. At $Q^2$ = 1 GeV$^2$, thirteen $\epsilon$ points were measured ranging from $\epsilon$ = 0.05 to 0.98, with eight of the points above $\epsilon$ = 0.8. Similarly for $Q^2$ = 2.3 GeV$^2$, ten $\epsilon$ points were measured ranging from $\epsilon$ = 0.07 to 0.92, with five of the points above $\epsilon$ = 0.7. The wide range of $\epsilon$ at a fixed $Q^2$ allows a check of the non-linearity in the $\epsilon$ dependence of the cross-section which would be a sign of two-photon exchange contributions effecting the cross-sections. The effects from two-photon exchange contributions could have a dramatic $\epsilon$ dependence near $\epsilon$ = 1.
### Neutron Form Factors {#subsubsec:gmn}
The neutron has zero charge and therefore $G_{En}$ has to be zero at $Q^2=0$. The slope of $G_{En}$ at $Q^2=0$ is related to the mean-square radius of the neutron (see Eq. (\[eq:sloperms\]) for the proton). Also, the mean-square radius of the neutron, $<\,r_{en}{^2}\,>$, can be expressed in terms of the neutron-electron scattering length. The neutron-electron scattering length, $b_{ne}$, can be determined from total transmission cross sections for epithermal and thermal neutrons scattering on the atomic electrons in noble gas targets [@Krohn:1973re] and lead and bismuth targets [@Aleksandrov:1986mw; @Koester:1995nx; @Kopecky:1997rw]. Using results from the total transmission experiments, the Particle Data Group published a recommended value of $<\,r_{en}{^2}\,>\,=\,- 0.1161 \pm 0.0022~\mbox{fm}^2 $ or $dG_{En}/dQ^2 = 0.01935 \pm 0.00037~\mbox{fm}^2$ [@Agashe:2014kda].
With no free neutron target, cross section experiments have to make measurements on a deuteron target to extract the neutron form factors. Experiments have measured cross sections for quasi-elastic single arm $d(e,e')$ and coincidence $d(e,e'p)n$ reactions. Primarily, the quasi-elastic $ed$ reaction is a measurement of $G_{Mn}$ with limited sensitivity to $G_{En}$, since $G_{En}$ is near zero and much smaller than the proton contribution to the cross section. Single arm quasi-elastic $ed$ scattering by Ref. [@bartel; @hanson; @hughes] can be used to extract $G_{Mn}$ but this requires theoretical knowledge of the large final state interactions at low $Q^2$, which leads to a sizable theoretical uncertainty. Coincidence cross section measurements in the $d(e,e'p)n$ reaction were done by [@budnitz; @dunning]. Detection of the neutron in coincidence reduces the theoretical uncertainty and the proton contribution in the extraction, but the uncertainty on the knowledge of the neutron detection efficiency becomes important. In the 1990’s, $G_{Mn}$ was measured at MIT-Bates at $Q^2$ of 0.11, 0.18 and 0.26 GeV$^2$ using the $d(e,e'n)p$ reaction and the data are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\] as open squares. This experiment measured the neutron detection efficiency using the $^2H(\gamma,pn)$ reaction.
Extracting $G_{Mn}$ from the ratio of cross sections of the quasi-elastic $d(e,e'n)p$ to $d(e,e'p)n$ reactions is the least sensitive method to uncertainties in the calculation of the deuteron wave function, final state interactions and meson exchange contributions. In the early 1970’s, at DESY, pioneering experiments measuring the ratio of quasi-free cross sections for the $d(e,e'n)$ to $d(e,e'p)$ reactions were performed by Ref. [@bartel] and [@stein]. These experiments extracted $G_{Mn}$ at $Q^2$ = 0.4, 0.57, 0.78, 1.0 and 1.5 GeV$^2$ and the $G_{Mn}$ data are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\] as squares with cross.
In 1995, at Bonn, the ratio of quasi-elastic $d(e,e'n)p$ to $d(e,e'p)n$ cross sections was used to extract $G_{Mn}$. $G_{Mn}$ was measured at $Q^2$ of 0.13, 0.25, 0.42 and 0.61 GeV$^2$ [@bruins] and is plotted in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\] with empty diamond. The neutron detection efficiency was measured [*in situ*]{} using the $^{1}H(\gamma,\pi^{-})n$ reaction. The photons were produced by bremsstrahlung in the hydrogen target.
A series of measurements of the ratio of $d(e,e'n)p$ to $d(e,e'p)n$ cross sections were made in which the neutron detector efficiency was measured by taking the neutron detector to Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and using the neutron beam line. A LED system was used to monitor gain and baseline shifts at PSI and during the experiments. The first experiment was done at NIKHEF and $G_{Mn}$ was measured at $Q^2$ of 0.61 and 0.70 GeV$^2$ [@anklin]. The next experiment was done at MAMI and measurements of $G_{Mn}$ were done at $Q^2$ of 0.24, 0.50, 0.65 and 0.78 GeV$^2$ [@Anklin:1998ae]. The results from these two experiments are plotted as an asterisk in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\]. These were followed by more measurements of $G_{Mn}$ at MAMI which extend the $Q^2$ range. The latter experiment was done at $Q^2$ values of 0.071, 0.125, 0.36 and 0.89 GeV$^2$ with statistical errors at the 1.5% level and are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\] as filled diamonds. Efficiency measurements at PSI were done before and after each experiment and the measurements were consistent. Within this series of experiments, the $G_{Mn}$ at matching $Q^2$ are in excellent agreement, but are smaller than $G_{Mn}$ measured at Bonn [@bruins] and MIT-Bates [@marko]. Ref. [@jourdan] suggested that the Bonn experiment had miscalculated their neutron efficiency, because a contribution from pion electroproduction was not taken into account when determining the neutron efficiency which led to an overestimate of $G_{Mn}$. In their reply [@bruins1], Bruins [*et al*]{} responded that in the peaking approximation the contribution from pion electroproduction to their kinematics is negligible. In calculating the contribution from electroproduction, each paper uses a different data set to extrapolate to the measured kinematic region, so, as stated in Ref. [@bruins1], the only way to conclusively settle the disagreement is to measure pion electroproduction and photoproduction in the kinematics of the experiment.
At the present time, the highest $Q^2$ measurement of $G_{Mn}$ was done at SLAC in the early 1980’s by measuring quasi-free $ed$ cross sections [@rockB]. This experiment measured $G_{Mn}$ from $Q^2$ of 2.5 to 10 GeV$^2$. Another SLAC experiment [@Arnold:1988us] measured $G_{Mn}$ from $Q^2$ of 1.0 to 1.75 GeV$^2$. In the 1990’s, at SLAC, a Rosenbluth separation experiment was done for the quasi-free $ed$ reaction at $Q^2$ = 1.75, 2.5, 3.25 and 4.0 GeV$^2$ and both $G_{Mn}$ and $G_{En}$ were extracted [@lung]. The $G_{En}$ values were consistent with zero with large error bars. All experiments have consistent $G_{Mn}$ values in the region of overlapping kinematics and their $G_{Mn}$ values are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\].
The experiment at JLab in Hall B using CLAS measured $G_{Mn}$ in fine $Q^2$ bins from $Q^2$ between 1.0 to 4.8 GeV$^2$ [@lachniet:2008]. The data are plotted as open triangles in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_nopol\]). A unique feature of this experiment was a dual cell design with liquid hydrogen and deuterium cells separated by 4.7 cm. This allowed measurement of the neutron detection efficiency by the $H(e,e^{\prime}\pi^{+})n$ reaction to be done simultaneously with cross section measurements. The Hall B data overlaps nicely with the SLAC measurements. Though at $Q^2$ near 4.8 GeV$^2$, the Hall B data set suggest a less rapid $Q^2$ fall-off, then measured in the SLAC high $Q^2$ data.
Experiments have used elastic $ed$ cross sections to determine the neutron form factors. The scattering by an electron from the spin 1 deuteron requires 3 form factors in the hadronic current operator, for the charge, quadrupole and magnetic distributions, $G_C$, $G_Q$ and $G_{Md}$, respectively. In the original impulse approximation form of the cross section developed by Gourdin [@gourdin], the elastic $ed$ cross section is: $$\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{Mott}\left(A(Q^2)+B(Q^2)\tan^2(\frac{\theta_e}{2})\right),
\label{eq:edxn}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A(Q^2) & = & G_C^2(Q^2)+\frac{8}{9}\eta^{2}G_Q^{2}(Q^2)+
\frac{2}{3}\eta(1+\eta)G_{Md}^{2}, \nonumber \\
B(Q^2) & = & \frac{3}{4}\eta(1+\eta)^2G_{Md}^2(Q^2), \end{aligned}$$ with $\eta=Q^2/4M_D^2$. The charge, quadrupole and magnetic form factors can be written in terms of the isoscalar electric and magnetic form factors as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
G_C&=&G_{E}^{S}C_E,~~\mbox{ }~~G_Q=G_{E}^{S}C_Q ,\nonumber \\ G_{Md}&=&\frac{M_D}{M_p}(
G_{M}^{S}C_S+\frac{1}{2}G_{E}^{S}C_L), \end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $C_E$, $C_Q$, $C_L$ and $C_S$ are Fourier transforms of specific combinations of the S- and D-state deuteron wave functions, $u(r)$ and $w(r)$ [@gourdin]. The isoscalar ($G_i^S$) and isovector ($G_i^V$) magnetic ($i = M$) and electric ($i = E$) form factors are defined as : $$G_{i}^S = G_{i p} + G_{i n} \mbox{ and } G_{i}^V = G_{i p} - G_{i n}.$$ Theoretical knowledge of the deuteron wave function is needed to extract the form factors which is a major systematic uncertainty. Both the magnetic and electric form factors can be extracted from the elastic $ed$ cross sections, though the $Q^2$ range is limited by the theoretical uncertainties. In the 1960’s, elastic $ed$ cross section measurements were done which determined $G_{Mn}$ and $G_{En}$ for $Q^2 < 0.12$ GeV$^2$ [@benaksasB; @grossetete].
The 1971 DESY experiment of Galster [*et al.*]{} [@galster] measured elastic $ed$ cross sections for forward scattered electrons for $Q^2$ up to 0.6 GeV$^2$. At these kinematics, the cross section in Eq. (\[eq:edxn\]) is dominated by the $A(Q^2)$ term and $G_{Md}$ contributes less than 5% to the $A(Q^2)$ term. The $A(Q^2)$ data was fitted using different deuteron wave functions and by using $$G_{Ep} = \frac{G_{Mp}}{\mu_p} = \frac{G_{Mn}}{\mu_n} = G_D,$$ with different parametrization of $G_{En}$. The lowest $\chi^2$ for a fit was obtained using the Feshbach-Lomon [@feshbach] deuteron wave function and the following fitting function: $$G_{En}(Q^2)=-\frac{\mu_n \tau}{1+5.6\tau}G_{D}(Q^2).
\label{eq:galster}$$ This fit is plotted in Fig. \[fig:gen\_platchov\] as a dotted line.
The most recent experiment to measure the elastic $ed$ cross section to determine $G_{En}$ is that of Platchkov [*et al.*]{} [@platchkov]. These data extend to $Q^2$ of 0.7 GeV$^2$, with significantly smaller statistical uncertainties than all previous experiments. The form factor $A(Q^2)$ is very sensitive to the deuteron wave function, and therefore to the $NN$ interaction. Furthermore, the shape of $A(Q^2)$ cannot be explained by the impulse approximation alone. Corrections for meson exchange currents (MEC) and a small contribution from relativistic effects were found to significantly improve the agreement between calculations and the measured shape of $A(Q^2)$. When fitting the $A(Q^2)$ data, a modified form of the Galster fit, $$G_{En}(Q^2)=-\frac{a\mu_n \tau G_{D}}{1+b\tau},
\label{eq:platchkov}$$ was used. Several $NN$ potentials which including meson exchange currents as well as relativistic corrections were used to calculate the deuteron wave function. In Fig. \[fig:gen\_platchov\], the fits of $G_{En}$ extracted from fitting $a$ and $b$ in Eq. (\[eq:platchkov\]) to the measured $A(Q^2)$ are plotted when using the Nijmegen (black solid line) or a Reid soft core (red dashed) $NN$ potential to calculate the deuteron wave function. Both fits to $A(Q^2)$ had similar $\chi^2$ and the spread between the line gives a sense of the theoretical uncertainty in extracting $G_{En}$ from the elastic $ed$ cross section. In 2001, an extraction of $G_{En}$ was performed using the entire elastic $ed$ cross section and polarization data [@schiavil] and the results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gen\_platchov\] as diamonds with the error bars showing the theoretical uncertainty. These data show the limit of using the $ed$ elastic reaction to determine $G_{En}$ and the need to use the quasi-elastic $ed$ polarization observables to extract $G_{En}$/$G_{Mn}$ which will be discussed in Sec. \[NeutronFFpol\].
Double Polarization Experiments {#subsec:poltransfer}
-------------------------------
Both the recoil polarization method, and the asymmetry measurement using polarized target, have been used to measure the proton and the neutron form factors. Here we first describe the proton form factor results; the neutron form factor results will be discussed in the next subsection.
### Proton Form Factors {#ProtonFFpol}
The earliest polarization experiments, measuring the polarization of the recoil proton [@bizot], or measuring the asymmetry using a polarized proton target [@Powell:1970] with unpolarized electron beams, were done to search for two photon effects.
The first experiment with polarized electron beam and polarized target was done at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in 1970’s [@alguard]. This experiment measured the beam-target asymmetry $A=\frac{\sigma_{+} -\sigma_{-}}{\sigma_{+} + \sigma_{-}}$ at $Q^2$ = 0.765 GeV$^2$. The experiment showed that the results and the theoretical values were in good agreement if the signs of $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ are the same.
The recoil polarization method was used for the first time in an experiment at the MIT-Bates laboratory to measure the proton form factor ratio $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$. This experiment determined $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ for a free proton [@milbrathA; @milbrathB], as well as for a bound proton in a deuterium target [@barkhuff], at $Q^2$-values of 0.38 and 0.5 GeV$^2$. The success of this experiment highlighted the fact that the recoil polarization transfer technique would be of great interest for future measurements of $G_{E}$ and $G_{M}$ at higher $Q^2$ values, for both the proton and the neutron.
Next, using the same method of measuring the recoil polarization in $^1{\rm H}(\pol{e},e' \pol{p})$ reaction, the ratio $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ was measured at MAMI at $Q^2$-values of 0.373, 0.401 and 0.441 Gev$^2$ [@pospischil]. The ratio results were found to be in agreement with those of Milbrath [*et al.*]{} [@milbrathA; @milbrathB] as well as Rosenbluth measurements.
In the late 1990’s and 2000’s measurements using the recoil polarization method were made at JLab in Hall A and Hall C [@gayou:2001; @strauch; @mac; @hu; @Paolone:2010] at low $Q^2$ values, as calibration measurements for other polarization experiments. Two new high precision ratio measurements at low $Q^2$ were made in Hall A at JLab; the first in 2006 measured the ratio in the range of $Q^2$ from 0.2 to 0.5 GeV$^2$ [@Ron:2011], the second in 2008 measured it at $Q^2$ of 0.3 to 0.7 GeV$^2$ [@Zhan:2011].
The proton form factor ratio has also been obtained by measuring the beam-target asymmetry in the $^1\pol{\rm H}(\pol{e},e'p)$ reaction at a $Q^2$ of 1.51 GeV$^2$ in a Hall C experiment at JLab in elastic $ep$ scattering [@Jones:2006]. This is the highest $Q^2$ at which the $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ ratio has been obtained from a beam-target asymmetry measurement. The same method was used by the BLAST group at MIT-Bates [@crawford]; this experiment measured the ratio at $Q^2$ values of 0.2 to 0.6 GeV$^2$ with high precision.
Figure \[fig:gepgd\_low\_pol\] shows all the low $Q^2$ data obtained from recoil polarization experiments [@milbrathA; @jones; @punjabi05B; @pospischil; @gayou:2001; @strauch; @mac; @hu; @Paolone:2010; @Ron:2011; @Zhan:2011] and beam-target asymmetry measurements [@Jones:2006; @crawford] obtained at MIT-Bates, MAMI, and JLab. As can be seen from figure \[fig:gepgd\_low\_pol\], data from different experiments are in general agreement. The slow decrease of the data starts at $Q^2 \approx$ 0.5 GeV$^2$ and continues to 1.7 GeV$^2$.
A real break-through was made towards the understanding of the internal structure of the proton, when two JLab Hall A and one Hall C experiments obtained the elastic electromagnetic form factor ratio of the proton, $G_{E}^{p}/G_{M}^{p}$ at $Q^2$’s larger than 1 GeV$^2$, from the measured recoil proton polarization components $P_t$ and $P_{\ell}$, using the recoil polarization method. The first of these experiments measured the proton form factor ratios for $Q^{2}$ from 0.5 to 3.5 GeV$^{2}$ in 1998 [@jones; @punjabi05B], the second from 4.0, 4.8 and 5.6 GeV$^2$ in 2000 [@gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011] and the third in 2007-8 up to 8.4 GeV$^2$ [@Puckett:2010].
In the first JLab experiment GEp(1), elastic $ep$ events were selected by detecting the scattered electrons and the recoiling protons in coincidence, using the two identical high-resolution spectrometers (HRS) of Hall A [@nimhallA]. One of the HRS was equipped with a focal plane polarimeter (FPP) to detect the polarization of the recoil protons. The FPP consisted of two front detectors to track incident protons, followed by a graphite analyzer and two rear detectors to track scattered particles. The polarization of the recoiling proton was obtained from the asymmetry of the azimuthal distribution of the proton after re-scattering in the graphite analyzer of the polarimeter.
In the second JLab experiment, GEp(2), the ratio, $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ was measured at $Q^{2}$ = 4.0, 4.8 and 5.6 GeV$^{2}$ with an overlap point at $Q^{2}$ = 3.5 GeV$^{2}$ [@gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011]. Several changes were made compared to the first experiment, to extend the measurement to higher $Q^2$. First, to increase the coefficient-of-merit (COM) of the focal plane polarimeter (FPP), a CH$_{2}$ analyzer was used instead of the graphite; hydrogen has much higher analyzing power [@spinka; @dmiller] than carbon [@cheung]; and, to increase the fraction of events with the proton interacting in the analyzer, the thickness of the analyzer was increased from 50 cm of graphite to 100 cm of CH$_{2}$. Second, to achieve complete solid angle matching with the HRS detecting the proton and determining its polarization, a large frontal area lead-glass calorimeter was constructed and replaced the second HRS used in GEp(1). At the largest $Q^{2}$ of GEp(2) of 5.6 GeV$^2$, the solid angle of the electromagnetic calorimeter was 6 times that of the HRS.
The results from the first two JLab experiments [@jones; @punjabi05B; @gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011], are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gepgmp\_pol\_cs\] as the ratio $\mu_{p}G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ versus $Q^2$, where they are compared with Rosenbluth separation data [@price; @litt; @berger; @bartel; @walker; @andivahisA; @christy; @qattan05]. As can be seen from this figure, for the polarization data at the larger $Q^2$’s the statistical uncertainties are small, unlike those of the cross sections data, underlining the difficulties in obtaining $G_{Ep}$ by the Rosenbluth separation method at larger $Q^2$’s; the Rosenbluth data also show a large scatter among the results from different experiments.
The $\mu_{p}G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ ratio results from JLab [@jones; @punjabi05B; @gayou:2002] showed conclusively for the first time, a clear deviation of this ratio from unity, starting at $Q^2\simeq 1$ GeV$^2$; older data from [@berger; @price; @bartel] showed such a decreasing ratio, but with much larger statistical and systematic uncertainties, as seen in Fig. \[fig:gepgmp\_pol\_cs\]. The most important feature of the JLab data is the sharp decrease of the ratio $\mu_p G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ from 1, starting at $Q^2$ $\approx$ 1 GeV$^2$ to a value of $\sim 0.35$ at $Q^2$= 5.6 GeV$^2$, indicating that $G_{Ep}$ falls faster with increasing $Q^2$ than $G_{Mp}$, thus clearly highlighting a definite difference between the spatial distributions of charge and magnetization at short distances. This was the first definite experimental indication that the $Q^2$ dependence of $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ are different. These results were very surprising at the time (1998-2002), as they appeared to contradict the previously accepted belief that the ratio $\mu_{p}G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ remains close to 1, a consensus based on the Rosenbluth separation results up to 6 GeV$^2$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gepgmp\_pol\_cs\].
As discussed above, the two methods available to determine the proton form factors $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$, the Rosenbluth separation and polarization transfer, give definitively different results; the difference cannot be bridged by either simple re-normalization of the Rosenbluth data [@arring03], or by variation of the polarization data within the quoted statistical and systematic uncertainties. This discrepancy has been known for sometime now, and has been the subject of extensive discussion and investigation. A possible explanation is the contribution from the hard two-photon exchange process, which affects the polarization transfer components at the level of only a few percent, but has drastic effects on the Rosenbluth separation results. This will be discussed in detail in section \[subsec:discrepancies\].
Following the unexpected results from the two first polarization transfer experiments in Hall A at JLab, GEp(1) and GEp(2), a third experiment in Hall C, GEp(3), was carried out to extend the $Q^2$-range to $\approx$ 9 GeV$^2$. Two new detectors were built to carry out this experiment: a large solid-angle electromagnetic calorimeter and a double focal plane polarimeter (FPP). The recoil protons were detected in the high momentum spectrometer (HMS) equipped with two new FPPs in series. The scattered electrons were detected in a new lead glass calorimeter (BigCal) built for this purpose out of 1744 glass bars, 4x4 cm$^2$ each, and a length of 20$X_0$, with a total frontal area of 2.6 m$^2$ which provided complete kinematical matching to the HMS solid angle. This experiment was completed in the spring of 2008 and measured the form factor ratio at $Q^2$ of 5.2, 6.7 and 8.5 GeV$^2$.
![All data for the ratio $\mu_p G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ obtained from the three large $Q^2$ recoil polarization experiments at JLab (filled circle (blue) [@punjabi05B], filled star (magenta) [@Meziane:2010], filled square (red) [@Puckett:2011] and filled triangle (black) [@Puckett:2010]) compared to Rosenbluth separation data (green), open diamond [@andivahisA], open circle [@christy], filled diamond [@qattan05]. The curve is the same as in Figure \[fig:gepgd\_low\_pol\], a 7 parameter fit given in Eq. \[eq:gepfit\].[]{data-label="fig:gepgmp_large_qsqr_pol"}](gepgmp_allpol_allcs_noth_11072014_R){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:gepgmp\_large\_qsqr\_pol\] shows the results from the three JLab experiments [@jones; @gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011; @punjabi05B; @Puckett:2010], as the ratio $\mu_{p}G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ versus $Q^2$. The uncertainties shown for the recoil polarization data are statistical only.
The striking feature of the results of the GEp(3) experiment is the continued, strong and almost linear decrease of the ratio with increasing $Q^2$, albeit with some indication of a slowdown at the highest $Q^2$. The GEp(3) overlap point at $5.2$ GeV$^2$ is in good agreement with the two surrounding points from the GEp(2) data [@gayou:2002; @Puckett:2011]. The GEp(3) experiment used a completely different apparatus in a $Q^2$ range where direct comparison with the Hall A recoil polarization results from the GEp(2) experiment is possible. This comparison provides an important confirmation of the reproducibility of the results obtained with the recoil polarization technique. Additionally, the results of the high-statistics survey of the $\epsilon$-dependence of $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ at $Q^2=2.5$ GeV$^2$, obtained from the GEp($2 \gamma$) experiment [@Meziane:2010], which ran at the same time as the GEp(3) experiment is shown as a magenta star in Fig. \[fig:gepgmp\_large\_qsqr\_pol\], and is in excellent agreement with the results from the GEp(1) experiment in Hall A [@jones; @punjabi05B] at $Q^2=2.47$ GeV$^2$.
The results of the three JLab GEp experiments are the most precise measurements to date of the proton form factor ratio in this range of $Q^2$, hence they represent a very significant advancement of the experimental knowledge of the structure of the nucleon. The proton electromagnetic form factor results from Jefferson Lab at high values of the four-momentum transfer $Q^2$ have had a big impact on progress in hadronic physics; these results have required a significant rethinking of nucleon structure which will be discussed in the theory section.
### Neutron Form Factors {#NeutronFFpol}
The early measurements of the form factors of the neutron are discussed in section \[subsubsec:gmn\]; in this section only double polarization measurements are discussed. The recoil polarization and beam-target asymmetry, both techniques that have been used to measure $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$, also have been used to measure $G_{En}$ and $G_{Mn}$. However, as there are no free neutron targets, measurements of $G_{En}$ and $G_{Mn}$ are more difficult than $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$. To make these measurements, complex light targets like $^2H$ and $^3He$ must be used in quasi elastic scattering. First, the recoil polarization experiments, and next the beam-target asymmetry experiments to extract $G_{En}$, will be described.
The use of the recoil polarization technique to measure the neutron charge form factor was made first at the MIT-Bates laboratory in the late 80’s using the exclusive $^2{\rm H}(\pol{e},e'\pol{n})p$ reaction [@eden]. The advantage of using a deuteron target is that theoretical calculations predict the extracted neutron form factor results to be insensitive to effects like, final state interaction (FSI), meson exchange currents (MEC), isobar configurations (IC), and to the choice of the deuteron wave function [@arenhovelA; @rekalo2; @laget]. In this experiment, the neutron form factor $G_{En}$ was obtained from the measured transverse polarization component $P'_t$ of the recoiling neutron, and known beam polarization, $P_e$, at a $Q^2$ of 0.255 GeV$^2$. The relation between the polarization transfer coefficient $P_{t}$, the beam polarization, $P_e$, and the measured neutron polarization component, $P'_t$, is $P'_t=P_e P_{t}$, the polarization transfer coefficient $P_{t}$ given by Eq. (\[eq:plpt\]), is for a free neutron. This early experiment demonstrated the feasibility of extracting $G_{En}$ from the quasi-elastic $^2{\rm H}(\pol{e},e'\pol{n})p$ reaction with the recoil polarization technique, with the possibility of extension to larger $Q^2$ values.
The recoil polarization transfer method was next used at MAMI [@herberg; @ostrick] using the same reaction $^2{\rm H}(\pol{e},e'\pol{n})p$ to determine $G_{En}$, at a $Q^2$ of 0.15 and 0.34 GeV$^2$. However, in this experiment the recoil neutron polarization components $P_t$ and $P_l$ were measured simultaneously, using a dipole with vertical B-field to precess the neutron polarization in the reaction plane; the ratio $P_t/P_l$, is related directly to $G_E/G_M$ as shown in Eq. (\[eq:ratio\]), again for a free neutron. As discussed earlier for the proton, the measurement of the ratio $P_t/P_l$, has some advantage over the measurement of $P_t$ only; in the ratio the electron beam polarization and the polarimeter analyzing power cancel; as a result the systematic uncertainty is small. Also the model dependence for a bound neutron, which occurs via the dependence of the neutron wave function on the nuclear binding, cancels in these polarization observables in leading order for the extraction of the form factor.
Next, the electric form factor $G_{En}$ was obtained at $Q^2$ = 0.3, 0.6 and 0.8 GeV$^2$ from the measured ratio of polarization transfer components, $P_t/P_l$, in another experiment at MAMI [@glazier:2004]; Glazier [*et al.*]{} concluded that the results from this experiment were in good agreement with all other $G_{En}$ results from double-polarization measurements.
The first double polarization experiment to measure $G_{En}$ at JLab by Madey [*et al.*]{} [@madey; @plaster], obtained the neutron form factor ratios $G_E/G_M$ at $Q^2$ values of 0.45, 1.13 and 1.45 GeV$^2$ using the same method of measuring the recoil neutron polarization components $P_t$ and $P_l$ simultaneously. The neutron charge form factor $G_{En}$ was calculated from the measured ratio, using the best-fit values of $G_{Mn}$. This was the first experiment that determined $G_{En}$ with small statistical and systematic uncertainty to relatively high $Q^2$. Madey [*et al.*]{} concluded that a successful theoretical models must be able to predict both neutron and proton electromagnetic form factors simultaneously. The neutron electric form factor is more sensitive to small components of the nucleon wave function, and differences between model predictions for $G_{En}$ tend to differ with increasing $Q^2$; hence the new data from this experiment to larger $Q^2$ provided a challenging test for theoretical model calculations.
The first measurement of $G_{En}$ using the beam-target asymmetry was made at NIKHEF at a $Q^2$ of 0.21 GeV$^2$ using the $^2\pol {\rm H}(\pol {e},e'n)p$ reaction [@passchier]. The experiment used a polarized electron beam from the storage ring and a vector polarized deuterium gas target, internal to the storage ring; $G_{En}$ was extracted from the measured sideways spin-correlation parameter in quasi-free scattering. Passchier [*et al.*]{} concluded that their result puts strong constraints on $G_{En}$ up to $Q^2$ = 0.7 GeV$^2$ when combined with the measured $G_{En}$ slope from Kopecky [*et al.*]{} [@Kopecky] at $Q^2$=0 GeV$^2$ and the elastic electron-deuteron scattering data from Platchkov [*et al.*]{} [@platchkov].
The neutron electric form factor at $Q^2$ = 0.5 and 1.0 GeV$^2$ was extracted from measurements of the beam-target asymmetry using the $^2\pol{\rm H}(\pol {e},e'n)p$ reaction in quasi elastic kinematics, at JLab in Hall C [@zhu; @warren]; the polarized electrons were scattered off a solid polarized deuterated ammonia (${ND_3}$) target in which the deuteron polarization was perpendicular to the momentum transfer. This was the first experiment to obtain $G_{En}$ at a relatively large $Q^2$ using a polarized target.
There was a measurement of $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ at the MIT-Bates lab in mid 2000’s, using a longitudinally polarized electron beam and a vector-polarized $^2H$ target internal to the storage ring over a range of $Q^2$ between 0.10 and 0.55 GeV$^2$ [@geis:2008]; in this experiment the quasi-elastically scattered electrons were detected in coincidence with recoil neutrons in the BLAST detector. They used the parametrization of Friedrich and Walcher [@Friedrich] for $G_{Mn}$ to calculate $G_{En}$. Geis [*et al.*]{} [@geis:2008] concluded that their data are in excellent agreement with VMD based models of Lomon [@lomon] and Belushkin [@Belushkin:2006qa], and also agree with the meson-cloud calculation of Miller [@miller02b].
All the experiments described above used either a polarized or an unpolarized deuterium target.
In 1984 Blankleider and Woloshyn [@blankleider], proposed that to measure $G_{En}$ or $G_{Mn}$, a polarized $^3$He target could be used. Their argument was that the ground state of $^3$He is dominated by the spatially symmetric S-state in which the two proton spins point in opposite directions, hence the spin of the nucleus is largely carried by the neutron. Therefore, polarized $^3$He target effectively serve as a polarized neutron target; and in the quasi-elastic scattering region the spin-dependent properties are dominated by the neutron in the $^3$He target.
The first two experiments that used a polarized $^3$He target and measured the asymmetry with polarized electrons in spin-dependent quasi-elastic scattering were done at MIT-Bates Laboratory [@cejones; @thompson]; these experiments extracted the value of $G_{En}$ at a $Q^2$=0.16 and 0.2 GeV$^2$, using the model of Blankleider and Woloshyn [@blankleider]. However, Thompson [*et al.*]{} [@thompson] pointed out that significant corrections were necessary at $Q^2$=0.2 GeV$^2$, for spin-dependent quasi elastic scattering on polarized $^3$He according to the calculation of Laget [@laget]; hence no useful information on $G_{En}$ could be extracted from these measurements; but Thompson [*et al.*]{} [@thompson] concluded that at higher $Q^2$ values the relative contribution of the polarized protons becomes significantly less and a precise measurements of $G_{En}$ using polarized $^3$He target will become possible.
The neutron electric form factor $G_{En}$ was obtained in the early 1990’s in several experiments at MAMI; these experiments measured the beam-target asymmetry in the exclusive quasi-elastic scattering of polarized electrons from polarized $^3$He in the $^3\pol{\rm He}(\pol{e},e'n)pp$ reaction [@meyerhoff:1994; @becker; @rohe; @bermuth]. The first of these experiments at MAMI obtained $G_{En}$ at $Q^2$ = 0.31 GeV$^2$ [@meyerhoff:1994]; and the next experiment measured $G_{En}$ at $Q^2$ of 0.35 GeV$^2$ [@becker] and 0.67 GeV$^2 $ [@rohe; @bermuth] using the same experimental setup. The value of $G_{En}$ at $Q^2$ of 0.35 GeV$^2$ [@becker] was later corrected by Golak [*et al.*]{} [@golak:2001], based on Faddeev solutions and with some MEC corrections. The size of these corrections is expected to decrease with $Q^2$, although the corrections become increasingly difficult to calculate with increasing $Q^2$.
The GEn(1) experiment in Hall A at JLab measured the ratio $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ in 2006 at a $Q^2$ = 1.72, 2.48, and 3.41 GeV$^2$ using the reaction $^3\pol{\rm He}(\pol{e},e'n)pp$ in quasi-elastic kinematics [@Riordan:2010]. Longitudinally polarized electrons were scattered off a polarized target in which the nuclear polarization was oriented perpendicular to the momentum transfer. The scattered electrons were detected in a magnetic spectrometer in coincidence with knocked out neutrons, that were detected in a large hadron detector. The ratio $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ was obtained from the measured beam-target asymmetry. Riordan [*et al.*]{} [@Riordan:2010] concluded that this experiment more than doubled the $Q^2$ range over which $G_{En}$ is known, and this fact greatly sharpens the mapping of the nucleon’s constituents, and provides a new benchmark for comparison with theory.
There is yet another recent experiment at MAMI, that measured the charge form factor of the neutron at a $Q^2$ of 1.58 GeV$^2$ using the polarized $^3$He target and longitudinally polarized electron beam [@schlimme:2013]. To reduce systematic errors, data were taken for four different target polarization orientations. The data of this experiment are in very good agreement with the data of Riordan [*et al.*]{} [@Riordan:2010].
Figure \[fig:gen\_pol\] shows the ratio $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ versus $Q^2$ obtained from all double polarization experiments in the last two decades. The results from each experiment are shown as different symbols as explained in the figure caption. The solid curve is a fit to the data as given by Eq. (\[eq:genfit\]).
The first experiment to obtain the magnetic form factor of the neutron, $G_{Mn}$, from polarization observables was done at the MIT-Bates laboratory. This experiment obtained $G_{Mn}$ from the measured beam-target asymmetry in inclusive quasi-elastic scattering of polarized electrons from polarized $^3$He target at $Q^2$ of 0.19 GeV$^2$ [@gao1]; the uncertainty on $G_{Mn}$ was dominated by the statistics, with a relatively small contribution from model dependence of the analysis. The second experiment was done at JLab in Hall A; this experiment extracted $G_{Mn}$ for $Q^2$ values between 0.1 and 0.6 GeV$^2$, by measuring the transverse asymmetry in the $^3\pol{\rm He}(\pol{e},e')$ reaction in quasi-free kinematics [@xu00; @xu02; @anderson]. The values of $G_{Mn}$ were obtained with a full Faddeev calculation at $Q^2$ of 0.1 and 0.2 GeV$^2$, and in the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) at $Q^2$ of 0.3 to 0.6 GeV$^2$. It was argued by the authors of this paper that the PWIA extraction of $G_{Mn}$ is reasonably reliable in the $Q^2$ range of 0.3 to 0.6 GeV$^2$; however, a more precise extraction of $G_{Mn}$ requires fully relativistic three-body calculations. The $G_{Mn}$ data from both double polarization experiments [@gao1; @xu00; @xu02; @anderson] are shown in Fig. \[fig:gmn\_pol\], together with the data from earlier unpolarized measurements [@rockB; @lung; @marko; @bruins; @anklin; @Anklin:1998ae; @kubon; @lachniet:2008; @bartel; @Arnold:1988us]. There is some scatter in the data, but they are close to $G_{Mn}/\mu_n$$G_D ~\approx~ 1.0$, except two open circles data point at a larger $Q^2$ values.
Discrepancies between Cross Section and Polarization Results {#subsec:discrepancies}
------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Sec. \[ProtonFFpol\] and illustrated in Figs. \[fig:gepgmp\_pol\_cs\] and \[fig:gepgmp\_large\_qsqr\_pol\], there is a clear discrepancy between the extracted values of the proton form factor ratio, $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$, from polarization transfer and double polarization experiments, and those obtained from cross section measurements using the Rosenbluth separation technique. As also mentioned previously, one possible explanation for this discrepancy is related to the hard two-photon exchange process; more properly, it is the interference between single-photon and two-photon exchange processes that has the potential to complicate the extraction of the form factors in Rosenbluth separation experiments.
Two groups simultaneously suggested that the difference between cross section and double polarization results might be due to previously neglected two-hard-photon exchange processes; these were Guichon and Vanderhaeghen [@guichon], and Blunden $et~al.$ [@blundenA]. In general, cross section data require large radiative corrections, whereas double-polarization ratios do not. This is because radiative corrections affect the longitudinal and transverse polarization observables similarly, and thus the residual correction for double polarization is at the few percent level. A number of calculations of the two-hard-photon contribution have been published over the last decade. A partial list of calculations of the contribution of the two-hard-photon process to the cross section includes [@afanbrod; @arring04; @Kondratyuk:2005kk; @bystritskiy:2007; @vanderhaeghen00; @carlson:2007twophoton].
The signature of two-photon exchange processes would be an observed $\epsilon$-dependence; in the case of cross section experiments the effect is an non-linearity in the reduced cross section as a function of $\epsilon$, whereas in the polarization transfer experiments, one might expect an $\epsilon$-dependence in the ratio of the measured proton polarization components. There have been several experimental attempts over the last decade to search for these dependencies.
### Results from the $G_{Ep}(2\gamma)$ Experiment {#subsubsec:gep2g}
The $G_{Ep}(2\gamma)$ experiment in Hall C at JLab recently measured the ratio $-\sqrt{(1+\epsilon)/2\epsilon}(P_t/P_\ell$), which strictly equals $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ in the Born approximation, at a central value $Q^2$=2.49 GeV$^2$, and for three values of $\epsilon$: 0.152, 0.635 and 0.785, with very small error bars [@Meziane:2010]. $P_t$ and $P_{\ell}$ are the transverse and longitudinal components of the polarization transferred to the proton, respectively. Simultaneously, values of $P_{\ell}/P_{\ell,Born}$ were obtained at the two larger $\epsilon$ values, using the lowest $\epsilon$ data point to determine the analyzing power of the polarimeter for the common central proton momentum of 2.06 GeV/c. For these data, radiative corrections were calculated using the model independent calculation of [@afanasev:radcor]. The calculation includes the vacuum polarization correction, the electron vertex correction, and internal and external bremsstrahlung corrections. In general, polarization observables are rather insensitive to radiative corrections, as they are by definition a ratio of a polarized cross section to an unpolarized one. Moreover, the bremsstrahlung correction can be reduced drastically by applying missing mass or inelasticity cut, as was done in this experiment through elastic event selection.
![\[gep2gammafig\] Results of the $G_{Ep}(2\gamma)$ experiment at JLab [@Meziane:2010]. The ratio plotted in the top panel is equal to $\mu_pG_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ in the Born (one-photon-exchange) approximation with the data of Ref. [@Meziane:2010] plotted as filled circles (blue) and the data point of Ref. [@punjabi05B] plotted as empty triangle (black). The theoretical curves are: long dot-dashed (magenta) [@bystrit], short dot-dashed (green) [@blundenB], long dashed (cyan) [@Borisyuk:2014ssa; @Borisyuk:2013hja], solid (black) [@afanbrod], dotted (red) [@Guttmann:2010au] with wave functions from [@braun06], and short-dashed (red) [@Guttmann:2010au] with wave functions from [@Chernyak:1987nu]. The bottom panel shows $P_{\ell}/P_{\ell,Born}$ for the two higher $\epsilon$ points of the experiment plotted as filled circles (red). The lowest $\epsilon$ point was used to determine the polarimeter analyzing power. The curves are fits from [@Guttmann:2010au]; the dashed (red) curve corresponds to “Fit1” and the solid (blue) curve corresponds to “Fit2” as specified in this reference.](twogamma_25_toppannel_01282015 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![\[gep2gammafig\] Results of the $G_{Ep}(2\gamma)$ experiment at JLab [@Meziane:2010]. The ratio plotted in the top panel is equal to $\mu_pG_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ in the Born (one-photon-exchange) approximation with the data of Ref. [@Meziane:2010] plotted as filled circles (blue) and the data point of Ref. [@punjabi05B] plotted as empty triangle (black). The theoretical curves are: long dot-dashed (magenta) [@bystrit], short dot-dashed (green) [@blundenB], long dashed (cyan) [@Borisyuk:2014ssa; @Borisyuk:2013hja], solid (black) [@afanbrod], dotted (red) [@Guttmann:2010au] with wave functions from [@braun06], and short-dashed (red) [@Guttmann:2010au] with wave functions from [@Chernyak:1987nu]. The bottom panel shows $P_{\ell}/P_{\ell,Born}$ for the two higher $\epsilon$ points of the experiment plotted as filled circles (red). The lowest $\epsilon$ point was used to determine the polarimeter analyzing power. The curves are fits from [@Guttmann:2010au]; the dashed (red) curve corresponds to “Fit1” and the solid (blue) curve corresponds to “Fit2” as specified in this reference.](twogamma_25_botpannel_01282015 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
The results of these two measurements are shown in Fig. \[gep2gammafig\]. The measured ratio $-\sqrt{(1+\epsilon)/2\epsilon}(P_t/P_\ell)$ appears to have no $\epsilon$ dependence within the small statistical and systematic uncertainties of the experiment. In contrast, the ratio $P_{\ell}/P_{\ell,Born}$, displayed in the bottom panel of Fig. \[gep2gammafig\], shows a systematic deviation from unity at the largest $\epsilon$ value of up to 4.5 standard deviations. Such a behavior can be explained (see the curve in lower panel of Fig. \[gep2gammafig\]) within the context of recent work described in [@Guttmann:2010au] which shows that the corrections to the three form factors required in the presence of the interference of the one- and two-photon terms do not cancel one another as $\epsilon\rightarrow 1$.
### Results from $e^+/e^-$ Scattering Experiments {#subsubsec:hallb}
The most direct way to characterize a hard two-photon contribution to the elastic [*ep*]{} cross section is to compare $e^+p$ and $e^-p$ scattering. There are recent results from two experiments (VEPP-3 in Novosibirsk and in Hall B at JLab) which attempt to determine the two-hard-photon contribution via measurements of the ratio, $R$, of the elastic $e^+ p$ and $e^- p$ scattering cross sections. In addition, the OLYMPUS experiment at DESY (which also will measure this ratio) is currently in the data analysis phase, and results are expected to be published soon.
In general, the lepton-proton elastic scattering cross section is proportional to the square of the sum of the Born amplitude and all higher-order QED correction amplitudes. The ratio of $e^\pm p$ elastic scattering cross sections can be written [@Adikaram:2014ykv] as: $$\begin{aligned}
R = \frac{\sigma(e^+p)}{\sigma(e^-p)} \approx
\frac{1+\delta_{even}-\delta_{2\gamma}-\delta_{brem}}
{1+\delta_{even}+\delta_{2\gamma}+\delta_{brem}} \nonumber \\
\approx 1 - 2 ( \delta_{2\gamma} + \delta_{brem})/(1+\delta_{even}) ~,
\label{eq:R}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{even}$ is the total charge-even (relative to lowest order) radiative correction factor, and $\delta_{2\gamma}$ and $\delta_{brem}$ are the fractional two-photon-exchange and lepton-proton bremsstrahlung interference contributions, respectively. After calculating and correcting for the charge-odd $\delta_{brem}$ term, the corrected cross section ratio is: $$\label{eq:R2g}
R' \approx 1 - \frac{2 \delta_{2\gamma}}{(1+\delta_{even})}.$$ The hard two-photon contribution to the $ep$ scattering cross section is: $$\delta_{2\gamma} = \frac{2Re{\bigl(\mathcal{M}_{1\gamma}^{\dagger} \mathcal{M}_{2\gamma}^{hard}\bigr)}}{|\mathcal{M}_{1\gamma}|^2}, \label{eq2}$$ where $\mathcal{M}_{1\gamma}$ and $ \mathcal{M}_{2\gamma}^{hard}$ are the single- and two-photon hard scattering amplitudes, respectively. For the purposes of comparing to theoretical predictions, the results are sometimes presented as the ratio $R_{2\gamma} = (1 - \delta_{2\gamma}) / (1 + \delta_{2\gamma})$.
The results for $R_{2\gamma}$ from Runs I and II at VEPP-3 [@Rachek:2014fam] are shown in Fig. \[vepp3\], together with several theoretical predictions. At JLab, in Hall B, the CLAS collaboration obtained two-photon exchange data for $Q^2$ between 0.5 and 3 GeV$^2$, with 0.15 $< \epsilon <$ 0.95 [@Adikaram:2014ykv]. Results from this experiment for the ratio $R^\prime$ are shown in Fig. \[hallb2gammafig\] as a function of both $Q^2$ and $\epsilon$. The data from each of these experiments indicate that the hard two-photon-exchange effect is significant, and they are in moderate agreement with several two-photon-exchange predictions which also explain the form factor ratio discrepancy at higher $Q^2$ values, thus pointing to two-photon-exchange as a likely source of at least part of the discrepancy.
![\[vepp3\]Experimental data together with theoretical predictions for the ratio $R_{2\gamma}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ or $Q^2$. The top and bottom panels correspond respectively to and . The data points are: open squares (green) [@Browman:1965], downward triangles (green) [@Anderson:1966], diamonds (green) [@Bartel:1967], upward triangles (green) [@Anderson:1968], and circles (black) [@Rachek:2014fam]. The theoretical curves are from [@Borisyuk:2008es] dash-dotted (green), [@blundenB] thin solid (red), [@Bernauer:2013tpr] thick solid (blue), [@TomasiGustafsson:2009pw] long-dashed (black), [@arrsick] short-dashed (magenta), and [@Qattan:2011ke] dotted (black). ](vepp3a "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![\[vepp3\]Experimental data together with theoretical predictions for the ratio $R_{2\gamma}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ or $Q^2$. The top and bottom panels correspond respectively to and . The data points are: open squares (green) [@Browman:1965], downward triangles (green) [@Anderson:1966], diamonds (green) [@Bartel:1967], upward triangles (green) [@Anderson:1968], and circles (black) [@Rachek:2014fam]. The theoretical curves are from [@Borisyuk:2008es] dash-dotted (green), [@blundenB] thin solid (red), [@Bernauer:2013tpr] thick solid (blue), [@TomasiGustafsson:2009pw] long-dashed (black), [@arrsick] short-dashed (magenta), and [@Qattan:2011ke] dotted (black). ](vepp3b "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![The ratio of $e^+p$/$e^-p$ cross sections corrected for $\delta_{brem}$ as a function of $\varepsilon$ at $Q^2 = 1.45$ GeV$^2$ (top) and as a function of $Q^2$ at $\varepsilon = 0.88$ (bottom). The filled circles (blue) are from [@Adikaram:2014ykv]. The inner error bars are the statistical uncertainties and the outer error bars are the statistical, systematic and radiative-correction uncertainties added in quadrature. The line at $R'=1$ is the limit of no two-photon-exchange contribution. The theory curves are: dotted line (black) - [@blundenB], solid (magenta) and dashed (red) - [@Zhou2014] including $N$ only and $N+\Delta$ intermediate states, respectively, dot-dashed line (cyan) - [@arrington11b]. The open circles (green) show the previous world data (at $Q^2 > 1$ GeV$^2$ for the top plot) [@arring04].[]{data-label="hallb2gammafig"}](hallb_q2 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![The ratio of $e^+p$/$e^-p$ cross sections corrected for $\delta_{brem}$ as a function of $\varepsilon$ at $Q^2 = 1.45$ GeV$^2$ (top) and as a function of $Q^2$ at $\varepsilon = 0.88$ (bottom). The filled circles (blue) are from [@Adikaram:2014ykv]. The inner error bars are the statistical uncertainties and the outer error bars are the statistical, systematic and radiative-correction uncertainties added in quadrature. The line at $R'=1$ is the limit of no two-photon-exchange contribution. The theory curves are: dotted line (black) - [@blundenB], solid (magenta) and dashed (red) - [@Zhou2014] including $N$ only and $N+\Delta$ intermediate states, respectively, dot-dashed line (cyan) - [@arrington11b]. The open circles (green) show the previous world data (at $Q^2 > 1$ GeV$^2$ for the top plot) [@arring04].[]{data-label="hallb2gammafig"}](hallb_eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The Proton Charge Radius {#subsec:protonradius}
------------------------
Non-relativistically, the elastic [*[ep]{}*]{} cross section is related to the product of the Mott cross section for a point-like spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ electron and the Fourier transform of the charge and/or magnetization density of the target nucleon, as follows: $$\sigma(\theta_e)=\sigma_{Mott}\times\left|\int_{volume}\rho(\vec r)e^{i\vec{q}.\vec r}d^3\vec r\right|^2,$$ where $\rho(\vec r)$ is either the electric or the magnetic spatial distribution function. For the particular case of the electric form factor G$_{Ep}(Q^2)$, it follows that for short distances it can be expanded in terms of even moments of the distance $<r_{Ep}^{2n}>$ as: $$G_{Ep}=1 - \frac{1}{6}{Q^2<r_{Ep}{^2}>} + \frac{1}{120}{Q^4<r_{Ep}{^4}>} ...
\label{eq:rms}$$ Hence, for very small distances within the nucleon, the mean-square radius of the proton can be obtained from the derivative of Eq. (\[eq:rms\]): $$\frac{dG_{Ep}}{dQ^2}=-\frac{1}{6}\left|{r_{Ep}{^2}}\right|_{at Q^2=0}
\label{eq:sloperms}$$ from which it follows that $$<r_{Ep}{^2}> = - 6\left|\frac{dG_{Ep}}{dQ^2}\right|_{at Q^2=0};$$ Similar relations hold for the magnetic form factor, G$_{Mp}(Q^2)$, and the magnetic radius, $<r_{Mp}{^2}>$. The cumulative cross section data from electron scattering experiments at low $Q^2$ have been used to obtain values of $<r_{Ep}{^2}>$ [@sick:2003; @sick:2014; @Hill:2010yb; @Lorenz:2012tm; @Lorenz:2014vha]. The extraction of $<r_{Mp}{^2}>$ is more difficult to obtain as its contribution to the cross section is suppressed by the factor $\tau$ (see Eq. (\[eq:csgegm\])).
In a completely complementary fashion, the proton radius can also be obtained from precise measurements of the Lamb shift energies either in the hydrogen atom [@melnikov:2000] or in muonic hydrogen [@antognini:2013]; indeed, a (different) fraction of the Lamb shift is related to the finite size of the proton nucleus in each case. In both cases, the Lamb shift under consideration depends upon the overlap of the appropriate S-, P-, or D-state wave functions and the proton nucleus; it is in this way that the finite proton size contributes to the Lamb shift. Recent measurements of the muonic Lamb shift energies at PSI have produced values of $<r_{Ep}{^2}>$ which are smaller than the mean value of all electron scattering experiments (the so-called CODATA value - see Refs. [@Mohr:2005; @Mohr:2008; @Mohr:2012]) by about 4% (a 7 $\sigma$ difference). This discrepancy has become known as the proton radius puzzle, and its resolution has become a topic of great current interest, and the aim of several new and novel experimental efforts. We focus here on the experimental determinations of the proton radius; indeed, there has been a plethora of works concerned with the theoretical aspects of the problem. We refer the reader to [@pohl:2013] and [@carlson:2015], and references therein, for further details.
### Previous Results {#subsubsec:radiuspast}
In Fig. \[Rp\_vs\_t\], we show several determinations of the RMS proton charge radius, $r_p=\sqrt{<r_{Ep}{^2}>}$ over the last several decades. Earlier extractions were based on data from elastic $\it{ep}$ scattering experiments at Orsay [@Lehmann:1962dr], Stanford [@Hand:1963], Saskatoon [@Murphy:1974zz] and Mainz [@bork; @Simon:1990], together with the various re-analyses of these world data [@sick:2003; @sick:2014; @Hill:2010yb; @Lorenz:2012tm; @Lorenz:2014vha]. In general, the extraction of the proton radius from these data involves fitting the form factors with either simple mathematical or in some cases theoretically inspired parametrizations in order to determine the radius. As can be seen clearly in Fig. \[Rp\_vs\_t\], the consistency between various approaches has improved over the years. However, several issues related to the extraction procedure remain. There is, inherently, a model dependence uncertainty in the extraction (as evidenced for example in the discrepancy between the open circles and open diamonds in Fig. \[Rp\_vs\_t\]) but this is typically not included in the quoted uncertainty for a given extraction. Moreover, it appears at this point that the treatment of systematic uncertainties in many experiments was overly optimistic. This can be inferred from the fact that in many global fits, the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom is larger than unity. In some analyses, the absolute normalization of the cross section data was allowed to float, but this is done at the expense of sensitivity to the radius. In addition, there are issues connected with the range of $Q^2$ data that is included in the global fits. It can be seen from Eq. (\[eq:rms\]) that the coefficients of successive $<r_{Ep}^{2n}>$ terms increase with order. Therefore, it is not possible to define a value of $Q^2$ where any one term in the expansion sufficiently dominates such that its value could be fixed and then used in fitting to lower $Q^2$ data.
In order to address some of the issues related to systematic uncertainties in the cross section data, the Mainz A1 collaboration at MAMI [@Bernauer:2010wm] measured 1422 precise relative $\it{ep}$ cross sections in the low $Q^2$ region (0.0038 GeV$^2$ to 0.98 GeV$^2$) and a wide range of beam energies and scattering angles. Experimental systematic uncertainties were controlled by using one spectrometer as a luminosity monitor, and then moving the other two spectrometers through multiple, overlapping angle settings. The cross section data were subsequently fit with a variety of functional forms, in order to assess model dependent uncertainties. Interestingly, it was found that satisfactory goodness of fit could only be obtained through the use of more flexible mathematical fitting functions (polynomials or splines) as opposed the more traditional physically motivated forms, such as dipoles. The final extracted value for the proton radius was $r_p$ = 0.879 $\pm$ 0.005$_{stat}$ $\pm$ 0.004$_{syst}$ $\pm$ 0.002$_{model}$ $\pm$ 0.004$_{group}$, where the final uncertainty comes from the polynomial vs. spline difference.
In parallel with the cross section measurements, the Jefferson Lab LEDEX collaboration [@Zhan:2011ji; @Ron:2007vr; @Ron:2011rd] measured the proton form factor ratio $\mu_p{G_{Ep}}/{G_{Mp}}$ using polarization transfer in the $Q^2$ $\approx$ 0.1 $\rightarrow$ 0.4 GeV$^2$ region. It is particularly interesting that while measurements of the form factor ratio do not give the proton radius directly, accurate and precise knowledge of the ratio helps to constrain normalizations of cross section data during fits, which in turn leads to an improved value of the extracted radius. The analysis of Ref. [@Zhan:2011ji] gives $r_p$ = 0.875 $\pm$ 0.008$_{exp}$ $\pm$ 0.006$_{fit}$, in agreement with the value extracted in the Mainz analysis. It is interesting to note that this analysis uses an entirely independent data set from the Mainz analysis.
The Lamb shifts in both normal electronic as well as muonic hydrogen are sensitive to the non-point-like structure of the proton nucleus. While this effect is indeed minuscule, the ability of quantum electrodynamics (QED) to predict the energy levels of hydrogen with remarkable accuracy, together with experimental measurements of the relevant transition frequencies to around one part in 10$^{11}$, results in a measurable sensitivity to the proton radius. The energies of the S-states in hydrogen are given by: $$\label{eq:E_simple}
E(nS) \simeq - \frac{R_{\infty}}{n^2} + \frac{L_{1S}}{n^3}$$ where $n$ is the principal quantum number, and $L_{1S}$ denotes the Lamb shift of the 1S ground state which is given by QED and contains the effect of the proton charge radius, $r_p$. Numerically, $L_{1S} \simeq ( 8172 + 1.56\,
r_p(fm)^2 )$MHz, so the finite size effect on the 1S level in hydrogen is about 1.2MHz. The different $n$-dependence of the two terms in Eq. (\[eq:E\_simple\]). permits the determination of both $R_{\infty}$ and $r_p$ from at least two transition frequencies in hydrogen. The approach taken to date has been to use the 1S-2S transition [@Parthey:2011], which has been measured to a stunning accuracy of one part in 10$^{15}$, together with one of the 2S-NL$_J$ transitions [@Beauvoir:1997; @Schwob:1999]. The former transition is maximally sensitive to $r_p$, whereas the latter contain much smaller Lamb shift contributions, due to the $1/n^3$ scaling in Eq. (\[eq:E\_simple\]).
In Fig. \[Rp\_from\_H\], we show the values of $r_p$ extracted from the various transition combinations. The $r_p$ values extracted from measurements in normal electronic hydrogen favor a $r_p$ value of $\approx$ 0.88fm, consistent with the world-averaged electron scattering results. The discrepancy between the combined value from just electronic hydrogen alone, as obtained in the elaborate CODATA adjustment of the fundamental constants [@Mohr:2012], and the muonic hydrogen value, is about $4.4\sigma$.
The difference between the muonic hydrogen determination of the proton radius and the results obtained from either electron scattering or from electronic hydrogen transitions is highly enigmatic. The theoretical QED calculations of the portion of the Lamb shift that is not due to the finite proton size have been checked and re-checked by multiple independent groups. Also, the many measurements of the transition frequencies in electronic hydrogen are in agreement with one another. Thus, from an experimental point of view, the solution to this puzzle is not obvious at this time. On the theoretical side, there has been a significant amount of interest in this problem as well; this is discussed in more detail in Section \[sec:theory\].
### Future Experiments
Experimental approaches to unraveling the proton radius puzzle break down into several distinct categories: improving the precision of the proton radius extraction from electron scattering experiments, extending the atomic spectroscopy measurements to other ions or exotic atoms, and/or determining the proton radius in elastic muon-proton scattering.
At Jefferson Laboratory, in Hall B, there is an approved experiment which aims to improve the electron scattering radius determination by extending the $Q^2$ range from the 0.0038 GeV$^2$ of the Mainz experiment down to 1-2 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ GeV$^2$ [@gasparian2011]. This is indeed a challenging experiment. If the proton radius is to be determined in this experiment with similar accuracy compared to the current world-averaged result from electron scattering, then relative cross sections need to be determined at the 0.2% level. Fortunately, the large cross sections and corresponding event rates for low $Q^2$ scattering make statistical uncertainties of 0.1% achievable. However, systematic uncertainties must also be controlled at a similar level. One of the largest sources of systematic error is the determination of the electron scattering angle; at the lowest $Q^2$ value of the experiment, the scattering angle is only 10 mrad, and due to the severe angular dependence of the Mott cross-section at small angles, a 10 $\mu$rad knowledge of the scattering angle is needed to limit shifts in the relative cross sections to 0.2%.
At MAMI, an experiment is underway that aims to measure the proton electromagnetic form factors in $ep$ scattering at very low momentum transfers by using a technique based on initial state radiation [@ISR:2013]. The basic premise is that initial state radiation degrades the energy of the incoming electron so that the momentum transfer to the proton can be quite low. The outgoing electron angle and energy are measured as usual, and together with theoretical input, an accurate form factor can in principle be obtained at $Q^2$ values as low as 10$^{-4}$ GeV$^2$. The full experiment ran in 2013, and the analysis is continuing.
As can be seen from Eq. (\[eq:E\_simple\]), the determination of $r_p$ using transitions in hydrogen relies heavily on a precise determination of $R_{\infty}$. Currently, $R_{\infty}$ is known from measurements of transition frequencies in hydrogen and deuterium. However, since the correlation between $r_p$ and $R_{\infty}$ is significant, new precise measurements of $R_{\infty}$ (at the level of a few parts in 10$^{12}$) that are independent of $r_p$ could potentially impact the extracted value of $r_p$ from electronic hydrogen measurements. There are several such efforts currently underway. These include single- [@Beyer:2013jla] and two-photon [@Flowers:2007] measurements in hydrogen, as well as experiments which aim to use laser spectroscopy of neutral and ionic helium [@Herrmann:2009; @Kandula:2011; @Rooij:2011].
Noticeably, a crucial missing piece of the proton radius puzzle is a measurement of the proton radius using muon scattering; indeed, there is a proposal at PSI, the MUSE Experiment, to make just such a measurement [@MUSE2012]. The MUSE experiment will measure elastic $\mu p$ scattering to a minimum $Q^2$ of 0.002 GeV$^2$ - about half the lower limit of the Mainz electron scattering experiment - using both positively and negative charged incident muons, so that any possible two-photon effects can be taken into account directly from the data, rather than relying on theoretical calculations. In addition, the experiment will simultaneously collect $ep$ scattering data, so that the extracted proton radius from muon and electron scattering can be compared directly within a single experimental apparatus. Preliminary estimates are that the proton radius that can be extracted from muon scattering will be similar in precision to that extracted from the Mainz experiment.
\[subsubsec:radiusfuture\]
Flavor Separation of Nucleon Form Factors {#flavor}
-----------------------------------------
Charge symmetry implies that the proton and neutron wave functions are identical under the interchange of the up and down quark contributions. Measurements of asymmetries in parity non-conserving electron scattering on the proton have found that the strange quark form factors are small (see the review article by Ref. [@Armstrong]). Ignoring the contributions of higher mass quarks, the proton and neutron form factors can be written in terms of the contributions from the up and down dressed quark form factors as: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{(E,M)p} &=& \frac{2}{3}G_{(E,M)u} - \frac{1}{3}G_{(E,M)d} \nonumber \\
G_{(E,M)n} &=& \frac{2}{3}G_{(E,M)d} - \frac{1}{3}G_{(E,M)u}.\end{aligned}$$ The up and down form factors, $G_{(E,M)u}$ and $G_{(E,M)d}$ are defined by convention to represent the up and down dressed quark form factors in the proton. The anomalous magnetic moments of the up and down quarks can be expressed as $\kappa_{u} = 2\kappa_{p} +\kappa_{n}$ and $\kappa_{d} = \kappa_{p} + 2\kappa_{n}$, respectively. The Dirac and Pauli form factors for the up and down quarks can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{(1,2)u} &=& 2F_{(1,2)p} + F_{(1,2)n} \nonumber \\
F_{(1,2)d} &=& F_{(1,2)p} + 2F_{(1,2)n}.\end{aligned}$$ The recent precision data on $G_{Mn}$ in the region of $Q^2$ between 1.5 to 4.8 GeV$^2$ [@lachniet:2008] and data on $G_{En}$/$G_{Mn}$ to $Q^2 = 3.4$ GeV$^2$ by Ref. [@Riordan:2010] have enabled precise phenomenological fits to the proton and neutron form factors and detailed comparison to theory predictions. This allows one to extract information about the underlying contributions of the up and down quarks to the nucleon form factors.
A calculation of the up and down quark form factors from the available proton and neutron data was done by Ref. [@cates:2011]. The quark form factors were calculated to $Q^2$ = 3.4 GeV$^2$ by combining the measurements of $G_{En}$/$G_{Mn}$ by Ref. [@plaster; @zhu; @Riordan:2010; @glazier:2004; @warren; @bermuth] with the Kelly fit [@kelly04] to $G_{Mn}$, $G_{Mp}$ and $G_{Ep}$. Fig. \[fig:up-down-cates-f1f2\] is a plot of $Q^4$$F_1$ and $Q^4$$F_2$/$\kappa$$Q^2$ versus $Q^2$ for the up and down quarks. The data is plotted at the $Q^2$ of the $G_{En}$/$G_{Mn}$ measurements and the error on the quark form factors is determined by the error on the $G_{En}$/$G_{Mn}$ measurements. For $Q^2 > 1.0$ GeV$^2$, the $Q^2$ dependence of both the $F_1$ and $F_2$ changes for the up and down quarks. For the up quark, $Q^4$$F_1$ and $Q^4$$F_2$/$\kappa$ continue to rise, while, for the down quark $Q^4$$F_1$ and $Q^4$$F_2$/$\kappa$ are plateauing or slightly dropping.
Another separation of the up and down form factors was done by Ref. [@qattan:2013]. They used $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ from a extraction using cross section and polarization data which included two-photon exchange contributions [@Qattan:2011ke]. In addition, they added the data of Ref. [@Zhan:2011] for $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ at low $Q^2$. For the neutron form factors, they used the fit of Ref. [@Riordan:2010] to $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ and an updated parametrization of $G_{Mn}$ using the data of Ref. [@lung; @anklin; @Anklin:1998ae; @kubon; @lachniet:2008; @anderson]. The up and down form factors are calculated at the $Q^2$ of the proton data and are plotted in Fig. \[fig:up-down-cates-f1f2\]. In the region of $Q^2$ between 0.5 to 1.5 GeV$^2$, $F_{2u}$ from Ref. [@qattan:2013] is slightly larger than that in Ref. [@cates:2011] and, correlated with that, $F_{2d}$ from Ref. [@qattan:2013] is slightly smaller. In general, comparisons between the two different flavor separations of the form factors give a sense that the size of the uncertainty due to two-photon exchange contributions and tensions in the data sets is relatively small and does not obscure the general trends in the $Q^2$ dependence of the up and down quarks form factors.
Great interest exists in extending the separation of quark flavors to higher $Q^2$. In the spirit of Ref. [@cates:2011] and Ref. [@qattan:2013], we use the Kelly fit [@kelly04] for $G_{Mn}$ and $G_{Mp}$ while refitting $\mu_{n}$$G_{En}/$$G_{Mn}$ and $\mu_{p}$$G_{Ep}/$$G_{Mp}$ to include the data since the Kelly fit was done. The fit form for $\mu_{n}$$G_{En}/$$G_{Mn}$ is: $$\label{eq:genfit}
\frac{\mu_{n}G_{En}}{G_{Mn}}=\frac{A_1\tau}{1+A_2\sqrt{\tau}+A_3*\tau},$$ with $A_1 = 2.6316 $, $A_2 = 4.118 $ and $A_3 = 0.29516 $. The fit form for $\mu_{p}$$G_{Ep}/$$G_{Mp}$ is: $$\label{eq:gepfit}
\frac{\mu_{p}G_{Ep}}{G_{Mp}}=\frac{1+B_0\tau+B_1\tau^2+B_2\tau^3}{1+B_3\tau+B_4\tau^2+B_5\tau^3+B_6\tau^4},$$ with $B_0=-5.7891$,$B_1=14.493$, $B_2=-3.5032$, $B_3 =-5.5839$, $B_4=12.909$, $B_5=0.88996$ and $B_6=1.5420$. In Fig. \[fig:f1f2-cfp-fit\], the fits are compared to the world data for the proton and neutron $F_1$ and $F_2/{\kappa}$. The shapes for the proton and neutron $F_{2}/{\kappa}$ are nearly identical with the data on top on each other. A small shape difference in the proton and neutron $F_2/{\kappa}$ dependence on $Q^2$ accounts for the difference between the up and down quark’s $F_2/\kappa$ which is seen in Fig. \[fig:up-down-cates-f1f2\].
Using the fits the nucleon form factors, the flavor separation can be extrapolated to higher $Q^2$. To investigate the sensitivity of the extrapolation of the quark form factors, a different shape for $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ can be used in calculating the quark form factors. As an example, the $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ prediction from the Dyson Schwinger equation (DSE) model of Ref. [@cloet:2008] is plotted as a dash dotted line in Fig. \[fig:gen\_pol\]. The DSE models are discussed in the theory Sec. \[subsec:dse\]. The up and down quark’s $F_1$ and $F_2$ from the fit using Eqs. (\[eq:gepfit\]) and (\[eq:genfit\]) are plotted in Fig. \[fig:up-down-f1f2\] as a solid line in the region of $Q^2 < 3.4$ GeV$^2$ where $G_{En}$ data exists, then extended as a dashed line when the fit is extrapolated to $Q^2 = 12$ GeV$^2$. The fit shows that $Q^4 F_{1d}$ will have a zero crossing at $Q^2 \approx 11.5$ GeV$^2$ while $Q^4 F_{1u}$ starts to plateau above $Q^2$ of 7 GeV$^2$. Both $Q^4 F_{2u}$ and $Q^4 F_{2d}$ slowly drop-off above $Q^2$ of 3 GeV$^2$ with $Q^4 F_{2d}$ falling slightly faster. When the $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ prediction from the DSE model is combined with the other form factors from the fit to calculate the quark form factor, then mainly the down quark’s form factors are modified. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:up-down-f1f2\] where the up and down quark’s $F_1$ and $F_2$ using the $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ prediction from the DSE model are plotted as a dash-dotted line. The zero crossing in $Q^4 F_{1d}$ moves to lower $Q^2$. This demonstrates the need for precision measurements of all nucleon form factors to large $Q^2$. Future experiments at JLab to extend the $Q^2$ range of the nucleon form factors measurements are discussed in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Theoretical Interpretations of Nucleon Form Factors {#sec:theory}
===================================================
We give an overview of theoretical work on nucleon electromagnetic form factors. These form factors encode the information on the structure of a strongly interacting many-body system of quarks and gluons, such as the nucleon. This field has a long history and many theoretical attempts have been made to understand the nucleon form factors. This reflects the fact that a direct calculation of nucleon form factors from the underlying theory, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), is complicated as it requires, in the few GeV momentum transfer region, nonperturbative methods. Hence, in practice it involves approximations which often have a limited range of applicability. Despite their approximations and limitations, some of these nonperturbative methods do reveal interesting insight into the nucleon’s structure.
Section \[subsubsec:cf\] describes work simply fitting the form factors using an expansion in a transformed variable that allows convergence of a polynomial expansion for all values of $Q^2$. These techniques have long been used in parameterizing form factors measured in Weak decays, and part of the motivation here is to ensure a better extrapolation to obtain the slope at zero $Q^2$, *i.e.,* in determining the charge radius.
Section \[subsubsec:vmd\] describes vector meson dominance of the photon-nucleon coupling, which in addition to being physically motivated, provides good forms for fitting the nucleon form factors. Notable here is the fact that the falling $G_E^p/G_M^p$ ratio was obtained from early on (although fits to the neutron form factors and form factors in the timelike region required tuning after data became available).
Section \[subsubsec:da\] uses the ideas of dispersion relations to fit the form factors. In principle, if one knew the couplings and locations of all the poles and cuts in the $N \bar N$ channels, one could calculate without further approximation the form factors at all $Q^2$. In practice, the information is incomplete, and what one has are good parameterizations of the form factors that obey all the necessary analyticity properties and will converge everywhere. One then uses the available data to fit parameters in these functions, and hence obtain an accurate analytic representation of the data.
Section \[subsubsec:cqm\] reviews the extensive work that has been done using constituent quark models to calculate the form factors. Relativity is crucial here, and many of the works use one of the Hamiltonian dynamical approaches enumerated by Dirac long ago [@dirac]. The constituent quarks are often thought to be representatives not only for elementary quarks but also to represent not explicitly included contributions from gluons and higher Fock states, and as such may themselves have form factors that need to be parameterized. The outcome is usually a physically motivated form with parameters that need to be fit to data, and the fits in modern times are quite good for all the form factors.
QCD has chiral symmetry, and chiral symmetry in our world leads to the existence of light mesons. These light mesons can then be part of the long range structure of the nucleons, and the pion cloud models that take these degrees freedom into account are described in Sec. \[subsubsec:pion\].
To simply Fourier transform the electric and magnetic form factors to obtain the charge and magnetic densities is not valid relativistically, so this door to obtaining structure information about the nucleons is closed. However, it can be shown that projections of the densities onto the transverse plane for a fast moving nucleon can be validly obtained from two-dimensional Fourier transforms of the Pauli and Dirac form factors. Work on transverse densities is described in Sec. \[subsubsec:td\].
A new approach to obtain approximate predictions for nucleon form factors is to use correspondences that have been discovered between gravitational theories in five dimension and approximately conformal field theories, like QCD when considering only the light quarks. Results from this approach are described in Sec. \[subsubsec:ads\].
The Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSE) are an infinite set of equations for the vertices, propagators, and other quantities related to calculating observables from a field theory. They can be truncated with some success, and they have been well studied in QCD, with DSE results for nucleon form factors presented in \[subsec:dse\].
Perturbative QCD results for the form factors are on the face of it vitiated by the $G_E^p/G_M^p$ measurements. The pQCD basics, and improvements to and extensions of the pQCD techniques, are reviewed in \[subsubsec:pqcd\].
Form factors may also be obtained as integrals of generalized parton distributions (GPDs), which are the amplitudes for removing a quark from a nucleon and substituting another quark with a different momentum and possibly differing also in other quantum numbers. GPDs are important metrics of nucleon structure, and are measured in exclusive processes like $\gamma^* N \to \gamma N$ or $\gamma^* N \to \rho N$. Their consequence for nucleon form factors is highlighted in Sec. \[subsubsec:gpd\].
Finally, nucleon form factor results from lattice gauge theory are reviewed in Sec. \[subsec:lattice\]. The results so far are only for the isovector form factors, but the uncertainty limits are decreasing as further work is done, and lattice gauge theory has the advantages of being really QCD and not a model of QCD, and of obtaining results that are systematically improvable.
Models of Nucleon Form Factors {#subsec:models}
------------------------------
### Conformal Fits to Form Factors {#subsubsec:cf}
There has been a lively discussion of what sorts of functions to use in fitting the form factors. Simple polynomial fits, for example, will not converge for moderate or large momentum transfers. The reason flows from the fact that the form factors are, from a mathematical viewpoint, analytic functions of their argument $Q^2 = -q^2$, except for cuts at known locations. The cuts are on the timelike side, and begin where one can have a photon to two pion transition at $q^2 = 4 m_\pi^2$. A cut can be viewed as a weighted continuum of poles, so that there is a contribution to the form factor containing a factor $1/(q^2 - 4 m_\pi^2)$. The weighting of this pole may be weak, but in principle its existence means that a polynomial expansion of the form factor will not converge for $Q^2 \ge 4 m_\pi^2$. It is like the expansion of the geometric series $1/(1-x)$, which does not converge for $|x| \ge 1$.
However, it is possible to make a mapping of $Q^2$ to another variable, denote it $z$, where a polynomial expansion in $z$ is allowed. The trick is to find a transformation where spacelike momentum transfers all map onto the real line $|z| < 1$ and timelike momentum transfers map onto the circle $z =1$ (in the complex $z$-plane). Then since all poles of the form factors lie on the unit circle in $z$, a polynomial expansion in $z$ is convergent everywhere inside the unit circle, *i.e.,* for all spacelike momentum transfers.
This trick has been applied in the context of Weak interaction form factors, as for semileptonic meson decay, for some time [@Boyd:1995sq; @Bourrely:2008za]. It has now also been applied to fitting electromagnetic form factors by Hill and Paz [@Hill:2010yb] and by Lorenz *et al.* [@Lorenz:2014vha].
The variable $z$ is given by the conformal mapping [@Hill:2010yb; @Lorenz:2014vha], with $t = q^2$, $$z(t,t_{\rm cut}) = \frac{ \sqrt{t_{\rm cut} - t} - \sqrt{t_{\rm cut}}}
{ \sqrt{t_{\rm cut} - t} + \sqrt{t_{\rm cut}}} \,,$$ where $t_{\rm cut} = 4 m_\pi^2$ and one can easily enough verify that the mapping has the properties stated above.
Fitting with a nonconvergent expansion can give good analytic fits to the data in any region where there is data to be fit. The danger lies in extending them outside the region where there is data. Such extrapolations can go awry, sometimes diverging wildly from physical expectation and sometimes, depending on how far one extrapolates, there may be problems that are less visible. Here enters also the proton radius question, whose evaluation from form factors requires an extrapolation from the lowest $Q^2$ where there is data, down to $Q^2 = 0$. Extrapolating a fit made with an intrinsically convergent expansion is arguable safer.
The two fits made to the electromagnetic form factors using the conformal variable $z$, however, differ in their conclusions regarding the proton charge radius. The earlier fit [@Hill:2010yb] used electron-proton scattering data available before the Mainz experiment [@Bernauer:2010wm] published in 2010. They found a proton radius $r_p = 0.870\pm 0.023 \pm 0.012$, so their central value is closer to the CODATA value than to the muonic Lamb shift value. The other fit [@Lorenz:2014vha] used the 1422 data points from the Mainz experiment, and obtained $r_p = 0.840 \pm 0.015$ fm (see also [@Lorenz:2014yda]).
Also in this section we may mention two recent reanalyses of world $e$-$p$ scattering data that obtain larger proton radii, one by Sick and Trautmann [@sick:2014; @Sick:2012zz] and another by Graczyk and Juszczak [@Graczyk:2014lba]. The former was particularly mindful of effects of the charge density at large distances upon the charge radius, and obtained $r_p = 0.886(8)$ fm, including all known data; the latter used a Bayesian framework and obtained $r_p = 0.879(7)$ fm, albeit without including the Mainz 2010 data [@Bernauer:2010wm].
### Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) {#subsubsec:vmd}
The photon has the same $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers as the lowest lying vector mesons $\rho(770)$, $\omega(782)$, and $\phi(1020)$. These mesons are prominent in the process $e^+e^- \to hadrons$ at the relevant timelike values of the CM energy squared $q^2 > 0$. One could hence expect that in elastic electron nucleon scattering at low spacelike momentum transfers $q^2 < 0$, some or much of the behavior of the coupling could be explained by the emitted photon converting to the strongly interacting meson which then attaches to the nucleon, as illustrated in Fig. \[vmd\].
That vector meson dominance (VMD) can explain much of the low $Q^2$ behavior of the form factors is confirmed by history. Before the $\rho$ [@Erwin:1961ny], $\omega$ [@Maglic:1961nz], and $\phi$ [@Schlein:1963zz] were explicitly discovered in the early 1960’s, in reactions such as $\pi N \to \pi \pi N$ or $e^+ e^- \to {\rm pions}$, there were hints or predictions of the existence gleaned from the behavior of the proton form factor. Nambu [@Nambu:1997vw] in 1957 suggested that the observed form factor was consistent with the existence of a vector meson intermediary, and Frazer and Fulco [@Frazer:1959gy] in 1959 in a famous dispersion analysis were more explicit, even suggesting a later confirmed mass range for the $\rho$ meson.
A single vector meson exchange with simple couplings gives an $m_V^2/(m_V^2 - q^2)$ factor, from its propagator, for the falloff of the form factor. One can obtain a $Q^{-4}$ high momentum falloff, in accord with observation or with pQCD, by having cancellations among two or more vector meson exchanges with different masses, or more commonly in practice by giving the vector mesons themselves a form factor in their coupling to nucleons.
An early example of a VMD fit to form factor data was given by Iachello, Jackson, and Lande [@iachello] or IJL. They had several fits, but the one most cited is a 5 parameter fit with a more complicated $\rho$ propagator that the form noted above, to account for the large decay width of the $\rho$ meson. (The $\omega$ and $\phi$ are narrow enough that modifying their propagators gives no numerical advantage.) They in 1973 predicted the falloff of $G_{Ep}/G_{Ep}$ later seen experimentally, as illustrated along with some early data in Fig. \[fig:earlygep\].
The IJL work was improved by Gari and Krümpelmann [@gariA; @gariB; @gariC] to better match the power law pQCD expectations at high $Q^2$, that $F_1 \sim Q^{-4}$ and $F_2 \sim Q^{-6}$, but also including some $\log Q^2$ corrections to the falloffs based on the running behavior of the coupling $\alpha_s(Q^2)$.
Further improvement in VMD fits was made by Lomon [@lomon; @Lomon:2006xb], who included a second $\rho$ as the $\rho'(1450)$, and later also a second $\omega$ as the $\omega'(1419)$, and obtained a good parameterization for all the nucleon form factors. The first of the polarization transfer $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ measurements [@jones] was available in time for Lomon’s 2001 work [@lomon]. Lomon further tuned his fits [@Lomon:2006xb] when the second set of polarization transfer data became available [@gayou:2002].
Viewing the form factors as analytic functions of $q^2$, the VMD forms are straightforward to analytically continue to the timelike region (see, for example, Brodsky *et al.* [@Brodsky:2003gs] or Dubnickova *et al.* [@Dubnickova:1992ii]), and compare to data that is now available. Workers in the field have done so, and have modified the VMD fits to give good accounts of data in both the timelike and spacelike region.
In addition, the original IJL fits [@iachello] were not as good for the neutron as for the proton. Both the spacelike neutron form factors and timelike nucleon form factors were addressed in what may be termed IJL updates, by Iachello and Wan [@Iachello:2004aq] and Bijker and Iachello [@bijker], both in 2004. Further, Lomon and Pacetti [@Lomon:2012pn] have updated and analytically continued the earlier Lomon fits in order to also give a good account of data in both timelike and spacelike regions.
The VMD fits of course are fits to existing data, and they have been regularly updated as new data appeared. It will be interesting to check the “predictions” for the neutron form factors as newer data appears. A plot of the existing situation for protons is given in Fig. \[fig:f2andf1\].
### Dispersion Analyses {#subsubsec:da}
Newer works here include the dispersive analyses of the nucleon form factors by workers in Bonn [@Lorenz:2014vha; @Lorenz:2014yda; @Lorenz:2012tm]. There is also work that is only slightly older by Beluskin *et al.* and Baldini *et al.* [@Belushkin:2006qa; @Baldini:2005xx; @BaldiniFerroli:2012pr]. The works include general analyses and fits to the form factors, as well as aspects directly aimed at the resolution of the proton radius puzzle [@Lorenz:2014vha; @Lorenz:2014yda; @Lorenz:2012tm].
Dispersion relations relate the form factors in the spacelike and timelike regions. More generally, the form factors are complex functions of $q^2$ that are analytic except for known cuts, and the form factors anywhere can be calculated if one knows just their imaginary parts at the cuts. The cuts are all on the real axis for timelike $q^2$. The cuts run from $q^2 \approx 4 m_\pi^2$ to $q^2 = \infty$. In practice, one cannot know the imaginary part of the form factors over this whole range, and uncertainty in knowing the form factors in the timelike region builds nonlinearly to larger uncertainty in predicting the form factors in the spacelike region, especially at higher $Q^2$.
At lower $Q^2$, one specific boon of the dispersive treatment is that the connection between the timelike and spacelike regions puts an extra constraint on the form factors and their slope at spacelike threshold. This means that the determination of the charge and magnetic radii are not purely extrapolations of the scattering data, but is an interpolation in this procedure and hence arguably more reliable.
A technique involving dispersion relations, used by both [@Lorenz:2012tm] and by [@Baldini:2005xx], is to parameterize the imaginary part of the timelike form factors, and determine the parameters by making a least squares fit to the known spacelike and timelike data. One thereby obtains a representation of the form factors that one can use in regions where there is not yet data.
Ref. [@Baldini:2005xx], published in 2006, applies dispersion relations to the ratio $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$, with the assumption of no zeros in $G_{Mp}$. They used some large-uncertainty-limit $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ data in the timelike region, obtained from angular distributions in $e^+ e^- \to p \bar p$ or the reverse, to supplement the polarization data in the spacelike region. One of the main goals was to compare to models that fit the spacelike data, especially to the continuations of those models to the timelike regions [@Brodsky:2003gs].
They found that there was a zero in $G_{Ep}(q^2)$ at about $11$ GeV$^2$ spacelike momentum transfer squared, and found that the Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem, which leads to the statement that $|G_{Ep}(q^2)/G_{Mp}(q^2)|$ should be the same at very large momentum transfers, whether spacelike or timelike, was satisfied, albeit with opposite signs. Many of the more purely phenomenological models differed on the latter point. This work [@Baldini:2005xx] preceded the completion of the polarization experiments at the highest current $Q^2$ [@Puckett:2011; @Puckett:2010]. The dispersive aspects have not been updated in more recent works by some of the same authors, *e.g.* [@BaldiniFerroli:2012pr], but one can see that the results would not be materially changed by the newer data.
Lorenz *et al.* [@Lorenz:2012tm], in their update of [@Belushkin:2006qa], apply the dispersion analysis to $G_{Ep}$ and $G_{Mp}$ separately. An important improvement in the newer work [@Lorenz:2012tm] is that it includes the recent Mainz data [@Bernauer:2010wm] in its fit. A salient outcome of this analysis is that the proton charge radius comes out at a value $r_p = 0.84\, (1)$ fm, in agreement with the value found in the muon hydrogen Lamb shift measurement.
### Constituent Quark Models {#subsubsec:cqm}
Constituent quark models (CQMs) have been used to understand the structure of baryons, beginning when quarks were first conjectured and predating the establishment of QCD as the theory of the strong interactions. Indeed, the observed spectroscopy, particularly the existence of the $\Delta^{++}$, played a crucial role in bringing to light the quantum number of color. In the CQM, the nucleon is a quantum mechanical ground state of three quarks in a confining potential. More generally, ground state baryons are composed of three quarks, selected from up ($u$), down ($d$) and strange ($s$) flavors, and are described using $SU(6)$ spin-flavor wave functions and a completely antisymmetric color wave function.
Early CQMs concentrated on explaining static properties, including magnetic moments and transition amplitudes. Examples are the models of De Rújula, Georgi, and Glashow [@derujula] and of Isgur and Karl [@isgurA]. In the latter, the quarks were in a harmonic oscillator potential, and at least at first the wave functions were nonrelativistic product wave functions, and the ground state baryons appeared as a 56-plet of $SU(6)$. QCD by this point having been discovered, the hyperfine splittings, *e.g.,* between the nucleon and the $\Delta(1232)$, were given by a one-gluon exchange potential added to the confining potential. The one-gluon exchange also generates a small tensor interaction that leads to some $D$-state admixture into the ground state baryons. This in turn allows some non-zero electric quadrupole ($E2$) and Coulomb quadrupole ($C2$) nucleon to $\Delta(1232)$ transitions, in accord with observation.
However, form factors require a relativistic treatment. At high $Q^2$, nonrelativistic treatments lead to form factors that are far too small compared to data. At low $Q^2$, the charge radius defined from the slope of the form factor has contributions corresponding to the RMS charge radius known from nonrelativistic treatments, but also has recoil terms proportional to the Compton wavelength or inverse mass, squared, of the target. The latter are absent in any nonrelativistic model, and the nucleon is light enough for this to be a problem.
A crucial question for a form factor calculation, since the nucleon must be moving after or before the interaction or both, is how the wave function in the rest frame transforms to a moving frame. This is not a trivial question, and the answer can, depending on the formalism, be dependent on the interactions binding the quarks. Formally, one needs to know how the eigenfunctions of the mass and spin operators can be viewed as unitary representations of the Poincaré group, whence it will be known how they change under Poincaré, which includes Lorentz, transformations. The generic ways this can be done were laid out by Dirac [@dirac]. There are three forms of dynamics, which are the instant, point, and light-front forms. These differ in which generators form the kinematic subgroup of the Poincaré group. This is the subgroup whose commutators do not involve the interactions among the constituents. The Poincaré group has ten generators, four space-time translations (momentum operators), three spatial rotations, and three boosts. In a given representation each of these may be kinematical or interaction dependent, or dynamical, meaning dependent on the specifics of the interaction potential. The latter cannot usually be dealt with in an exact way, but must be dealt with approximately or numerically in a practical calculation.
The *point* form has all boosts and rotations kinematical, meaning that as operators in a field theory they can be written out without having to know the interaction Lagrangian or interaction Hamiltonian. Straightforwardly, the angular momenta and Lorentz boost are the same as in the free case. However, all four components of the momentum operators are interaction dependent in this case.
The *instant* form has the rotation operators and space components of the momenta kinematical. Eigenstates of the angular momentum are then easy to construct. However, the time component of the momentum, or Hamiltonian, and the boosts are dynamical. Boosts, then, require knowing and including effects of the interaction in order to ascertain important infomation, *e.g.,* the momentum space wave function, of the boosted state.
The *light-front* form has seven kinematical generators. This is the maximum possible. The three dynamical generators are one component of the four-momentum operator (for which the mass operator obtained from $\mathcal M^2 = p_\mu^2$ may be substituted) and two light-front transverse rotations (or light-front transverse boosts, meaning here two particular linear combinations of the two ordinary transverse rotations and the two ordinary transverse boosts). Light-front calculations have the advantage that states can be easily and exactly transformed from one frame to another the using the (kinematic) longitudinal boost, and the two kinematic light-front transverse rotations (the linear combinations orthogonal to the one previously mentioned). However, light-front calculations have the disadvantage that states of definite angular momentum are difficult to construct because the rotation operators are interaction dependent.
A calculation of the form factors also requires knowing the electromagnetic current operator. It is usually assumed that the photon only interacts with one quark in the nucleon.
The relative ease of exactly transforming states from the frame where the wave functions are calculated or otherwise given, to any other frame, makes the light-front form attractive for form factor calculations. The light-front form in this context was introduced by Berestetsky and Terentev [@BerestetskyA; @BerestetskyB], and later developed by Chung and Coester [@chung]. In these calculations one begins with some wave function that has been developed in CQMs designed to study the baryon spectrum. The light-front form of the wave function is obtained by a Melosh or Wigner rotation of the Dirac spinors for each quark. These come about because the usual CQM models use spinors that in momentum space are obtained from rest spinors by a direct boost, while the light-front spinors are obtained by a longitudinal boost followed by a kinematical light-front transverse boost. Undoing one and then applying the others leads to the same momentum, but leaves a residual rotation that does not affect the momentum, but does affect other quantities such as the spin. While the Melosh rotation is not difficult conceptually, the expressions it leads to are tedious to write out.
If, in addition, one calculates in the so-called light-front (or Drell-Yan) frame characterized by $q^+ =0$, then momentum conservation ensures that the current matrix elements connect only states whose Fock components have the same number of constituents. There are, for example, no matrix elements connecting $qqq$ to $q^4 \bar q$ states, so that a consistent calculation can be done using only three-quark states.
Chung and Coester [@chung] used Gaussian wave functions. They did obtain a falling $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ ratio. This apparently [@miller02b] is a feature shared by many relativistic calculations and occasioned by the Melosh transformation. However, the form factors fell far too fast at large $Q^2$. Schlumpf [@schlumpfA; @schlumpfB] used instead a wave function with a power law falloff, fitting parameters in his wave function to static baryon properties. The high $Q^2$ falloff was now in line with data, including some at that time new neutron data [@lung], and also showed a $F_{2p}/F_{1p}$ ratio that fell more slowly than $1/Q^2$, in qualitative agreement with later data.
French, Jennings, and Miller [@gamiller; @miller02] focused on the effects of the nuclear medium upon the form factors, but also calculated the form factors of single free nucleons. They followed the work of Schumpf [@schlumpfA; @schlumpfB] and similarly found a decreasing $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ ratio, obtaining a zero between 5 and 6 GeV$^2$ for $Q^2$.
Improvements in the detailed quality of the fit can come by introducing Dirac and Pauli form factors for the quarks. This can be justified by arguing that nucleons are not just bound states of three quarks, but have further constituents in the form of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs. Modeling the nucleon with three quarks means the constituent quarks are also representing the additional components present in a complete Fock space expansion of the nucleon, and this gives them an effective structure represented by the quark form factors. This viewpoint was taken by Carderelli *et al.* [@rome; @pace] (plus further references contained in the latter) to produce good fits to both the proton and neutron form factor data then available. They used the light-front formalism and quark wave functions obtained from a potential of Capstick and Isgur [@Capstick:1986bm], and made the point that the one-gluon exchange is crucial to obtaining sufficient high momentum components in the wave function to explain the form factor data.
A different starting wave function, now in the context of the point form formalism, appears in the hypercentral constituent quark model of De Sanctis, Santopinto, and others ([@Sanctis:2007zz; @DeSanctis:2011zz] and references therein). The feature here is that the confining potential is treated as a function of an average separation defined by the RMS sum of the quark positions, relative to the CM, and there is also a term to give the hyperfine splitting. Parameters of the potential are fit to the baryon mass spectrum. With the inclusion here also of form factors for the constituent quarks, good fits are obtained for the nucleon form factors, with updates [@DeSanctis:2011zz] succeeding the latest polarization transfer $G_E^p$ results [@Puckett:2011].
A comparable amount of high-momentum components in the nucleon wave function was obtained in the Goldstone-boson-exchange (GBE) quark model [@Glozman:1997fs; @Glozman:1997ag]. This model relies on constituent quarks and Goldstone bosons, which arise as effective degrees of freedom of low-energy QCD from the spontaneous breaking of the chiral symmetry. The resulting CQM assumes a linear confinement potential supplemented by a quarkÐquark interaction based on the exchange of pseudoscalar Goldstone bosons, which is the source of the hyperfine interaction. It was shown [@Glozman:1997fs; @Glozman:1997ag] that the GBE CQM yields a unified description of light- and strange-baryon spectra. The GBE CQM was used in [@Wagenbrunn:2005wk; @boffi] to calculate the nucleon e.m. form factors in the point-form. The neutron charge radius is well described in this model and is driven by the mixed-symmetry component in the neutron wave function. In contrast to the light-front calculation [@pace; @cardarelli], it was found that when performing a point-form calculation of the nucleon e.m. form factors at larger $Q^2$ within the impulse approximation, i.e. considering only single-quark currents, a surprisingly good overall description of the nucleon e.m. form factors can be obtained, using point-like constituent quarks only. When looking at details of Refs. [@Wagenbrunn:2005wk; @boffi], the agreement is worse though for $G_{Mp}$ which is underpredicted at larger $Q^2$, and the ratio of $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ is overpredicted at larger $Q^2$, see Fig. \[fig:cqm\]. Similar findings have also been obtained in the point-form calculation of [@wagenbrunn] for the one gluon exchange CQM. The overall success of the point-form result using point-like constituent quarks was attributed in [@Wagenbrunn:2005wk; @boffi; @wagenbrunn] to the major role played by relativity. Such a finding is remarkable in view of the expected finite size of the constituent quarks, as discussed above.
An explanation for the above finding for the nucleon e.m. form factors in the point form, using the single-quark current approximation, has been suggested by Coester and Riska [@Coester:2003rw]. When the spatial extent of the three-quark wave function is scaled (unitarily) to zero, both instant and front forms yield form factors independent of the momentum transfer. Therefore, to reproduce the experimental fall-off of the nucleon e.m. form factors at large momentum transfers requires the introduction of constituent quark form factors. In contrast, when the wave function in point form is scaled unitarily to zero (so-called point limit), a non-trivial scaling limit is obtained for the form factors, depending on the shape of the wave function. At high values of momentum transfer, the scaled form factors decrease with an inverse power of the momentum transfer. The power is determined by the current operator and is independent of the wave function. An explicit comparative calculation of the baryon e.m. form factors between the three different forms was performed in [@Julia-Diaz:2003gq] using a simple algebraic form for the three-quark wave function, depending on two parameters. It was verified that a qualitative description of the nucleon form factors data demands a spatially extended wave function in the instant- and front-form descriptions, in contrast to the point-form description which demands a much more compact wave function.
A manifestly covariant CQM calculation within the Bethe Salpeter formalism and using an instanton-induced interaction between quarks has been performed by Merten et al. [@Merten2002]. Although this model reproduces the baryon spectrum, it can only qualitatively account for the $Q^2$ dependence of the nucleon e.m. form factors.
Another type of covariant CQM calculation was done by Gross, Ramalho, and Peña [@Gross:2006fg], partly based on earlier work of Gross and Agbakpe [@gross], avoiding questions of dynamical forms by staying in momentum space. They use a covariant spectator model, where the photon interacts with one quark and the other two quarks are treated as an on-shell diquark with a definite mass. They too take the view that the constituent quark includes, at least at lower $Q^2$, effects from higher Fock states and so the quark itself should have a form factor, including the possibility of nonzero quark anomalous magnetic moments. They note, as others have, that obtaining a good fit to the neutron electric form factor $G_{En}$ requires isospin breaking. Since they use VMD forms for the quark form factors, the difference between the $\rho$ (isospin-1) and the $\omega$ (isospin-0) couplings is one sufficient way to obtain this. They obtain forms with parameters that they fit to the data. Their fit from the 9-parameter “model IV” is quite precise.
Of interest, especially noted in [@Gross:2006fg] although perhaps somewhat relaxed in [@Gross:2012si], also by Gross *et al.*, is that only $S$-state quark wave functions are needed to obtain good fits to the form factors. Other work (the article of Brodsky and Drell [@Brodsky:1980zm] is an early example) argues, on the other hand, that nonzero angular momenta are necessary for fitting the form factor data. This can be a difference in organization of the calculation. Looking in particular at the magnetic moments, if there are only $S$-states, the anomalous magnetic moments of the nucleons can only come from intrinsic anomalous magnetic moments of the quarks, which can be nonzero if quark form factors are allowed; whereas if the quarks are all elementary particles their anomalous magnetic moments are zero, and higher Fock states or nonzero orbital angular momenta are needed to produce the observed magnetic moments of the nucleons.
### Pion Cloud Models {#subsubsec:pion}
In nature, the up and down quarks are nearly massless. In the exact massless limit the QCD Lagrangian is separately invariant under rotations in flavor space of the left handed and right handed quarks. *I.e.,* there is invariance under a *chiral symmetry* group $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$. Parity is also a symmetry of the Lagrangian, and fully compatible with the chiral symmetry, and so it would seem that for any state of QCD, there would be an equal mass state of opposite parity. However, parity doubling is not seen in nature. Instead we find the alternative, which is that there exist massless negative parity scalars, the *Goldstone bosons*. For two quark flavors, there are three Goldstone bosons, the pions, which acquire a mass in nature because of the symmetry breaking due to the quark masses. Since the pions are light, they dominate the long distance behavior of the nucleon wave functions, and have a potentially important effect on the low-momentum transfer behavior of hadronic form factors. Hence one can improve the constituent quark models by including pionic degrees of freedom.
One early improvement to constituent quark models was in the context of the bag model of hadrons, where a number of workers, in or about 1980, including Brown and Rho [@Brown:1979ui], Jaffe [@Jaffe:1979df], and Thomas, Théberge, and Miller [@Miller:1979kg] secured the chiral symmetry of the model by including coupling to pions. The vision was then of quarks within the boundary of the bag and pions without, and the model was called the Cloudy Bag Model. However, states of the bag model are expressed in coordinate space as set of independent particle wave functions for each quark. Turning these states into momentum eigenstates is not a trivial problem in general, because there are center-of-mass fluctuations that must be removed, and momentum eigenstates are needed to discuss the form factors. Additionally, the bag has a simple spherical boundary in the rest frame, and it must be understood how the states alter under Lorentz transformation in order to make accurate form factor calculations for nucleons. Hence some time passed before Lu *et al.* in 1998 [@lu] calculated nucleon electromagnetic form factors in the cloudy bag model. They used the Pierels-Thouless formalism and a plausible hypothesis for the effects of Lorentz transformations (details in [@lu]), and obtained a good description of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors for $Q^2 < 1$ GeV$^2$.
Miller extended the calculation to larger $Q^2$ using a light-front version of the cloudy bag model calculation [@miller02b]. Starting from constituent quarks [@miller02], using the Schlumpf wave function instead of bag wave functions for the quark core, Miller calculated the effects of the pion cloud through one-loop diagrams. The model gives a relatively good overall account of the form factor data at both lower $Q^2$ and higher $Q^2$.
The cloudy bag model is one chiral quark model which treats the effect of pions perturbatively. Other quark models which calculated nucleon electromagnetic form factors using perturbative pions can be found e.g. in the early works of [@Oset:1984tvA; @Oset:1984tvB; @Jena:1992qx], as well as in the already discussed works of [@Glozman:1997fs; @Glozman:1997ag]. Recently, the above chiral quark models where pions are included perturbatively have been improved in [@faessler]. This work extends a previous work of [@Lyubovitskij:2001nm] by dynamically dressing bare constituent quarks by mesons to fourth order within a manifestly Lorentz covariant formalism. Once the nucleon and $\Lambda$ hyperon magnetic moments are fitted, other e.m. properties, such as the nucleon e.m. form factors at low momentum transfers, follow as a prediction. It was found in [@faessler] that the meson cloud is able to nicely describe the form factor data in the momentum transfer region up to about 0.5 GeV$^2$. To extend the calculations to larger $Q^2$, a phenomenological approach has been adopted in [@faessler] by introducing bare constituent quark form factors which were parameterized in terms of 10 parameters. Such parameterization makes it plausible to simultaneously explain the underlying dipole structure in the nucleon e.m. form factors as well as the meson cloud contribution at low $Q^2$ which results from the underlying chiral dynamics. In a later paper [@Faessler:2006ky], a model calculation for the bare constituent quark form factors has been performed and applied to the electromagnetic properties of the $N \to \Delta$ transition, and also of the $N\to$ Roper transition [@2014PhRvD..89a4032O]. The latter paper also includes updates of that group’s fits to the nucleon form factors.
When pion effects dominate nucleon structure, their effects have to be treated non-perturbatively. A nonperturbative approach which has both quark and pion degrees of freedom and interpolates between a CQM and the Skyrme model (where the nucleon appears as a soliton solution of an effective nonlinear pion field theory) is the chiral quark soliton model ($\chi$QSM). As for the Skyrme model, the $\chi$QSM is based on a $1/N_c$ expansion (with $N_c$ the number of colors in QCD). Its effective chiral action has been derived from the instanton model of the QCD vacuum [@Dia86], which provides a natural mechanism of chiral symmetry breaking and enables one to generate dynamically the constituent quark mass. Although in reality the number of colors $N_c$ is equal to three, the extreme limit of large $N_c$ is known to yield useful insights. At large $N_c$ the nucleon is heavy and can be viewed as $N_c$ “valence" quarks bound by a self-consistent pion field (the “soliton") [@Dia88]. A successful description of static properties of baryons, such as mass splittings, axial constants, magnetic moments, form factors, has been achieved (typically at the 30 % level or better, see [@Chr96] for a review of early results). After reproducing masses and decay constants in the mesonic sector, the only free parameter left to be fixed in the baryonic sector is the constituent quark mass. When taking rotational ($1/N_c$) corrections into account, this model achieved a qualitative good description of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors in the range $Q^2 < 1$ GeV$^2$, using a constituent quark mass around $420$ MeV [@Christov:1995hr]. The chiral soliton model obtained a decrease of the $G_{Ep} / G_{Mp}$ ratio with increasing $Q^2$ already in the late 1990’s.
Holzwarth [@HolzwarthB] extended the chiral soliton model by including the $\rho$ and $\omega$ meson propagators for the isovector and isoscalar channels, respectively. Furthermore, to extend the range in $Q^2$ of the predictions, he uses a relativistic prescription to boost the soliton rest frame densities to the Breit frame. Such prescription is also used to extract radial charge and magnetization rest frame densities from experimental form factors, as will be discussed in Sect. \[subsubsec:td\]. Using 4 fit parameters (one effective boost mass and three free parameters to fix the couplings of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons), the model was found to provide a good account of the detailed structure of the nucleon e.m. form factors in the low $Q^2$ region. In particular, for $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ it predicts a decreasing ratio in good agreement with the data. At larger $Q^2$, the boost prescription gives a reasonably good account of the data (except for $G_{Mn}$) and predicts a zero in $G_{Ep}$ around 10 GeV$^2$. Due to the uncertainty introduced from the particular choice for the boost prescription, the high $Q^2$ behavior (for $Q^2$ larger than about $4 m_p^2$) of the e.m. form factors is however not a profound prediction of the low-energy effective model.
Cloët and Miller [@Cloet:2012cy], in addition to fitting the electromagnetic form factors with a quark plus pion cloud model, have the further goal to accurately reproduce the spin fraction of the proton that comes from quark spin. It will be remembered that the EMC collaboration found that little of the proton spin came from quark spin, and a more modern analysis [@deFlorian:2008mr] gives the quark spin fraction of the proton spin as $36.6^{+1.2}_{-1.6}$% (for $x_{\rm min}=0.001$ and $1 \sigma$). The Cloët-Miller model uses a light-front formalism with a quark-diquark system accounting for 71% of the nucleon state, by probability, plus a quark-diquark core with a pion accounting for the rest. Gluons are not explicitly included. They have 10 parameters, which they fit to the electromagnetic form factor data, obtaining a good representation of the data and/or the Kelly fit thereto. They have a zero of $G_{Ep}$ at $Q^2 = 12.3$ GeV$^2$. The total quark plus diquark spin they obtain is 36.5% of the proton’s $\hbar/2$, in fine accord with expectation.
### Transverse Densities {#subsubsec:td}
Nonrelativistically, form factors and charge distributions are Fourier transforms of each other. Relativistically, this is no longer true, because of quandaries in transforming the nucleon wave function from one reference frame to another. In terms of the charge or magnetic radius this leads to additive terms that may be called recoil terms, proportional to $Q^2/m_N^2$ with coefficients that are not trivial to calculate. For heavy targets, these terms may be ignored, but the nucleon is light enough that precision work cannot proceed nonrelativistically. One cannot obtain accurate spatial images of the nucleon charge or magnetic densities by just Fourier transforming the charge or magnetic form factors.
However, one can obtain kinematically correct, and accurate to the same level that the input data is accurate, charge distributions if one is willing to adopt a new viewpoint. The viewpoint is that of a light front moving towards a nucleon, or equivalently of an observer viewing a nucleon approaching at nearly the speed of light. The charge density that will be seen is two dimensional, or the 3D charge density of the nucleon projected onto a plane transverse to its direction of approach. Additionally, the charge density that will be seen is not the charge density obtained from the electromagnetic current component $J^0$, but rather densities coming from $J^+ = J^0 + J^3$.
Typically one chooses the z-direction as special, choosing it along the direction $P = (p+p')/2$, where $p$ and $p'$ ate the incoming and outgoing nucleon momenta, and further arranges the frame so the photon momentum has $q^+ = 0$, and its transverse (lying in the $xy$ plane) momentum is denoted $\vec q_\perp$. The charge density projected onto the transverse plane is shown in works of Burkardt and of Miller and of others [@Burkardt:2000za; @Miller:2007uy; @Carlson:2007xd; @Miller:2010nz] to be $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\lambda N}(\vec b) &=& \int \frac{d^2 \vec q_\perp}{(2 \pi)^2 \, 2P^+} \,
e^{- i \, \vec q_\perp \cdot \vec b}
\nonumber \\
&& \ \ \times
\langle P^+, \frac{\vec q_\perp}{2}, \lambda \,|\, J^+(0) \,|\,
P^+, -\frac{\vec q_\perp}{2}, \lambda \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec b$ is the position in the $xy$ plane relative to the nucleon’s CM, $\lambda$ is the (light-front) helicity, and the longitudinal and transverse components of the incoming and outgoing nucleon’s momenta are indicated separately. For the density $\rho_{0N}$ of an unpolarized nucleon one finds, following Miller [@Miller:2007uy], that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{0N}(b) = \int_0^\infty \frac{d Q}{2 \pi} \, Q \, J_0(b \, Q) F_1(Q^2), \end{aligned}$$ where $Q^2 = \vec q_\perp^2$, $J_0$ is the Bessel function, and $F_1$ is the Dirac form factor. Further, if one polarizes the nucleon transversely in the $x$-direction, one obtains [@Carlson:2007xd], $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{TN}(\vec b) &=& \rho_{0N}(b) \nonumber \\
&-& \sin \phi_b \,
\int_0^\infty \frac{d Q}{2 \pi} \frac{Q^2}{2 M_N} \, J_1(b \, Q) F_2(Q^2), \end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_b$ is the azimuthal angle of $\vec b$, and $F_2$ is the Pauli form factor.
The result for the unpolarized density distribution of the proton is not startling and is not shown here, but the result for the neutron is quite striking [@Miller:2007uy]. The neutron charge density is found to be negative near its center as shown in Fig. \[fig:transdensn\]; it had long been known to be negative far from the center.
For a transversely polarized neutron, one finds a charge separation as shown in Fig. \[fig:transspinn\], based on figures in [@Carlson:2007xd]. The upper panel shows the difference between the charge densities of the polarized and unpolarized neutron. One sees negative charge above and positive charge below. The lower panel gives similar information by comparing the polarized and unpolarized charge distributions along a single line, the $y$-axis. (One should know that time reversal invariance forbids an electric dipole moment for a stationary elementary particle, but for a moving particle the electric dipole moment $\vec d$ is given by $\vec d = \vec v \times \vec \mu$, where $\vec v$ is the velocity of the particle and $\vec \mu$ is its magnetic moment.)
5 mm
### Correspondences with Higher Dimensional Theories {#subsubsec:ads}
A recent, exotic, and interesting way to obtain approximate QCD results is to use the anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence, initiated by Maldacena [@Maldacena:1997re], where the most relevant approximately conformal field theory is QCD and we talk of the AdS/QCD correspondence, where early applications were made by Erlich *et al.* [@Erlich:2005qh]. The idea is that some string theory in ten dimensional space has a symmetry that is divided so that for five dimensions we are and remain in the ground state in those dimensions, and the theory in the other five dimensions mimics a gravitational theory in a five dimensional anti-de Sitter space, or AdS$_5$. The AdS$_5$ possesses a $SO(2,4)$ symmetry, which is important because it is the same symmetry possessed by a conformal (in practice, a theory with all masses zero) field theory in four dimensions. One can exploit the sameness of the symmetry group to find numerically viable relations between the solutions to the gravitational theory in five-dimensions and the conformal field theory in four-dimensions. For an extensive review, see [@Brodsky:2014yha].
Since QCD is not a conformal theory, maintaining a correspondence requires also breaking the symmetry of the AdS space, which in practice is done either with the hard wall model, where the AdS space is cut off at long distances in the fifth dimension, or by the soft wall model, where an extra potential is introduced that suppresses long distance propagation in the fifth dimension.
Much of the work on individual particles has focused on the bosonic sector, studying both quarkic hadrons and glueballs of various spins, and obtaining masses, decay constants, and charge radii. The actual correspondence is between operators in the four-dimensional space, such as the electromagnetic current or the energy momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$, and fields in the five-dimensional space with corresponding quantum numbers, such as a vector field or the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. Results can be compared to experiment at the few times 10% level [@Brodsky:2014yha].
Obtaining results for fermions is more involved than for bosons. One approach is to build from the bosonic sector, and treat the fermions as Skyrmions within that model [@Hata:2007mb; @Pomarol:2008aa]. Another approach is to begin in AdS with fundamental fermions that interact with the AdS gravitational background [@Henningson:1998cd; @Mueck:1998iz; @Contino:2004vy; @Hong:2006ta; @Brodsky:2008pg; @Abidin:2009hr; @Gao:2009ze; @Lyubovitskij:2014lja]. In this version the five-dimensional Lagrangian is still relatively simple. It has terms for gravity (the scalar curvature and the cosmological constant terms) and for vector fields, and the terms for the fermions are simple given the context of interactions with gravity and the vector field, $$\mathcal L_F = %\nonumber \\
\sqrt{g}\, \Big( \frac{i}{2} \bar{\Psi} e^N_A \Gamma^A D_N \Psi
-\frac{i}{2}(D_N \Psi)^\dagger \Gamma^0 e^N_A \Gamma^A \Psi
- M \bar{\Psi}\Psi \Big),$$ for the hard wall version of the model, and the covariant derivative is $D_N=\partial_N +\frac{1}{8}\omega_{NAB}[\Gamma^A,\Gamma^B]-iV_N$, where $V_N$ is the vector field which will be dual to the electromagnetic current when we make the correspondence. The indices $N$, $A$, $B$, *etc.,* each run over five values as appropriate to the five-dimensional space. In the above Lagrangian, gravity enters via the metric $g_{MN}$ and is seen in its determinant $g$ and also in the spin connection $\omega_{NAB}$, which will not be given in detail here.
As an example, results obtained using the AdS/CFT correspondence for the proton electromagnetic form factors by Abidin *et al.* [@Abidin:2009hr] are shown in Fig. \[fig:ads\] for both the hard wall and soft wall models.
Dyson-Schwinger Equations and Diquark Models {#subsec:dse}
--------------------------------------------
The Dyson Schwinger equations (DSE) are generically a non-perturbative approximation for obtaining results for a field theory, in the present case QCD. The equations are, in principle, an infinite set of coupled integral equations. In practice, they must be truncated, in a way that preserves all symmetries of QCD, in order to proceed with any calculation. For a general DSE review, see [@Bashir:2012fs].
One accomplishment of the DSE follows the solution for the full quark propagator, represented in momentum space as $$S_F(p^2) = \frac{ i F(p^2) }{ \not\! p + M(p^2) } \,,$$ where the normalization $F(p^2)$ and the mass $M(p^2)$ become functions of momentum because of interactions. With relatively simple truncations and modeling of the QCD interactions, the DSE obtain a mass function in good agreement with lattice calculations. The mass $M(p^2)$ is several hundred MeV at small $p^2$ and falls smoothly to the small values at large $p^2$ that one might expect in perturbation theory.
Also early in the DSE program is building a model of the quark-quark and quark-antiquark interactions that will reproduce data on, among other quantities, the pion mass and decay constant.
One then uses the same quark-quark interactions developed in meson studies to obtain a three quark wave function model for the nucleon by solving the three-cody Fadeev equations. There arise significant diquark contributions, *i.e.,* significant quark-quark correlations, which have a strong effect on the form factors one obtains. Since the quarks in this model are dressed, many of their features are different from expectations for pointlike fermions. One finds in particular large quark anomalous chromomagnetic moments, which affect the quark-gluon interactions, which lead to large quark anomalous magnetics moments in the quark-photon interactions, which in turn are needed to obtain good fits to the nucleon electromagnetic form factor data.
The theoretical DSE results, from the work of Cloët, Roberts, and others [@Cloet:2014rja; @Cloet:2013gva; @Cloet:2013jya], show a falloff of the $G_E^p$/$G_M^p$ ratio similar to what is seen in the data; see Fig. \[fig:crt\].
Qualitatively, the behavior of the form factors in the DSE approach is related to the behavior of the mass function $M(p^2)$. At lower momenta, where the mass function is far from its perturbative or current quark value, the Pauli form factor is also large compared to its perturbative value and is falling more slowly than perturbation theory predicts. (For reference, perturbative QCD predicts a $Q^{-4}$ power law falloff for $F_1(Q^2)$ at large $Q^2$, and a $Q^{-6}$ falloff for $F_2(Q^2)$. ) Hence one can get a zero in $G_E(Q^2)$, $$G_E(Q^2) = F_1(Q^2) - \frac{Q^2}{4 M_p^2} F_2(Q^2) \,,$$ and hence a falloff in the ratio $G_E(Q^2)/G_M(Q^2)$.
For the newer DSE calculations reported by Segovia *et al.* [@Segovia:2014aza], the zero in $G_E$ is at $Q^2 = 9.5$ GeV$^2$. If the mass function fell to its low perturbative value more quickly than it does, the quarks would behave more like free quarks, and the value of the Pauli or anomalous magnetic moment, form factor would be small as well as quickly falling. In such a case, the zero of $G_E(Q^2)$ would be pushed to higher values of $Q^2$ or possibly not occur at all [@Segovia:2014aza].
We may mention that models based on the Dyson-Schwinger equations, as well as many of the other models discussed, do extend to form factors for other hadronic reactions, such as the electromagnetic $N \to \Delta$ transition [@Segovia:2014aza; @Segovia:2013uga]. The result for the ratio of the electric and magnetic transition form factors for this process, $R_{EM}$, turns out to be small in the DSE approach, even at momentum transfers above 5 GeV$^2$, in accord with experimental data. The perturbative QCD result, that $R_{EM} \to 1$, may well ensue, but only at momentum transfers well above those now experimentally accessible.
Links between Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Nucleon Form Factors {#subsec:dis}
----------------------------------------------------------------
### Perturbative QCD Inspired Models {#subsubsec:pqcd}
Perturbative QCD (pQCD) predicts the scaling behavior of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors are high $Q^2$. The predictions were given by Brodsky and Farrar [@brodsky; @Brodsky:1973kr] and by Matveev, Muradyan, and Tavkheledze [@Matveev:1973], and pQCD not only predicts the scaling behavior of each amplitude, but also predicts that the leading amplitude is the one where the hadron helicity is maintained in the interaction. A photon of high $Q^2$ sees the nucleon as a set of three parallel moving quarks, one of which absorbs the high momentum photon, whose momentum is brought in from a sideways direction. In order to reconstitute the proton, the momentum must be shared out by two hard gluon exchanges, so that one also has three parallel moving quarks in the final state, as illustrated in the Fig. \[ff\_pqcd\].
The overall hard amplitude can be factored [@Chernyak:1977asA; @Chernyak:1977asB; @Chernyak:1977fkA; @Chernyak:1977fkB; @Efremov:1979qk; @brodlep] as a product of a hard scattering amplitude that takes three parallel moving quarks into three parallel moving quarks, and two distribution amplitudes (DA) that specify how the longitudinal momentum of the nucleon is divided among the quarks. Each gluon carries a virtuality proportional to $Q^2$ (and there are also factors $1/Q$ from each of the internal quark propagators, factors of $Q$ from each of the thoroughgoing quark lines, and a $1/Q$ involved in the definition of $F_1$), leading to a pQCD prediction that the helicity conserving Dirac form factor $F_1$ will fall like $1/Q^4$, with possible $\log Q^2$ factors, at high $Q^2$. The Pauli form factor $F_2$ requires a helicity flip between the final and initial nucleon, which in turn requires, thinking of the quarks as collinear, a helicity flip at the quark level, which is suppressed at high $Q^2$. The result is a prediction that $F_2$ will fall like $1/Q^6$ at high $Q^2$. Hence, $G_E$ and $G_M$ will both fall like $1/Q^4$ asymptotically.
We can see how well pQCD predicts current electromagnetic proton form factor data by examining Fig. \[fig:scaling\]. The figure shows data up to 10 GeV$^2$ for $Q^4 F_1$ (upper panel) and $Q^6 F_2$ (lower panel). For $F_1$, it appears that the curve is flattening out, as pQCD would predict, and indeed there is data for $F_1$ up to 31 GeV$^2$ to corroborate this. However, for $Q^6 F_2$, where there is no further data currently, the existing data does not match the simple pQCD expectation.
The data show that $F_{2 p}/F_{1 p}$ falls slower than $1/Q^2$ with increasing $Q^2$. Belitsky, Ji, and Yuan [@Belitsky:2002kj] investigated the assumption of quarks moving collinearly with the proton, which underlies the pQCD prediction. They have shown [@Belitsky:2002kj] that by including components in the nucleon light-cone wave functions with nonzero quark orbital angular momentum projection, they obtain a behavior $F_2/F_1 \to \ln^2 (Q^2 / \Lambda^2)/ Q^2$ at large $Q^2$, with $\Lambda$ a non-perturbative mass scale. (Refs. [@jain; @Brodsky:2003pw] also discuss using quark orbital angular momentum to get a ratio $F_{2p}/F_{1p}$ which drops slower than $1/Q^2$ with increasing $Q^2$.) With $\Lambda$ around $0.3$ GeV [@Belitsky:2002kj], the data for $F_{2 p}/F_{1 p}$ agree with such double-logarithmic enhancement, as seen in Fig. \[fig:bjy\], where it may be noted that the higher $Q^2$ data was obtained after [@Belitsky:2002kj] was published. The arguments of [@Belitsky:2002kj] do still rely on pQCD, and it remains to be seen if still higher $Q^2$ data will continue to support this amended prediction.
5 mm
Hard scattering is calculated as if all three quarks are moving fast. An alternative is that one quark carries nearly all the nucleon’s momentum, and the other two quarks are soft. It is not necessary to transfer momentum to the soft quarks before reconstituting the proton. Nesterenko and Radyushkin [@Nesterenko:1983ef] point out that the hard scattering mechanism requires the exchange of two gluons, each of which brings in a suppression factor $\alpha_s / \pi \sim 0.1$. One therefore see that the hard scattering mechanism for $F_1^p$ could be numerically suppressed relative to the soft term, also called the Feynman mechanism; see also [@bolz; @kroll].
Early on, Duncan and Mueller [@Duncan:1979hi] showed that the soft or Feynman process also gave a $1/Q^4$ falloff, with logarithmic corrections, for the Dirac form factor $F_1$. This has been taken up more recently by Kivel and Vanderhaeghen [@Kivel:2010ns; @Kivel:2012zz], who were able to show that also for the Feynman process, a type of factorization was possible, where the second step is given by a process independent kernel that transfers momentum among the initially all finite momentum fraction quarks to make two of them soft, as in Fig. \[fig:kv\]. They also considered the Pauli form factor $F_2$, not with the same success in proposing a factorization theorem, but showing $F_2/F_1 \sim 1/Q^2$ at high enough $Q^2$ also for the soft process.
We shall also mention work where the soft contribution was evaluated within the light-cone sum rule (LCSR) approach of Braun *et al.* [@braun06]. Using asymptotic distribution amplitudes for the nucleon, the LCSR approach yields values of $G_{Mp}$ and $G_{Mn}$ which are within 20% compatible with the data in the range $Q^2 \sim 1$–$10$ GeV$^2$. The electric form factors however were found to be much more difficult to describe, with $G_{En}$ overestimated, and $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ near constant when using an asymptotic nucleon distribution amplitude. Only when including twist-3 and twist-4 nucleon distribution amplitudes within a simple model, is a qualitative description of the electric proton and neutron form factors obtained. Such higher twist components hint at the importance of quark angular momentum components in the nucleon wave function.
### Generalized Parton Distributions {#subsubsec:gpd}
Generalized parton distributions (GPDs) represent an amplitude for removing a quark from a nucleon and replacing it with another quark with a different momentum, and possibly also with different spin projection and flavor. These amplitudes can be measured in virtual Compton scattering, $\gamma^*(q_h) + N(p) \to \gamma(q') + N(p')$, or in meson electroproduction, *e.g.,* $\gamma^* + N \to \rho +N$. The momenta are indicated, with ${q'}^2 = 0$, the virtuality $Q_h^2 = -q_h^2 >0$, and $q$ will be the momentum transfer to the nucleon. A diagram for the virtual Compton process is shown in Fig. \[fig:dvcs\], in a diagram where both photons interact with the same quark. The upper part of the diagram is to be calculated perturbatively, and the lower part of the diagram is given by the GPD. For “deep” virtual Compton scattering, where $Q_h^2 \gg Q^2, m_N^2$, it has been shown that the dominant contributions are given by diagrams like the one shown, and that one can separate or factor the perturbative process specific stage of the interaction from the non-perturbative process independent part (see [@Ji:1998pc; @Goeke:2001tz; @Diehl:2003ny; @Belitsky:2005qn; @Ji:2004gf; @Diehl:2013xca] for reviews and references).
Further notation is that $P = (p+p')/2$ is the average nucleon momentum, $k$ is the average momentum of the quarks entering and leaving the nucleon, $x$ is the light-front momentum fraction defined from $x = k^+/P^+$, and the asymmetry between the quark momenta is given by the skewedness $\xi = -q^+/(2P^+)$. In the high $Q_h^2$ limit, one can show that $\xi$ is related to the Bjorken variable $x_B$ by $2\xi=x_B/(1-x_B/2)$, where $x_B = Q_h^2/(2 p \cdot q_h)$.
GPDs were introduced by Ji [@ji] and by Radyushikin [@Radyushkin:1996nd]. Formally, in the notation of Ji [@ji][^1] and in a frame where $P$ and $q_h$ are collinear with $\vec P$ in the positive $z$-direction, one obtains the GPDs from, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1}{2\pi} \, \int dy^{-}e^{ix P^{+}y^{-}}
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad \times
\left. \langle N(p^\prime)| \bar{\psi_q } (-y/2) \; \gamma^+ \; \psi_q (y/2)
| N(p) \rangle \right|_{y^{+}=\vec{y}_{\perp }=0}
\nonumber \\
&&=\; H^{q}(x,\xi ,Q^2)\; \bar{N}(p^{'}) \; \gamma^+ \; N(p)
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad
+ \ E^{q}(x,\xi ,Q^2)\; \bar{N}(p^{'}) \; \frac{i}{2m_N} \sigma^{+ \nu}
\, q_\nu \; N(p) ,
\label{eq:qsplitting}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_q$ is the quark field for flavor $q$ and $N$ is the nucleon Dirac spinor. The matrix element is non-perturbative and is given in terms of two functions $H^q$ and $E^q$ for each flavor $q$. There is a similar matrix element with operator $\bar{\psi_q} \gamma^+ \gamma_5 \psi_q$ and two further, polarized, GPDs $\tilde H^q$ and $\tilde E^q$.
The notation is such that positive momentum fractions correspond to quarks and negative ones to antiquarks. Hence in $x>\xi$, the fermions leaving and entering the nucleon are both quarks. Also possible is that both are antiquarks ($x< -\xi$), or that there is a quark-antiquark pair.
GPDs enter this review because of their relation to form factors. An integral over $x$ on the LHS of Eq. (\[eq:qsplitting\]) forces both quark fields to be at the same point, as in the matrix elements of the electromagnetic current. One can show that the matrix elements have support for $-1 < x <1$, and that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-1}^{+1}dx\, H^{q}(x,\xi ,Q^2)&=& F_{1}^{q}(Q^2)\, ,
\nonumber\\
\int _{-1}^{+1}dx\, E^{q}(x,\xi ,Q^2)&=& F_{2}^{q}(Q^2)\, ,
\label{eq:ffsumrulehe}\end{aligned}$$ where the nucleon form factor are given in terms of the quark flavor form factors $F_i^Q$ in the expected ways, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{ip} &=& \frac{2}{3} F_i^u - \frac{1}{3} F_i^d - \frac{1}{3} F_i^s , \nonumber\\
F_{in} &=& - \frac{1}{3} F_i^u + \frac{2}{3} F_i^d - \frac{1}{3} F_i^s ,\end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,2$ and $F_1^{u,d}$ are specifically for the proton.
These relations allow us, if we have complete measurements or good models (the latter is more the case at present) for the GPDs, to obtain the electromagnetic form factors from them. Alternatively, the measured form factors can be used as constraints upon GPD models.
An example of model GPDs is the modified Regge parameterization for $H$ and $E$ that was proposed by Guidal *et al.* [@guidal], $$\begin{aligned}
H^q (x,0,Q^2) &=& q_v (x)\, x^{\alpha^\prime \, (1 - x) \, Q^2},
\nonumber\\
E^q (x, 0, Q^2) &=& \frac{\kappa^q}{N^q}
\, (1 - x)^{\eta^q} \, q_v(x) \,
{{x^{\alpha' \, (1 - x) \, Q^2}}} \, ,
\label{eq:gpd_r2}\end{aligned}$$ depending on 3 parameters. The Regge slope $\alpha^\prime$ is determined from the Dirac radius, and two parameters $\eta^u$ and $\eta^d$, entering the GPD $E$, ensure that the $x\sim 1 $ limit of $E^q$ has extra powers of $1-x$ compared to that of $H^q$. This results in a proton helicity flip form factors $F_2$ which has a faster power fall-off at large $Q^2$ than $F_1$, as observed experimentally.
In Fig. \[fig:gegmpn\], the proton and neutron Sachs electric and magnetic form factors are shown. One observes that the 3-parameter modified Regge model gives a rather good overall description of the available form factors data for both proton and neutron in the whole $Q^2$ range, using as value for the Regge trajectory $\alpha^\prime $ = 1.105 GeV$^{-2}$, and the following values for the coefficients governing the $x \to 1$ behavior of the $E$-type GPDs: $\eta^u$ = 1.713 and $\eta^d$ = 0.566. Note that a value $\eta^q = 2$ corresponds to a $ 1/Q^2$ asymptotic behavior of the ratio $F_2^q / F_1^q$ at large $Q^2$. The modified Regge GPD parameterization allows one to accurately describe the decreasing ratio of $G_{E p} / G_{M p}$ with increasing $Q^2$, and also leads to a zero for $G_{E p}$ at a momentum transfer of $Q^2 \simeq 8$ GeV$^2$.
Lattice QCD Calculations of Nucleon Form Factors {#subsec:lattice}
------------------------------------------------
Strictly speaking, lattice calculations of nucleon form factors are currently available only for the isovector form factors.
Isoscalar form factors require calculations of disconnected diagrams, which are diagrams with quark loops not connected to the quark lines emanating from or ending on the lattice nucleon source or sink. There are gluons that attach the quark loops to the valence quarks, but these are not indicated in lattice diagrams, hence the phrase “disconnected.” Contributions from the disconnected loops require computer time intensive calculations, and remain undone. However, the disconnected diagrams contribute equally to proton and neutron, so the isovector case can be considered without them.
A review including lattice form factor results up to 2010 is available in [@Hagler:2009ni], and newer lattice form factor results are reported in [@Alexandrou:2013joa; @Bhattacharya:2013ehc; @Green:2014xba].
The new calculations reported in Green *et al.* [@Green:2014xba] have pion masses from 373 MeV down to close to physical 149 MeV. The latter also strove to reduce contamination from excited nucleons. They analyze their lattice data using three methods which they call the standard ratio method, the summation method, and the generalized pencil-of-function method (GPoF), with varying outcomes. The best results, judged by comparison to data as represented by one of the standard fits [@Alberico:2008sz], come from the summation method. Here agreement with experimental data is good for both $G_{Ev}$ and $G_{Mv}$ in the region considered, which is $Q^2$ from scattering threshold up to about 0.5 GeV$^2$, with uncertainty limits about $20\%$ at $Q^2$ of $0.4$ GeV$^2$.
The works of Alexandrou *et al.* [@Alexandrou:2013joa] and Bhattacharya *et al.* [@Bhattacharya:2013ehc] have pion masses in the 213–373 MeV range, and quote results for somewhat higher $Q^2$. For $Q^2$ above about $0.6$ GeV$^2$, their isovector form factors results tend to be 50% or so above the data for $G_{Ev}$ (or $F_{1v}$), with uncertainties indicated at about 10%. For $G_{Mv}$ (or $F_{2v}$) the results are closer to data . The authors of these works do point out that the lattice treatments with these pion masses are all consistent with each other.
One may specifically focus on nucleon radii calculated from lattice gauge theory. In the future, it may be possible and desirable to calculate using a dedicated correlator which gives directly the slope of the form factor at zero momentum transfer. Finding such correlators by taking derivatives of known correlators is suggested and studied [@deDivitiis:2012vs] for lattice calculations of form factors at points where the Lorentz factors they multiply go to zero. Applications in [@deDivitiis:2012vs] are to form factors for semi-leptonic scalar meson decay, and to hadronic vacuum polarization corrections to the muon $(g-2)$.
At present, lattice calculations of nucleon radii proceed by calculating the form factor at several non-zero $Q^2$, fitting to a suitable form, typically a dipole form, and finding the radius by extrapolating to zero $Q^2$. Truly complete results are available only for the isovector nucleon. Ref. [@Green:2014xba] presents a plot of radius results for lattice calculations at various pion masses. They use the Dirac radius, obtained from the slope of $F_{1v}$, rather than the charge radius obtained from $G_{Ev}$, but these are related by, using the proton as an example, $$\langle r_{1p}^2 \rangle = \langle r_{p}^2 \rangle - \frac{3}{2} \frac{\kappa_v}{m_p^2} \,,$$ where $\kappa_v$ is the isovector anomalous nucleon magnetic moment. Hence, given the great accuracy of the magnetic moment measurements, one knows the Dirac radii to the same accuracy as the charge radii.
The great interest is to obtain sufficient accuracy from the lattice results to be able to adjudicate between the electron and muon measured values of the isovector charge or Dirac radii. The electron measured isovector radius is straightforward to look up, the muon measured value of the Dirac or charge radius is for now a defined quantity obtained by using the electron value for the neutron radius-squared. Using the summation method, Ref. [@Green:2014xba] obtains, by extrapolation to the physical pion mass, a value of the isovector Dirac radius between the muonic and electronic results, with uncertainties that accommodate both at about the one standard deviation level. However, using the GPoF or ratio method gives a smaller $\langle r_{1}^2 \rangle_v$, on the order of $2/3$ the value from the summation method.
One may say there is opportunity for further work. An uncertainty of 1% or less for the proton alone is needed for a lattice calculation to impact the proton radius puzzle. Two extrapolations are needed to obtain the charge radius for a physical nucleon. On is in the lattice pion mass, commented upon above. The other is in $Q^2$. Currently on the experimental side, the lowest $Q^2$ from scattering data is about $0.004$ GeV$^2$, and there are experiments planned or running to reduce this number. Further there are discussions, alluded to in Sec. \[subsubsec:cf\], regarding the best fit forms to use for the extrapolation. Currently on the lattice, represented by Ref. [@Green:2014xba], the lowest $Q^2$ is about $0.04$ GeV$^2$, and the fit to the lattice data is only done using a simple dipole form.
And of course one wants the isoscalar as well as the isovector form factors. However, a challenge involving just the isovector form factors, albeit at a higher $Q^2$ than lattice form factor results currently display, is to obtain the zero in the isovector $G_{Ev}$ that is visible in the fits to the experimental data shown in Fig. \[fig:isovector\].
Outlook {#sec:conclusion}
=======
The experimental and theoretical status of the nucleon form factors were reviewed extensively in the 15 years following publication of the results of the first recoil polarization experiment at Jefferson Lab [@jones] for the proton. Chronologically these reviews include Gao [@gaoA], Hyde-Wright and de Jager [@charleskees], Perdrisat [*et al.*]{}[@perdrisat:2006], Arrington [*et al.*]{} [@arrreview], Cloët [*et al.*]{} [@cloet:2008], Arrington [*et al.*]{} [@arrington:2011], Perdrisat and Punjabi [@scholar] and S. Pacetti [*et al.*]{} [@pacetti:2015]. The completion of the GEn(1) and GEp(3) experiments, which reached a maximum $Q^2$ of 3.4 and 8.4 GeV$^2$ respectively, has brought the field into previously unexplored regions of four-momentum transfer squared, and correspondingly, generated a burst of theoretical investigations along old and new paths.
The proton form factors were originally introduced in the approximation of non-relativistic scattering, as the three-dimensional Fourier transform of the charge density [@hofs53; @wilsonrr]. However the proton recoil implies that the electron is interacting with a moving charge distribution. Already for $Q^2$=0.25 GeV$^2$, the recoil proton relativistic boost factor $\gamma$ is 1.1, corresponding to $v/c=0.42$. The argument that form factors are Fourier transforms of nucleon density in the Breit frame had to be abandoned, as this frame’s velocity in the Lab frame is significantly different for every $Q^2$.
5 mm
Changes in our view of the structure of the proton are many. For example, the proton in its ground state is not necessarily spherically symmetric, but can show a typical multipole shape, when referred to the spin direction of one of its quarks (constituents) relative to the nucleon spin orientation [@miller:2003]. Also, the wave front or infinite momentum frame charge and magnetization densities are invariant, two-dimensional transverse distributions which are drastically different from the non-relativistic ones [@miller:2003; @carlson:2007]. A selection of model predictions for the form factor ratios $\mu_nG_{En}/G_{Mn}$ and $\mu_pG_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ is shown together with the data obtained in double polarization experiments at JLab and in other laboratories in Fig. \[fig:cncd\]. These two figures emphasize the importance of future experiments which will establish whether either ratio does, or does not cross zero near $Q^2=$10 GeV$^2$. Whereas for $\mu_pG_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$, all model predictions discussed in this review anticipate a zero crossing somewhere above 9 GeV$^2$, for $\mu_nG_{En}/G_{Mn}$ only the calculation based on the Dyson-Schwinger equations predict such a zero crossing in the 10 GeV$^2$ region of $Q^2$.
A recent development has been the calculation of the flavor separated form factors of the “dressed” quarks from simple linear relations between the nucleon form factors, assuming charge symmetry applied to the data available. The dressed up and down quarks have significantly different form factors [@cloet:2008; @cates:2011; @rohrmoser:2011; @wilson:2011; @Cloet:2013gva; @qattan:2013]. Nucleon form factors determine the parameters of the valence quark GPDs; these can be used to obtain corresponding valence quark densities [@Diehl:2013xca]. They can be compared with the GPDs obtained from real and virtual Compton scattering.
The doubling of the energy of the Jefferson Lab accelerator to 12 GeV will lead to a much enhanced program of experiments investigating the structure of the nucleon. An experiment will use the existing High Resolution Spectrometers in Hall A at Jefferson Lab to measure $G_{Mp}$ with greatly improved error bars up to 14 GeV$^2$ [@gmp12GeV]. An new, versatile Super BigBite Spectrometer (SBS), consisting of a simple dipole magnet and associated detectors, is being built for three form factor experiments in Hall A. One SBS experiment will measure $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ up to $Q^2$ = 12 GeV$^2$ using the recoil polarization technique [@gep12GeV]. Sitting behind the SBS dipole magnet will be a recoil polarimeter which will have two analyzers with multiple GEM chambers used for incoming and scattered track determination. Another SBS experiment will extract $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ up to $Q^2$ = 10 GeV$^2$ from beam-target asymmetry measurements using an upgraded polarized $^3$He target [@gen12GeV]. The experiment will detect the scattered electrons in the BigBite spectrometer and the scattered neutron in a large solid angle hadron calorimeter sitting behind the SBS magnet. In Hall C, measurements of the neutron recoil polarization in quasi-free electron deuteron scattering will be done to extract $G_{En}/G_{Mn}$ up to $Q^2$ = 6.9 GeV$^2$ [@genhallc12GeV]. With the new CLAS12 spectrometer in Hall B at Jefferson Lab , the measurement of $G_{Mn}$ will be done to $Q^2$ = 14 GeV$^2$ [@gmnclas12GeV]. A third SBS experiment will also measure $G_{Mn}$ to $Q^2$ = 14 GeV$^2$ [@gmn12GeV]. The proposed error bars for all these experiments are shown in Fig. \[fig:formfactors\].
One of the most stringent constraints that nucleon elastic form factor data at large $Q^2$ can provide, relates to the issue of the various contributions from quarks, gluons, and orbital angular momentum to the total angular momentum of the nucleon. The elastic form factors also provide a powerful check of lattice QCD. The lattice calculations of form factors are making impressive progress, and the comparison of these results with experimental measurements will be extremely important. There is an indication from the results of GEp(3) experiment that we may be entering the range of momentum transfers where the pQCD prediction is vindicated. Yet a continuation of the fast decrease of the ratio toward negative values cannot be excluded. Great progress in the theoretical description of the structure of the nucleons can be expected.
We would like to thank Dr. C. Ayerbe Gayoso for useful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-89ER40525 (VP) and by DOE contract DE-AC05-06OR23177, under which Jefferson Science Associates, LLC, operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (MKJ), and by National Science Foundation (USA) grants PHY-1208056 (EJB), PHY-1205905 (CEC), and PHY-1066374 (CFP).
[^1]: A gauge link P$\exp(ig\int dx^\mu A_\mu)$, ensuring color gauge invariance, is tacit.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the framework of the van-der-Waals model, analytical expressions for the locus of extrema (ridges) for heat capacity, thermal expansion coefficient, compressibility, density fluctuation, and sound velocity in the supercritical region have been obtained. It was found that the ridges for different thermodynamic values virtually merge into single Widom line only at $T<1.07 T_c, P<1.25P_c$ and become smeared at $T<2T_c, P<5P_c$, where $T_c$ and $P_c$ are the critical temperature and pressure. The behavior of the Batschinski lines and the pseudo-Gruneisen parameter $\gamma$ of a van-der-Waals fluid were analyzed. In the critical point, the van-der-Waals fluid has $\gamma=8/3$, corresponding to a soft sphere particle system with exponent $n=14$.'
author:
- 'V.V. Brazhkin'
- 'V. N. Ryzhov'
title: 'Van-der-Waals supercritical fluid: Exact formulas for special lines'
---
A liquid-gas phase equilibrium curve onto the $T,P$ - plane ends at the critical point. At pressures and temperatures above critical ones ($P>P_c, T>T_c$), the properties of a substance in the isotherms and isobars vary continuously, and it is commonly said that the substance is in its supercritical fluid state, where there is no difference between a liquid and a gas. An anomalous behavior of the majority of characteristics are observed in the vicinity of the critical point. The correlation length for thermodynamic fluctuations diverges at the critical point [@[1]]; one can also observe a critical behavior of the compressibility coefficient $\beta_T$, thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, and heat capacity $C_p$: the given properties pass through their maxima under a change of pressure or temperature. Near the critical point, the positions of the maxima of these values in the $T,P$ - plane are close to each other [@[1]]. The same is true for the value of density fluctuations, the speed of sound, thermal conductivity, etc. Thus, in the supercritical region, there is a whole set of the lines of extrema of various thermodynamic values. Each of these lines can be regarded as a “thermodynamical” continuation of the liquid-gas phase equilibrium curve into the supercritical region. The smearing and decreasing (in magnitude) extrema of each of the values form a “ridge” [@[2]; @[3]; @[4]]. A knowledge of the positions of the above “ridges” in the $T,P$ - plane is very important; in particular, it determines a maximum value for such technologically essential characteristics as the dissolving ability of a supercritical fluid, the rate of chemical reactions in a fluid, and others ([@[2]; @[3]; @[4]] and refs therein). It turned out that the experimentally observed lines of the “ridges” are close to an isochores with a slight decrease in density with increasing temperature [@[2]; @[3]; @[4]]. Most studies on the supercritical region focused on examining the “ridge” for the density fluctuations [@[2]].
G. Stanley suggested the name “Widom line” for the line of the maximum of the correlation length isotherms and isobars [@[5]]. Since the lines of the maxima near the critical point merge into one line, the above term was proposed to be used in a wider sense - in reference to the lines of the maxima of all values determined by the second derivatives of the Gibbs thermodynamic potential. The Widom lines for liquid - liquid and more rarely for liquid - gas transitions for a number of systems were considered [@[5]; @[6]; @[7]; @[8n]; @[9n]]. It is a priori unclear how far from the critical point we may say of a single Widom line for all ridges, and how far from the critical point the extrema of particular physical quantities can still be followed. The first part of question may be rephrased as “how far from the critical point the prefactor that appears in the expression of fluctuations, and response functions, in terms correlation length is close to a constant”.
Apart from the Widom line, other “special” lines, separating a fluid state, have been suggested. The Batschinski line [@[8]], sometimes referred to as the Zeno line [@[9]; @[10]], corresponds to a formal coincidence between the equation of state for a fluid and the equation of state for an ideal gas.
For solids, an important thermodynamic parameter is the Gruneisen parameter which reflects the variation of the lattice dynamics under a change of density. For a fluid, one can introduce a pseudo-Gruneisen parameter [@[12]], relating such thermodynamic quantities as the heat capacity $C_v$, thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$ and compressibility coefficient $\beta_T$: $$\gamma = \alpha_P / (C_v \beta_T) . \label{g}$$
It is of great interest to analyze the behavior of “special” lines in a fluid and the pseudo-Gruneisen parameter in the framework of a simple, exactly solvable model. In the present study we have analyzed the properties of a van-der-Waals fluid. The van-der-Waals equation is one of the simplest equations of state for a fluid. In the reduced variables $T_r=T/T_c, P_r=P/P_c,
\rho_r=\rho/\rho_c$ the equation has the form: $$(P_r+3\rho_r^2)(3-\rho_r)=8T_r\rho_r. \label{vdw}$$
![\[fig:fig1\] (Color online) Positions of the maxima of thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P$ and density fluctuations $\zeta_T$ in the ($\rho-T$) (a) and ($P-T$) (b) coordinates. The arrow indicates the approximate end of the “single” Widom line. Thick lines correspond to liquid-gas transition.](Fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![\[fig:fig1\] (Color online) Positions of the maxima of thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P$ and density fluctuations $\zeta_T$ in the ($\rho-T$) (a) and ($P-T$) (b) coordinates. The arrow indicates the approximate end of the “single” Widom line. Thick lines correspond to liquid-gas transition.](Fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
It is well known that the van-der-Waals equation does not reproduces the behavior of real fluids completely and precisely ([@[2]; @[14]] and refs therein). At the same time the van-der-Waals equation can be used to understand the fundamentals of fluid behavior. Besides, this equation is advantageous because exact analytical expressions can be obtained for most of the physical quantities [@[14]]. At the same time, however strange it may look, a supercritical region of the $T,P$ - parameters for the van-der-Waals fluid model has been studied insufficiently. We know of only one study [@[2]] analyzing the behavior of the line of the maximum of density fluctuations $<(\Delta
N)^2>/<N>=T(\partial \rho/\partial P)_T = \zeta_T$. It is found that the position of the line of the maxima of density fluctuations on the isotherms satisfies the equation: $$\rho_r=3-2T_r^{1/3}. \label{ximax}$$ Thus, the above line formally ends at zero density and zero pressure at $T_r=27/8$ (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]). The speed of sound has the form: $$V_s=\sqrt{T/ \zeta_T}=
\left(\frac{6(\rho_r(3-\rho_r)^2-4T_r)}{\rho_r(3-\rho_r)^2}\right)^{1/2}.
\nonumber$$ The line of the minimum of the speed of sound on the isotherms obviously corresponds to the equation (\[ximax\]). In [@[2]] it was supposed that the extrema of other thermodynamic quantities in the isotherms would lie roughly on the same line. However, as we will show below, all “ridges” diverge as one goes even slightly away from the critical point.
Isothermal compressibility in the framework of the van-der-Waals model has the form: $$\beta_T=\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial
P}\right)_T=-\frac{(\rho_r-3)^2}{6\rho_r(-4T_r+\rho_r(\rho_r-3)^2)}.\nonumber$$ The line of the maxima of compressibility $\beta_T$ on the isotherms satisfies the equation: $$T_r=\frac{\rho_r(3-\rho_r)^3}{2(3+\rho_r)}. \label{(3)}$$ This line ends at its own critical point at $T_r = 1.156, P_r
=1.285, \rho_r = 0.646$ (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]). Using a known thermodynamic relation [@[1]], we obtain: $$C_P-C_V=\frac{32T_r}{3(4T_r-9\rho_r+6\rho_r^2-\rho_r^3)}.\nonumber$$ We remind that at $T_r>1$ $C_V=3/2$. It can easily be seen that the line of the maxima of the heat capacity $C_P$ in the isotherms coincides with the isochore $\rho_r = 1$ and is described in the $T,P$ coordinates by the equation: $$T_r=\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{4} P_r, \label{(4)}$$ i.e., represents a direct continuation of the gas-liquid equilibrium line [@[14]] (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]). The thermal expansion coefficient has the form: $$\alpha_P=-\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial
T}\right)_P=\frac{4(\rho_r-3)}{3\rho_r(\rho_r-3)^2-12T_r}.
\nonumber$$ The line of the maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$ in the isotherms corresponds to the equation $$T_r=(3-2\rho)(3-\rho)^2/4. \label{(5)}$$ This above line ends at zero pressure and zero density at $T_r=27/4$ (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]).
![\[fig:fig2\] (Color online) Maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P-C_V$ in the isotherms ((a), (c), (e)) and isobars ((b), (d), (f)).](Fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}![\[fig:fig2\] (Color online) Maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P-C_V$ in the isotherms ((a), (c), (e)) and isobars ((b), (d), (f)).](Fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![\[fig:fig2\] (Color online) Maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P-C_V$ in the isotherms ((a), (c), (e)) and isobars ((b), (d), (f)).](Fig2c.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}![\[fig:fig2\] (Color online) Maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P-C_V$ in the isotherms ((a), (c), (e)) and isobars ((b), (d), (f)).](Fig2d.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![\[fig:fig2\] (Color online) Maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P-C_V$ in the isotherms ((a), (c), (e)) and isobars ((b), (d), (f)).](Fig2e.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}![\[fig:fig2\] (Color online) Maxima of the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha_P$, compressibility $\beta_T$, heat capacity $C_P-C_V$ in the isotherms ((a), (c), (e)) and isobars ((b), (d), (f)).](Fig2f.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
Although all ridges are described by different equations, they are close together near the critical point. For the estimate, the lines of the extrema can be thought as coinciding, if the temperature values on the lines at the same pressure differ by less than 1%. The value of 1% roughly corresponds to the experimental accuracy of a measurement of the respective values and to the errors in the computer simulation data. For van-der-Waals fluid the positions of all ridges for different thermodynamic values merge into “single” Widom line in the $P,T$- coordinates at $T<1.07 T_c$, $P<1.25 P_c$ (see the inset in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b)). Although the line of the maxima of density fluctuations and that of the maxima of thermal expansion coefficient for a van-der-Waals fluid formally go till zero pressures, and the line of the maxima of heat capacity goes to an infinite temperature region, the amplitude of all extrema very rapidly decays if we move away from the critical point (see Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). It is of interest to notice the existence of an additional minimum on the temperature dependence of compressibility $\beta_T$ in the isobars (see the inset in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b)).
As a criterion of actual disappearance of the extremum, one can consider the ratio of a respective thermodynamic value in the maximum or minimum to this value at densities being 10% different from the density in the extremum. If this ratio is below 1.01 (the difference between the extremal value and the “background” value is below 1%), the “ridge” can be thought of as actually smeared. When using the above criterion, the lines of all extrema, in fact, end at rather moderate temperatures and pressures: $T_r ~\sim
1.59, P_r \sim 2.78, \rho_r \sim 0.83$ for $\alpha_P$; $T_r \sim
1.44, P_r \sim 2.13, \rho_r \sim 0.74$ for $\zeta_T$; $T_r \sim
1.73, P_r \sim 3.9, \rho_r = 1$ for $C_p$; $T_r \sim 1.15, P_r
\sim 1.35, \rho_r \sim 0.73$ for $\beta_T$; $T_r \sim 1.28, P_r
\sim 1.84, \rho_r \sim 0.83$ for $V_s$ (see inset in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b)).
The lines of the maxima of most quantities correspond to a decrease in density with increased temperature (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]); only the line of the maxima of the heat capacity $Ñ_ð$ lies on the isochore.
Thus, a “thermodynamic” continuation of the gas-liquid phase equilibrium line for a van-der-Waals fluid represents single Widom line if the temperature moves only 7 % away from the critical point; if the temperature moves further away, it represents a rapidly widening bunch of lines, which in fact ends at $T_r < 2$ è $P_r < 5$.
![\[fig:fig3\] (Color online) The Batschinski lines in the ($\rho-T$) (a) and ($P-T$) (b) planes. Thick lines correspond to a liquid-gas transition.](Fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![\[fig:fig3\] (Color online) The Batschinski lines in the ($\rho-T$) (a) and ($P-T$) (b) planes. Thick lines correspond to a liquid-gas transition.](Fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Let us discuss now the Batschinski line, sometimes referred to as the Zeno line. This line corresponds to the equation $PV/RT=1$. A.I. Batschinski demonstrated that within the van-der-Waals model, the above line will be straight in the coordinates $\rho,T$ [@[8]]. In most studies, the behavior of this line was only analyzed in the $\rho,T$ coordinates for model and real systems [@[9]; @[10]]. At the same time it is of interest to examine not only the behavior of this line but also the behavior of other lines determined by the condition $PV/RT=Z$ both in the $\rho,T$ and $T,P$-planes. Fig. \[fig:fig3\] presents the lines satisfying the conditions $PV/RT=Z$ for a van-der-Waals fluid, obtained from the equation: $$T_r=\frac{3\rho_r(3-\rho_r)}{8-k(3-\rho_r)}. \label{bl}$$ For the Batschinski line, we have the expression $T_r=\frac{9}{8}
(3-\rho_r)$. In this case, it should be taken into account that the condition $PV/RT=Z$ in the reduced units has the form: $\frac{P_r}{\rho_r T_r}=k$, where $k=8/3$ corresponds to the condition $PV/RT=1$. The behavior of the lines if $PV/RT<1$ and $PV/RT>1$ is quite different. The Batschinski line, determined by the equation $PV/RT=1$, separates two regions of a fluid: a “soft” low density fluid with the predominance of the attractive potential as compared to an ideal gas, where $PV/RT<$1, and a more “rigid” higher density fluid with the predominance of the repulsive potential as compared to an ideal gas, where $PV/RT>1$ (see Fig. \[fig:fig3\]). Therefore, the line $PV=RT$ can be called “separatrix”. The Batschinski separatrix is the only line of the given family which ends at zero density and pressure, where it coincides with the ideal gas regime. The Batschinski separatrix for the van-der-Waals fluid ends at $T_r=27/8$, i.e., the same temperature at which the lines of the maxima of density fluctuations and minima of the speed of sound end. This coincidence is related to the fact that these lines correspond to the zero of the second pressure derivative of the density. For an ideal gas, this derivative is equal to zero at all temperatures, so the line of the maxima of the value $\zeta_T$ at zero density corresponds to the ideal gas equation $PV=RT$ as well.
Finally, let us analyze the behavior of a pseudo-Gruneisen parameter for a van-der-Waals fluid. Using the equation (\[g\]) we have: $$\gamma= \frac{16}{3}\frac{\rho_r}{(3- \rho_r)}. \label{gvdw}$$ For the majority of real substances, the Gruneisen parameter varies in the range from 0.5 to 3, i.e., the van-der-Waals fluid in the region of “normal” densities (2-2.5) for liquids has anomalously high Gruneisen parameter values. For a system of particles with a purely repulsive exponential interaction (soft sphere system), the Gruneisen parameter value can easily be deduced: $\gamma= (n+2)/6$, where $n$ - is the exponent of the repulsive potential. Thus, $\rho_r=3$ limit obviously corresponds to hard sphere system ($n=\infty$). At the critical point, $\gamma=8/3\approx 2.67$, that is, coincides with the value for a for soft sphere system with $n=14$, which is close to the exponent in the repulsive part of Lennard-Jones potential ($n=12$). The behavior of real rare gas substances, too, is well described by the potential of soft spheres with $n=12-13$. Thus, the melting curve for argon coincides, to a high accuracy, with that for a soft sphere system with $n=12.7$ [@[17]]. Rare gas solids and fluids also have typical values of the Gruneisen parameter $\gamma\sim 2.3-2.6$ [@[12]; @[18]]. Thus, the van-der-Waals fluid near the critical point has the Gruneisen parameter values close to those for real rare gas fluids. In this regard, a success in the description of the properties of rare gas fluids by van-der-Waals equation in the vicinity of the critical point can better be understood.
Summing up, one can conclude that in the framework of the van-der-Waals equation it has been possible to obtain exact analytical expressions for the “special” lines in the region of a supercritical fluid and for the pseudo-Gruneisen parameter. The qualitative inferences made in the present study will obviously be valid for real simple fluids as well. This is particularly true of the conclusion about how far from the critical point we may establish a single Widom line for different thermodynamic values, and how far from the critical point the extrema of particular physical quantities can still be followed. Of course, the behavior of ridges for thermodynamic values may be different and depends on corresponding equation of state [@[6]; @[7]; @[8n]; @[9n]]. However, as for the liquid-gas transitions at enough high pressures ($P_r
>10$), it is dynamic, not thermodynamic, characteristics that should be considered when separating a fluid into liquid-like and gas-like regions.
The authors wish to thank S.M. Stishov, A.G. Lyapin and Yu.D. Fomin for valuable discussions and referees for kind suggestions. The work has been supported by the RFBR (No 11-02-00303, No 10-02-01407 No 11-02-00341), Russian Federal Programs 02.740.11.5160 and 02.740.11.0432), and by the Programs of the Presidium of RAS.
[99]{} H. E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena (Oxford University Press, Oxford) 1971.
K. Nishikawa, K. Kusano, A.A. Arai, and T. Morita, J. Chem. Phys. [**118**]{}, 1341 (2003).
K. Nishikawa and T. Morita, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**316**]{}, 238 (2000).
T. Sato, M. Sigiuama, K. Itoh et al, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 051503 (2008).
L. Xu, P. Kumar, S.V. Buldyrev [*et al*]{}, PNAS [**102**]{}, 16558 (2005).
G. Franzese and H.E. Stanley, J. Phys : Condens. Matter 19, 205126(2007).
S. Artemenko, T. Lozovsky, and V. Mazur, J. Phys : Condens. Matter 20, 244119 (2008).
P. Kumar, G. Franzese, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 105701 (2008).
P. Kumar, G. Franzese, and H. E. Stanley, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 244114 (2008).
A. Batschinski, Ann. Phys. 119, 307 (1906).
D. Ben-Amotz and D.R. Herschbach, Isr. J. Chem. 30, 59 (1990).
J. Xu and D.R. Herschbach, J. Phys. Chem. 96, 2307 (1992).
S.K. Kor, U.S. Tandon, and B.K. Singh, Phys. Lett. A 38, 187 (1972).
M.N. Berberan-Santos, E.N. Bodunov, and L. Pogliani, J. Math. Chem. 43, 1437 (2008).
S.M. Stishov, ZHETP 103, 276 (2006).
J.B. Lurie, J. Low Temp. Phys. 10, 751 (1973).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Quantum system characterisation techniques represent the front-line in the identification and mitigation of noise in quantum computing, but can be expensive in terms of quantum resources and time to repeatedly employ. Another challenging aspect is that parameters governing the performance of various operations tend to drift over time, and monitoring these is hence a difficult task. One of the most promising characterisation techniques, gate set tomography (GST), provides a self-consistent estimate of the completely positive, trace-preserving (CPTP) maps for a complete set of gates, as well as preparation and measurement operators. We develop a method for performance optimisation seeded by tomography (POST), which couples the power of GST with a classical optimisation routine to achieve a consistent gate improvement in just a short number of steps within a given calibration cycle. By construction, the POST procedure finds the best available gate operation given the hardware, and is therefore robust to the effects of drift. Further, in comparison to other quantum error mitigation techniques, it builds upon a one-time application of GST. To demonstrate the performance of this method on a real quantum computer, we map out the operations of six qubit pairs on the superconducting *IBM Q Poughkeepsie* quantum device. Under the restriction of logical-only control, we monitor the performance of the POST approach on a chosen CNOT gate over a period of six weeks. In this time, we achieve a consistent improvement in gate fidelity, averaging a fidelity increase of 21.1% as measured by randomised benchmarking. The POST approach should find wide applicability as it is hardware agnostic, and can be applied at the upper logical level or at a deeper pulse control level.'
author:
- 'G. A. L. White$^\dagger$'
- 'C. D. Hill$^\dagger$'
- 'L. C. L. Hollenberg$^\dagger$'
bibliography:
- 'references5.bib'
title: 'Performance optimisation for drift-robust fidelity improvement of two-qubit gates'
---
Introduction
============
The nascent field of quantum computing has seen an emergence of many experimentally realised small-scale devices in recent years, most notably in superconducting qubit systems and trapped atomic spins [@sandia-GST; @Arute2019; @IBM-53; @intel-49; @rigetti-19]. Different architectures have achieved high fidelity one and two-qubit gates, as well as the construction of multi-qubit entangled states [@Barends2014; @Zeuner2018; @PhysRevLett.117.140501; @He2019; @Hong2019; @Kjaergaard2019; @Bradley2019; @Arute2019]. Despite this progress, current hardware cannot yet demonstrate large-scale topological quantum error correction below threshold, and there are many significant obstacles to overcome before qubit numbers can be scaled up to useful levels. Quantum computers presently face the challenge of imperfections in state-preparation, measurement errors, and erroneous logical gates. Before improvement can be achieved, comprehensive characterisation techniques are essential in mapping where deficiencies lie.
Noise on real quantum devices is challenging to understand quantitatively. In particular, it is difficult to isolate device behaviour given the tendency of noise and system parameters to *drift* [@Klimov2018; @Fogarty2015; @Chow2009]. This is one of the many barriers facing the improvement of quantum hardware. Common characterisation techniques such as quantum process tomography (QPT) [@PhysRevLett.78.390] and randomised benchmarking (RB) [@PhysRevA.77.012307] offer an insight into the quality of a qubit, but suffer from respective self-consistency and limited-information issues. Gate set tomography (GST), introduced in [@gst-2013; @PhysRevA.87.062119], provides a relatively novel method in which the preparation, gate, and measurement operations can be implemented in conjunction with each other and separately characterised. The results can be highly accurate, but with the trade-off that a large number of experiments are required to provide the data. The analysis itself is also computationally resource-demanding. As a consequence, there are relatively few examples of two-qubit GST carried out experimentally in the literature [@osti_1428158; @GST-improvement-china; @Song2019].
Two-qubit gates are the most significant source of error in many quantum circuits, and so minimising their infidelity is critical to the performance of quantum algorithms. In this manuscript, we develop a method for performance optimisation seeded by tomography (POST) to consistently improve two-qubit CNOT gates based on a hybrid quantum-classical approach. We characterise the bare two-qubit logic gate using GST, find the optimal corrective parameters within a given noise parametrisation model based on bookend single-qubit unitaries, and then use these as a seed to the Nelder-Mead algorithm in order to find the best improvement for a given calibration cycle. Following the one-time overhead of GST, each daily optimisation is performed in a small ($<$150) number of experiments to overcome any drift which has occurred. We test the method on the *IBM Q Poughkeepsie* quantum device. The coupling of the GST seed with classical optimisation is successful at improving the gate. When tested on an experimental device, we find the POST approach is effective even weeks after the initial characterisation. The hybrid technique brings the gate as close as possible to its target, up to the hardware limit, but the actual effectiveness depends on the level of control afforded. Although GST has previously been proposed as part of a quantum error mitigation protocol in [@GST-improvement-china] and [@Endo2018], we emphasise the need to avoid repeated application of GST in any gate-improvement techniques, owing to its extremely high experimental and computational overheads.
We performed our experiments on an IBM cloud-based quantum computer with only logical-level control. As a consequence, corrections to the CNOT could only be made through single qubit gate corrections, which themselves were erroneous. With control of the CNOT pulse scheme, the corrections could be more effective.
In addition to the testing of the POST gate improvement scheme on a specific two-qubit case, we also conducted two-qubit GST experiments on six separate CNOT gates as an investigation into the performance and types of noise to occur on real superconducting devices. Understanding the real noise that occurs on devices is important for several reasons: It can help inform future characterisation, which results in these procedures being less computationally expensive; it can help understand noise channels, which is important for quantum error correction [@OBrien2017]; and it can help identify hardware issues up on a real machine for better future implementation [@sandia-GST]. We present these results, as well as a theoretical evaluation of the effectiveness of our technique on the additional qubit pairs.
An overview of gate set tomography
==================================
Gate set tomography is a hardware-agnostic method of characterising quantum operations. This section provides a brief overview of its methodology – for a comprehensive guide to the techniques involved, see [@intro-GST; @sandia-GST]. In this work, we operate in the Pauli transfer matrix (PTM) representation of quantum channels. The matrices in this representation are mappings of the Stokes vector of a given density matrix. For some map $\Lambda$, whose action on a density matrix $\rho$ has a Kraus decomposition $\Lambda\left(\rho\right) = \sum_i K_i\rho K_i^\dagger$, this matrix representation is given by: $$(R_\Lambda)_{ij} = \text{Tr}\left(P_i\Lambda\left(P_j\right)\right),$$ where the $P_{i,j}$ refer to the normalised, ordered set of Pauli matrices spanning the $d^2-$dimensional space of bounded linear operators on some Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}_d$. That is, the $n-$qubit basis is the set $$\mathcal{P}_n = \{I/\sqrt{2}, X/\sqrt{2}, Y/\sqrt{2}, Z/\sqrt{2}\}^{\otimes n}$$ The maps are can be visualised as isolating eigenvectors of the $P_j$ as the input, and taking the $P_i$ expectation value of the output. Applying the superoperator formalism makes this picture more convenient. Here, density matrices are represented as $d^2$-dimensional vectors $|\rho\rangle\rangle$ on a Hilbert-Schmidt space with inner product $\langle\langle\rho_1|\rho_2\rangle\rangle = \text{Tr}(\rho_1^\dagger\rho_2)$. This allows the action of quantum channels to be given by ordinary matrix multiplication. The $k$th component of these vectors is equal to $\text{Tr}(P_k\rho).$ The operational action is given by $|\Lambda(\rho)\rangle\rangle = R_\Lambda |\rho\rangle\rangle$ and map composition by $R_{\Lambda_2 \circ \Lambda_1} = R_{\Lambda_2}\cdot R_{\Lambda_1}$.
The only experimentally accessible quantities in a laboratory are measurements of a quantum state. For example, after a sequence of quantum operations $G$, many measurements are taken in order to form an estimate of $$\langle\langle E|G|\rho\rangle\rangle$$
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
for some preparation Hilbert-Schmidt vector $|\rho\rangle\rangle$ and some measurement effect $\langle\langle E|$. Quantum process tomography is a technique which provides an estimate for $G$ by acting the operator on a complete set of preparations, followed by a complete set of basis measurements. This style of characterisation assumes perfect state preparation and measurement (SPAM). When SPAM errors are not negligible, however, QPT produces gate estimates considerably far away from the true maps [@intro-GST]. This is particularly an issue since the primary source of error in current quantum computers are SPAM errors. RB curves administer a metric for the quality of a gate operation, but provide no information as to how that gate might be improved. Furthermore, since it is insensitive to SPAM errors, there is little or no information produced about the character of SPAM on a device. The ideal characterisation should produce an accurate picture of all quantum channels, including projection operations.
GST aims to fully characterise a complete set of gates. The self-consistency in this method is achieved by including the preparation and measurement operations within the gateset $\{|\rho\rangle\rangle,\langle\langle E|,G_0,G_1,\cdots\}$. A set of gates is chosen firstly as the object of characterisation. The only requirement is that these operations (or their compositions) generate an informationally complete set of preparations and measurements. That is, they form a complete basis of the Hilbert-Schmidt space. These SPAM operations are known as *fiducials*, and are denoted by $\mathcal{F} = \{F_0,F_1,...,F_n\}$. They are optimally selected to form the most mutually distinguishable informationally complete set. Further, a set of gate compositions $\mathcal{G} = \{g_0,g_1,...,g_n\}$ is generated. The elements of this set are termed *germs*, and each comprises a sequence of operations from the gateset. Gates contain a large number of free-parameters, and the emergence of errors in these depend on the input state, sequence of operations, and basis in which a measurement is made. Germs are chosen from an extensive search such that a possible error in each gate parameter may be amplified and made detectable by the repetition of at least one germ. In order to reduce the statistical error in detecting noise, each germ is repeated $L$ times for many different values of $L$. When every possible noisy parameter is made detectable, the germs set is termed *amplificationally complete* [@sandia-GST]. For all values of $i,j,k,$ and $L$, the experimental data are then collected in the object $$\label{GST_object}
p_{ijk}^L = \langle\langle E| F^{(\text{prep})}_i g_j^L F^{(\text{meas})}_k|\rho\rangle\rangle.$$
Linear inversion can provide an estimate of each gate at this point, but there is no natural way to include physicality constraints or to select the correct gauge. A maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) is therefore performed to provide the best estimate for the experimental gateset, consistent with (\[GST\_object\]), which obeys the conditions of complete positivity and trace preservation.
GST provides a device-independent estimate of the quantum channel. Like all characterisation processes, it assumes a model of the physical process taking place. The model assumption is purely Markovian, including zero leakage and weak environmental couplings – that maps are composable and without context dependence. When violations of these model assumptions show up in the data, the non-Markovianity is then flagged and the data artificially deprecated. It is for this reason that the GST estimates must be treated with care: in physical terms, a quantum operation cannot necessarily be treated in isolation and a circuit decomposed into its constituent maps.
Improvement of gate-set parameters
==================================
The CPTP map of quantum gates given by GST highlight all Markovian errors in the operation. Examples of errors of this nature include control errors, such as axis tilt or errors in pulse shaping, or erroneous coherent rotation of the qubits due to external couplings.
The best method in which to address these noisy parameters depends on the level of control afforded in the device. Given the recent advent of cloud-based NISQ computers, where users only have restricted control of the device, the POST protocol introduced here makes use only of additional logical operations on the qubits (although we note in the conclusion that the extension to high-level pulse control is possible). At the time of the experiments, this was the only control available to the authors, and so the only scheme examined. With pulse level control, provided by IBM through OpenPulse, however, the proposed blueprint could be straightforwardly modified to absorb the corrections into the definition of the gate – rather than applying logical corrections around it. We summarise the overall POST procedure in Figure \[flow-chart2\], and describe it in further detail here.
GST provides a means by which errors can be identified, but it is not necessarily straightforward to then mitigate their effects. Errors occurring on two-qubit gates such as a CNOT tend to be an order of magnitude greater than those of single qubits. From the perspective of logical corrections, it is therefore optimal to address two-qubit noise with the application of single-qubit gates.
Consider a quantum device with an informationally complete set of two-qubit controls. This can be used to conduct a GST experiment in the standard way on a qubit pair. The GST analysis of a CNOT produces an estimate for the CPTP map of the experiment, designated by $\bar{G}_{CX}$. This can be decomposed into a the product of an ideal CNOT, $G_{CX}$, and some residual noise channel $G_\Lambda$ – the inverse of which is generally unphysical [@inverseCP]. Previous approaches have typically treated this noise with quasiprobability decompositions [@Temme2017]. In the case of solely logical control, the nearest physical corrective $G_\Lambda^{-1}$ map may not be within the user’s control-set. Importantly, given gate calibration and general hardware drift, a GST estimate’s accuracy quickly expires over time. Solely utilising GST will require a significant overhead every time the corrections are implemented. From this, it is clear that GST on its own faces limitations as a practical method of improving gates.
Without direct control of the hardware, correcting all two-qubit errors will not be possible, since these corrections will contain associated errors equal or greater in magnitude than the existing ones. In this control regime we propose placing single qubit corrective gates before and after the native CNOT in order to correct as much of the local noise as possible, and then optimising over their parameters. Using a unitary parametrisation for the four correction gates $U_i$ ($i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$) $$\label{unitary-param}
U_i(\theta_i,\phi_i,\lambda_i) = \begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\theta_i/2) & -e^{i\lambda_i}\sin(\theta_i/2) \\
e^{i\phi_i}\sin(\theta_i/2) & e^{i\lambda_i+i\phi_i}\cos(\theta_i/2)
\end{pmatrix},$$ We propose a super-logical CNOT gate structured as
$$\label{twelve_param}
(U_1\otimes U_2)\cdot \bar{G}_{CX} \cdot (U_3\otimes U_4),$$
provided that the cumulative error of four single qubit gates is not greater than one two qubit gates. In the case of high single qubit error rates (or cross-talk between simultaneous gates), a similar approach can be made by applying local corrections exclusively on the control qubit, at the expense of more limited noise-targeting. That is, $$\label{six_param}
(U_1\otimes \mathbb{I})\cdot \bar{G}_{CX} \cdot (U_2\otimes \mathbb{I}).$$ In order to clearly see the difference between corrections on both qubits versus corrections acting solely on the control qubit, we illustrate the addressable parts of the CNOT matrix in green in Figures \[noise-fig\]c and \[noise-fig\]d.
The $\phi_i,\:\theta_i,\:\lambda_i$ are first selected with a simple optimisation to minimise the Frobenius distance between the corrected gate and the ideal map, $${\ensuremath{\left|\right| U_1\otimes U_2 \cdot \bar{G}_{CX} \cdot U_3\otimes U_4 - G_{CX} \left|\right|_F}}.
\label{frob-dist}$$
If the GST estimates of a quantum process were perfect and static with time, then this would be sufficient to have an improved CNOT gate. However, because GST is only an estimate of a Markovian map within a (generally) non-Markovian system, a simple mathematical minimisation will not necessarily result in a physical optimisation.
Instead, what we propose is a tune-up procedure which optimises the *performance* of the gate by using GST to identify the most critical parameters. As such, it is robust to the drift of different noisy parameters and does not rely on the absolute accuracy of the GST estimate. The only assumption is that the noisy parameters will remain structurally similar enough to those of the GST estimate, that an optimisation seeded by GST will bring us back to a better gate than the native operation in few iterations. We define our objective function as the RB infidelity of the gate, in order to make use of the most general metric of performance.
{width="0.87\linewidth"}
The algorithm to implement the POST procedure is as follows:
1. Conduct a series of experiments given by the requirements of GST. Use these to produce an output estimate of the gate’s PTM.
2. Using a classical minimisation technique, find the six or twelve parameters which numerically minimise the Frobenius distance between the super-logical and the ideal CNOT gates, given in Expression (\[frob-dist\]). These will be the seed parameters. The choice of the Frobenius distance is not necessarily special, but we elected to use it to make the resulting matrices as similar as possible.
3. Define the objective function to be a probability of success of some length $m$ RB experiment. Taking Step 2. as a newly defined CNOT gate, compute the objective function for both the native and new CNOT gates as a point of comparison. Using the parameters obtained from GST as a seed, perform an optimisation of the CNOT gate by feeding the parameters into the Nelder-Mead algorithm, where for each vertex of the simplex, the $m-$length RB infidelity is computed as the objective function.
4. Converge at some pre-defined level of change. The newly improved CNOT gate is then defined by the composition of the final single qubit unitary gates on either side of the native CNOT gate.
5. Conduct a full RB experiment to compare the new gate fidelity to the original.
The overview of the procedure is to use the GST estimate as a seed for the Nelder-Mead optimisation algorithm, which then works to minimise the infidelity of the CNOT gate by varying the parameters given in (\[twelve\_param\]) or (\[six\_param\]). We take the infidelity measure to be a set of fixed $m$-length randomised benchmarking experiments. In a short number of iterations, this locates the optimal corrective rotations to make for a given day. This process is summarised in Figure \[flow-chart2\]. The flexibility of the procedure is not only its robustness to drift, but generic steps (optimisation procedure, noise parametrisation, objective function) can all be chosen at the user’s discretion.
Experimental Implementation
===========================
We tested the POST framework for CNOT characterisation and improvement on the 20 qubit *IBM Q Poughkeepsie* superconducting quantum device. Two qubit GST was performed on six pairs of qubits with the gateset $\{\mathbb{I},G_{XI}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right), G_{IX}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right),G_{YI}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right),G_{IY}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right),G_{CX}\}$ up to a germ repetition of $L=8$ for a total of 20,530 circuits at 8190 shots each. The layout and connectivity of this device is shown in Figure \[noise-fig\]a. We also indicate the qubits on which experiments were performed. Using the notation ‘control-target’ to indicate the physical qubit pair used respectively as the control and target of a CNOT gate, we characterised the gates of qubits 0-1, 12-7, 14-9, 15-16, 16-17, and 18-19. We then elected to test the POST procedure on the gate which had most recently been characterised, for which the control was qubit $\#14$ and target qubit $\#9$. For the germ generation and MLE steps, we used the comprehensive open source Python package *pyGSTi*, introduced in [@pygsti]. With the tools available, we generated the required germs from our target gatesets, and conducted the analysis of our experimental data. The GST estimate from the 14-9 qubits, used hereon in the POST tests, is shown in Figure \[noise-fig\]b. The resulting noise maps for each additional CNOT gate can be found later in this manuscript, in Figure \[noise-ptms\].
{width="0.89\linewidth"}
Date $\theta_1$ $\phi_1$ $\lambda_1$ $\theta_2$ $\phi_2$ $\lambda_2$
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ------------- ------------ ---------- -------------
31/03/19 (initial GST) 0.046 -1.271 0.480 0.029 0.480 0.393
02/04/19 0.116 -1.234 0.536 0.116 0.545 0.403
09/04/19 0.130 -1.218 0.461 0.084 0.565 0.475
24/04/19 0.116 -1.234 0.552 0.119 0.558 0.415
27/04/19 0.148 -1.208 0.502 0.010 0.530 0.427
29/04/19 0.089 -1.228 0.523 0.071 0.523 0.436
01/05/19 0.218 -1.199 0.552 0.010 0.552 0.365
03/05/19 0.089 -1.228 0.523 0.071 0.523 0.436
10/05/19 0.096 -1.221 0.530 0.079 0.530 0.443
13/05/19 0.141 -1.310 0.497 0.123 0.575 0.488
\*
*Results Summary* – The initial GST analysis of the 14-9 CNOT gate took place on the 31st of March, 2019 and its corrective parameters used as the base vertex for the Nelder-Mead simplex method. The procedure was implemented a total of 12 times over a period of approximately six weeks, corresponding to overlap with approximately 40 different calibration cycles. Figure \[rb\_curve\]a displays a summary of the improvement shown over the native gate with each experiment run, which we define as $r_{\rm u}/r_{\rm c} - 1$ for bare RB infidelity $r_{\rm u}$ and corrected RB infidelity $r_{\rm c}$. In each case, both the corrected and uncorrected benchmarking experiments were conducted in the same job submission to avoid any bias in gate drift throughout the day. The total average improvement was $21.1\%$, with a notable outlier of $61.8\%$ in experiment 10. The median observed improvement was $19.1\%$. In the next section we discuss how this compares to theoretical figures based on the GST estimates. Figure \[rb\_curve\]b is a comparison RB curve showing the decay of an example improved gate over the native fidelity. For clarity and comparison, we also plot example curves with $10\%$ and $0.1\%$ error rates. Note that this RB number is from the overall curve, which is composed of single and two-qubit gates. For these experiments, this partitions into $r = 3/4\cdot r_{\rm CNOT} + 1/4\cdot r_{\rm single}$. To reduce the total number of experiments per day, we did not compute multiple curves with different fractions of CNOT and single qubit gates. Consequently, $r_{\rm u} /r_{\rm c} - 1$ is really $(3/4\cdot r_{\rm u,CNOT}+1/4\cdot r_{\rm single})/(3/4 \cdot r_{\rm c,CNOT}+1/4\cdot r_{\rm single}) - 1$, which is a lower bound for the improvement of the CNOT gate. Given that $r_{\rm single}< r_{\rm CNOT}$ by about an order of magnitude, we do not expect that the figure differs substantially.
The minimised objective function was the average infidelity of 20 randomly sampled RB circuits, consisting of 16 circuit layers in addition to the preparation and measurement layers. Each circuit was run at 8190 shots in order to minimise statistical error in the optimisation. The use of an RB experiment as the objective function is a flexible metric and can be chosen as the user desires. In principle, context-dependence of a gate may affect the versatility of the improved gate, however at this stage RB curves are the most robust assessment of a gate’s performance and require the fewest assumptions.
In the Nelder-Mead method, a dimension 6 simplex with 7 vertices is constructed, with the base vertex given by the GST parameters. The objective function is then evaluated for each point. In our case, we formed a simplex with each vertex designated a distance of 0.1 in each orthogonal direction. What follows are four possible steps known as reflection, expansion, contraction, and shrinking. The scale of each is given respectively by the adaptive parameters $\alpha = 1,\:\beta = 1+2/d,\:\gamma = 0.75-1/2d,\text{ and } \delta = 1-1/d$ chosen from [@Gao2012], where $d$ is the dimension of the search.
The evaluation of the first three are each contingent on what values the objective function takes in previous steps. Rather than submitting a circuit to run at each step before performing the next conditional outcome and then going to the back of the queue, we submitted all possible circuits in the single iteration – in this case, 11 circuits – and then performed the classical steps with the data afterwards. In order to save on computation, we elected to omit the shrink step. After five iterations of no further improvement we would then terminate the algorithm and redefine our gate with the best point.
We used a relatively new form of RB known as *direct randomised benchmarking* (DRB) [@DRB]. In a single circuit, DRB prepares stabiliser states, followed by $m$ randomly selected layers of gates native to that stabiliser, before finally performing a stabiliser measurement to give the success probability. A number of randomly generated circuits can then be used to provide an overall average. The utility of this over Clifford RB is the ability to specify the occurrence of given gates. Here, we randomly generated 20 RB circuits, with CNOT gates composing on average $3/4$ of the total circuit. The average probability of success at length $m$, $P_m$ is then plotted over a series of values for $m$. These points are then fit to $P_m = A + Bp^m$ for fit parameters $A,B$, and $p$. The RB number $r = (15/16)(1-p)$ is then the probability of an error occurring under a stochastic model.
*Tracking Drift* – Operating on the assumption that this method finds the most appropriate corrective parameters on a particular day, we can use this data to loosely quantify the amount of drift on a real quantum information processor (QIP), and *a posteriori* examine our assumptions. The most direct witness for drift in our results is in the slight change of the corrective parameters day-to-day, the quantities of which are provided in Table \[param-table\]. Inspection of these values, however, is not necessarily illuminating. Moreover, the variables do not all independently affect the final map, meaning that change in the parameters themselves might obfuscate the fact that the channel overall has not varied much.
In order to paint a more concrete picture of the effects of the parameters, we study the case of the improved gate as though it comprised three perfect gates. We then compare the diamond distance of this channel from the ideal CNOT, from the initial GST seed, and from the previous experiment. The diamond distance is a means of assessing the distinguishability of two quantum channels. It is a worst-case error rate, taking the largest output trace distance over all possible input matrices. That is, for two quantum channels $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$: $$||\Phi_1-\Phi_2||_\Diamond := \sup_{\rho\in \mathscr{H}^{d^2}} \frac{1}{2}||\Phi_1(\rho) - \Phi_2(\rho)||_1,$$ where $||\cdot||_1$ is the trace distance, a common measure of distinguishability between two density matrices. This metric between channels is commonly used in fault-tolerance calculations for quantum error-correcting codes. Our results are summarised in Figure \[rb\_curve\]c. One of the key assumptions in this method was that the system and its gate noise never changed too much from the initial GST seed that the optimiser could not easily find the best gate for the day. The distance of the corrective channel on a given day from the GST seed supports this stance: over a six week period the mean diamond distance is 0.115, with a variance of $1.44\times10^{-4}$. We also observe between experiments an average change of $0.0273$, flagging the presence of drift and motivating the need for such a scheme in the first place.
*Convergence Speed* – Any error mitigation protocol designed to address drift in a QIP will need to be regularly implemented as part of a tune-up procedure. It is therefore ideal that it require as few experiments as possible. In Figure \[rb\_curve\]d we present how each iteration of the Nelder-Mead optimisation increased the fidelity of the RB experiment for four sample experiments. In each case, a substantial improvement was found in the first three iterations, beyond which we observed only small fluctuations, and zero change after 18 iterations. Each iteration requires 11 circuits to run, and so most of the improvement was found in 22 circuits, with the worst case requiring approximately 200 – depending on when one accepts the algorithm to terminate. Assuming 1 millisecond per shot, POST would take approximately nine minutes to converge in the worst case scenario. Depending on the cross-talk limitations of the device, it could then be run in parallel across all non-overlapping qubit pairs.
{width="0.73\linewidth"}
[@cccccc@]{}
------------------
Qubit pair
(control-target)
------------------
& $r_{\rm single}$ & $r_{\rm CNOT}$ &
------------------------
Theoretical
minimum $r_{\rm CNOT}$
------------------------
&
------------------------
Estimated
minimum $r_{\rm CNOT}$
------------------------
&
-------------------------
Estimated
maximum improvement (%)
-------------------------
\
0-1 & $5.36\times10^{-3}$ & $1.58\times10^{-2}$ & $6.52\times10^{-4}$ & $1.13\times 10^{-2}$ & 38.9\
12-7 & $9.37\times10^{-3}$ & $2.35\times10^{-2}$ & $7.18\times10^{-4}$ & $1.94\times10^{-2}$ & 21.1\
14-9 & $6.19\times10^{-3}$ & $1.91\times10^{-2}$ & $1.97\times10^{-3}$ & $1.43\times10^{-2}$ & 34.0\
15-16 & $5.66\times10^{-3}$ & $2.08\times10^{-2}$ & $1.65\times10^{-3}$ & $1.29\times10^{-2}$ & 60.9\
16-17 & $8.35\times10^{-3}$ & $4.55\times10^{-2}$ & $3.44\times10^{-4}$ & $1.70\times10^{-2}$ & 167.9\
18-19 & $4.55\times10^{-3}$ & $1.76\times10^{-2}$ & $3.97\times 10^{-5}$ & $9.12\times10^{-3}$ & 92.8\
Tomography on other qubit pairs
-------------------------------
In addition to gate improvement on qubits 14 and 9 on the *IBM Q Poughkeepsie*, we also performed GST experiments on five other qubit CNOT pairs on the quantum device. This incorporates a further $5 \times 20,530$ circuits at 8190 shots each. We present this data as a case study for the noise that occurs in a real quantum device, and theoretically assess the effectiveness of the POST technique at mitigating the noise. Here, the fidelities of these gates and their structure indicate whether noise can be addressed by the single-qubit unitaries used. Figure \[noise-ptms\] shows the noise PTMs for each of the six CNOT gates investigated. That is, the GST estimate with the ideal CNOT subtracted off to emphasise the noisy parts of the map. The control and target numbers given refer respectively to the qubits of Figure \[noise-fig\]a acting as the control and target of the CNOT gate under characterisation. We elected to map out these qubits in order to obtain a relatively uniform sample of the full device geometry. It is instructive to compare these matrix plots with the schematics given in Figures \[noise-fig\]c and \[noise-fig\]d, which respectively indicate local target/control, and sole control rotations. PTM noise whose locations are correspondingly indicated in green in the schematics can be explained as a local rotation occurring either before or after the CNOT. For example, the block-like features prominent in 0-1 and 15-16 make up the landscape of Figure \[noise-fig\]d, suggesting a rotation of $Z-$eigenstates of the control qubit into $X-$ and $Y-$ eigenstates both before and after the CNOT. Any noise that falls outside the green of either schematic can be attributed either to decoherence or cross-resonance errors.
We also use this data to estimate the effectiveness of the POST procedure on the other qubit-pairs. First, we provide a theoretical maximum fidelity by computing the minimal infidelity of the corrected CNOT, assuming perfect corrective gates. This figure is not realisable on a physical system, and is intended to illustrate how much noise can be simply eliminated in principle. In practice, it is difficult to estimate how errors in the corrective gates will affect the corrections themselves, and so we may only operate under the best case scenario where the infidelity of the single-qubit gates affects the overall fidelity, but sustains perfect corrections. This upper-bound is likely to well exceed the fidelity actually achieved; it operates under the assumption of perfect GST estimates, and that the only lingering errors will be due to the single qubit unitaries as well as the remaining theoretical infidelity of the corrected gate. For example, the estimated maximum improvement for the 14-9 qubit pair was $34.0\%$, compared to the $21.1\%$ that was actually observed. A summary of the data is provided in Table \[tab:theoretical-improvements\]. It is interesting to note that the value for this qubit pair is the second lowest of the six, indicating much larger potential upside if we were to repeat the experiment on other sets.
Pulse sequences for the implementation of a CNOT gate typically consist of a local pulse to each qubit, as well as an additional cross-resonance pulse coupling the two. We would expect implementing POST with absorbed corrective rotations into the native CNOT pulse sequence would see a much larger increase in fidelity.
Discussion
==========
The transition from mathematical maps to physical operations is not always a seamless one. Besides errors in the GST characterisation, absent a good method of characterising non-Markovian behaviour, assumptions must be made of weak system-environment correlations, composability of operations, and minimal cross-talk between qubits. The emergence of unexpected behaviour from quantum systems means that in-principle operational improvements, such as the direct application of corrections from GST estimates, cannot always be relied upon. We have presented a general quantum-classical hybrid method which uses the real-life performance of the gate as the feed-forward for corrective updates. The success of the procedure is therefore self-fulfilling.
Randomised benchmarking is a robust method of measuring the Markovian fidelity of a given operation. However, in a system with environmental back-action or context dependent gates, it is not clear whether the situation will always be so simple as transplanting a redefined gate into a quantum circuit and seeing an increased fidelity in this new context. The markedly better performance of quantum algorithms consisting of these redefined gates remains to be demonstrated and will be the subject of future work. In particular, the POST algorithm would be easily adapted to any characterisation technique more inclusive of non-Markovian behaviour.
Developing high-fidelity gate hardware is imperative for the field of quantum computing to achieve its ambitious aims. An underrated measure of device quality, however, is *consistency* – the ability to achieve reported minimal error rates again and again despite gradual changes in device parameters and system-environment correlations. In this work we presented a consistent method that combines an initial overhead of gate set tomography with a classical optimisation algorithm that delivers an improved two-qubit gate in relatively few experiments. We emphasise that although POST was tested on an *IBM Q* device, it is applicable to any hardware with logical-level control. Furthermore, the method is adaptable to any level of control. The key aspect is identifying noisy parameters from the GST estimate using the afforded set of device controls. In particular, we would expect to see significantly better results with pulse-level control wherein instead of separately implementing the corrective unitaries, they would be absorbed into modifying the CNOT pulse, there would be minimal additional gate errors introduced, or increase in depth.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are grateful to K. Modi and F. Pollock for valuable conversations, and to D. Broadway for figure advice. This work was supported by the University of Melbourne through the establishment of an IBM Network Q Hub at the University, and the Laby Foundation.
references
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe the operation and performance of the difference imaging pipeline () used to detect transients in deep images from the Dark Energy Survey Supernova program () in its first observing season from 2013 August through 2014 February. is a search for transients in which ten 3- fields are repeatedly observed in the $g,r,i,z$ passbands with a cadence of about 1 week. The observing strategy has been optimized to measure high-quality light curves and redshifts for thousands of Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) with the goal of measuring dark energy parameters. The essential functions are to align each search image to a deep reference image, do a pixel-by-pixel subtraction, and then examine the subtracted image for significant positive detections of point-source objects. The vast majority of detections are subtraction artifacts, but after selection requirements and image filtering with an automated scanning program, there are $\sim \NDETECT$ detections per per in each band, of which only $\sim 25$% are artifacts. Of the $\sim 7500$ transients discovered by in its first observing season, each requiring a detection on at least two separate nights, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations predict that $\candFracSN$% are expected to be SNe Ia or core-collapse SNe. Another $\sim \candFracCRAP$% of the transients are artifacts in which a small number of satisfy the selection criteria for a single-epoch detection. analysis shows that most of the remaining transients are AGN and variable stars. Fake SNe Ia are overlaid onto the images to rigorously evaluate detection and to understand the performance. The measured with fake SNe agrees well with expectations from a MC simulation that uses analytical calculations of the fluxes and their . In our 8 “shallow" fields with single-epoch 50% completeness depth $\sim 23.5$, the SN Ia falls to 1/2 at redshift $z\approx \zShallowEffHalf$; in our 2 “deep" fields with mag-depth $\sim 24.5$, the falls to 1/2 at $z\approx \zDeepEffHalf$. A remaining performance issue is that the measured fluxes have additional scatter (beyond Poisson fluctuations) that increases with the host galaxy surface brightness at the transient location. This bright-galaxy issue has minimal impact on the SNe Ia program,but it may lower the for finding fainter transients on bright galaxies.'
bibliography:
- 'DiffImg\_ms.bib'
title: |
The Difference Imaging Pipeline for the Transient Search\
in the Dark Energy Survey
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe [@Riess98; @Saul99] using Type Ia supernovae (SN Ia) has greatly motivated ever larger transient searches in broadband imaging surveys. The associated search pipelines have become increasingly complex in distributing enormous computing tasks needed to rapidly find new transients for , and in processing a wide range of data quality.
A new era of transient searches began in the early 2000s with “rolling searches" in which the same telescope is used for discovering new objects and providing precise photometric measurements of the light curve in multiple passbands. To collect large SN Ia samples for measuring cosmological parameters, the earliest rolling searches include the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS: @Astier2006 [@Perrett2010]), ESSENCE [@Gajus2007], and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey-II (: @Frieman2008 [@Sako2008]). Each of these surveys discovered many hundreds of SNe Ia, about half of which were confirmed. The next generation of rolling searches includes the recently completed [@PS_2002], the ongoing (DES: @DESSN2012), and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST: @Ivezic2008 [@LSST_SciBook]), expected to begin in the next decade. Another advantage of these rolling searches is that there is a complementary wide-area survey with the same instrument; this benefits the absolute calibration by including dithered exposures over the SN fields to inter calibrate the CCDs, regular of standard-star fields, and measurements of the telescope and atmospheric transmission functions.
The goal of this paper is to describe the difference-imaging pipeline () used to discover point-source transients in DES. We present detailed performance results of for single-epoch detections, and for the redshift dependence of discovering and classifying SN Ia light curves. While the search strategy was optimized to find SNe Ia to build a Hubble diagram for measuring dark energy properties, [@DESSN2012], does not depend on the transient type. In addition to SNe Ia, our has found many other transient types including core-collapse SNe (CC SNe), super-luminous SNe (SLSNe: @Papa2015), active galactic nuclei (AGNs), Kuiper belt objects (KBOs: @KBO2015), and a possible tidal disruption event [@Rees1988; @TDE2015].
The challenges for are to produce a high quality subtracted image for each search image by subtracting a deep coadded template, reject a large number of non-astrophysical detections (artifacts) in the subtracted images, develop a workflow to process each night of data in less than a day, and monitor the performance well enough to uncover subtle problems and to determine and biases for science analyses. We use publicly available codes for the core routines needed to determine an astrometric solution, co-add exposures, measure the point-spread function (PSF), align template and search images, perform the subtractions, and fit light curves to a series of SN templates for classification. In addition to these existing codes, we have developed new software tools for automated scanning of subtracted images [@autoScan hereafter G15], detailed monitoring based on artificial SNe overlaid on images, and a workflow to distribute jobs on arbitrary computing platforms.
The essential monitoring element is to inject fake SNe Ia onto galaxies in real images (hereafter called “fakes”). The Supernova Cosmology Project used fakes to monitor the of human scanners in the real-time SN Ia search [@Pain2002], and also to measure the analysis as part of the SN Ia rate measurement. Fakes were later used for real-time monitoring in the Supernova search [@Dilday2008] to measure the of the detection pipeline and human scanning. The Nearby Supernova Factory moved stars on the image to serve as fake transients; they monitored their single-epoch detection and trained their machine learning method that was used to reject large numbers of subtraction artifacts [@SNF2007]. SNLS used fakes in an offline analysis [@Perrett2010 hereafter P10] to measure their and selection biases that impact the Hubble diagram. In the fakes are used to (1) monitor the detection depth, (2) monitor the single-epoch detection from the fraction of fakes that are detected, (3) monitor the for multiple detections that are required for targeting and science analysis, (4) train the automated scanning software (G15), and (5) characterize the performance for a fast Monte Carlo (MC) simulation.
Compared to the use of fakes in previous surveys, an improvement in is that the ideal is predicted from the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the flux measurements, and thus the performance can be rigorously evaluated by comparing the predicted and fake . This prediction, as a function of fake SN redshift, comes from a fast MC simulation that computes realistic light curves without using images or pixels. The fast MC simulation analytically computes the light curve fluxes and their using input from observed conditions, and also from key properties derived from the fakes. The agreement (or lack of) between the predicted and measured provides a robust measure of the performance.
There is another practical motivation for using a fast MC simulation to validate the point-source with fakes. Typical science analyses require large SN simulations that are repeated many times for development, evaluation of systematic , and estimates of contamination from CC SNe. Ideally, such simulations would be similar to the fakes in which calculated light curves are overlaid on CCD images and processed with . The CPU resources for so many image-based simulations, however, would be quite enormous. On the other hand, the fast MC simulation in [@SNANA] can generate close to $10^2$ light curves per second on a single core, which is five orders of magnitude faster than the ideal image-based simulation. Our goal, therefore, is to use a single realization of fakes to characterize the performance for the fast MC simulation; the fast MC can then be used to rapidly generate samples of point-source transients with the same and as an image-based simulation. Although only one transient type (SN Ia) is used to generate fakes for image overlays and processing, the resulting fast MC simulation can in principle be used for any SN type, and more generally for any point-source transient.
The outline of this paper is as follows. An overview of DES and the transient search is given in §\[sec:survey\], and is described in §\[sec:diff\]. The monitoring of single-epoch detections is given in §\[sec:monObs\], including the single-epoch magnitude depths, data quality evaluation, vs. S/N, and the anomalous scatter of flux measurements for objects on bright galaxies. The of multiple detections required for a transient is described in §\[sec:monCand\], including the discovery and the classification . In §\[sec:datamc\] we compare the simulation to data in a preliminary photometric analysis. Comparisons with SNLS and limitations are discussed in §\[sec:discuss\], and we conclude in §\[sec:fin\].
Overview of the Dark Energy Survey and Transient Search {#sec:survey}
=======================================================
The includes a wide-area 5000 optical survey in the southern celestial hemisphere and a dedicated transient search over 27 , both using the Dark Energy Camera (DECam: @DECAM2015). DECam is mounted on the Blanco 4-m telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) and the data are processed by the DES data management system [@DESDM2011; @Mohr2012; @Desai2012] at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). The 570 Megapixel DECam has a 3 field of view and is composed of 62 science-image CCDs, each with 2k $\times$ 4k pixels, and 8 CCDs for guiding. After accounting for CCD gaps and two non-functioning CCDs, the active field of view is .
The transient search is performed in 10 “SN fields” (27 ) that are repeatedly observed in the $g,r,i,z$ passbands. We refer to this part of the survey as . Eight of these fields are observed with few-minute exposure times and are referred to as “shallow” fields; the remaining two “deep” fields are observed much longer (Table \[tb:bands\]). Defining the AB magnitude-depth as the mag where the single-epoch detection has fallen to 50%, the shallow and deep field depths are $\sim 23.5$ and $\sim 24.5$, respectively, and the depth in each band is the same. The SN portion of the DES observing strategy is that the wide-area survey transitions to observing SN fields when the seeing is above $1.1\arcsec$, and, in addition, any SN field (in any band) which has not been observed for 7 days is scheduled with the highest observing priority regardless of the seeing. This 7-day trigger typically results in better data quality compared to the $1.1\arcsec$ trigger. For each SN field, the pointing at a repeat visit is the same to within a few arcseconds. Additional dithered from the wide-area survey are used for the inter-calibration of the CCDs.
On a given night, the number of consecutive exposures ($\Nexpose$) varies with band and field as shown in Table \[tb:bands\]. $\Nexpose=1$ for the shallow $g,r,i$ bands where the sky level is well below saturation. In the deep fields (and shallow $z$ band), $\Nexpose >1$ to limit the sky level to be well below saturation within each exposure. For a shallow field, each observing block is scheduled for all four bands and takes $\sim 20$ minutes with overhead. For a deep field, observing all exposures in each band takes about 2 hours, and would be difficult to schedule such a long block within the constraints of the global DES observing strategy. Each deep-field band is therefore scheduled independently; the total exposure time per epoch ($\Texpose$) is $10$ minutes in the $g$ band, and more than an hour in the $z$ band (Table \[tb:bands\]).
[| l | c | c | c | c |]{} & & Central $\lambda$ & $\Texpose$ (sec) & Template\
& Band & (Å) & per Epoch & $\avgNepoch$\
Shallow & $g$ & 4830 & $1\times 175 = 175$ & 8.0\
& $r$ & 6430 & $1\times 150 = 175$ & 8.5\
& $i$ & 7830 & $1\times 200 = 200$ & 9.3\
& $z$ & 9180 & $2\times 200 = 400$ & 9.3\
Deep & $g$ & 4830 & $~3\times 200 = ~600$ & 5.5\
& $r$ & 6430 & $~3\times 400 = 1200$ & 7.5\
& $i$ & 7830 & $~5\times 360 = 1440$ & 9.3\
& $z$ & 9180 & $11\times 330 = 3630$ & 8.3\
\[tb:bands\]
The ten SN fields are divided into four groups of adjacent fields: three C fields that overlap the Chandra deep fields, three X fields that overlap the XMM-LSS fields, two S fields that overlap SDSS stripe 82, and two E fields that overlap the ELAIS S1 field. The field locations were chosen based on (1) visibility from CTIO, (2) visibility from telescopes in the northern hemisphere to perform follow-up spectroscopy of live targets, (3) galactic extinction, (4) avoiding overlap with extremely bright stars, (5) overlap with pre-existing galaxy catalogs and calibration. A summary of each field and its location is given in Table \[tb:fields\]. The maximum nightly data volume from observing all ten fields is GB, corresponding to just over 5000 CCD images. The average data volume in a typical night corresponds to a few fields. In addition to the SN field , makes use of the extensive calibration data (§\[sss:calib\]) taken as part of survey operations.
[ | l | l rr | c | ]{} & Deep or & & $\Nvisit$\
Field & Shallow & R.A. & Decl. & $g/r/i/z$\
C1 & shallow & 54.2743 & $-27.1116$ & 29/30/30/30\
C2 & shallow & 54.2743 & $-29.0884$ & 28/28/27/28\
C3 & deep & 52.6484 & $-28.1000$ & 25/23/28/27\
X1 & shallow & 34.4757 & $-4.9295$ & 26/27/27/27\
X2 & shallow & 35.6645 & $-6.4121$ & 26/26/25/24\
X3 & deep & 36.4500 & $-4.6000$ & 21/20/22/24\
S1 & shallow & 42.8200 & 0.0000 & 29/29/28/28\
S2 & shallow & 41.1944 & $-0.9884$ & 27/28/28/28\
E1 & shallow & 7.8744 & $-43.0096$ & 27/26/27/26\
E2 & shallow & 9.5000 & $-43.9980$ & 26/26/26/27\
\[tb:fields\]
Science Verification (SV) took place 2012 November through 2013 January, with the goal of ensuring that the DECam performance meets the DES science requirements. During the beginning of SV, the SN fields were observed to obtain initial calibrations and to build templates. The latter part of SV was used to test . Nominal survey operations began in the Fall of 2013. The first season (2013 August to 2014 February) is referred to as Y1, and the second season (2014 August to 2015 February) is referred to as Y2.
The Difference-Imaging Pipeline {#sec:diff}
===============================
All images taken with DECam at CTIO are transferred to NCSA and run through the detrending process to produce images suitable for higher level analyses. For each exposure, all CCDs on the focal plane are processed as a single unit where bad pixels are masked and corrections are applied for bias, flat-field illumination, pupil ghost, crosstalk, linearity, and overscan. More details are given in [@Mohr2012; @Desai2012] and references within. The detrending process is virtually identical for the SN fields and the wide-area survey, and it is similar to a community pipeline used to process DECam data for non-DES observers.
For the SN fields, is run after the detrending and a schematic overview is shown in Fig. \[fig:diffim\_overview\]. In contrast to detrending, is run independently for each CCD in order to simplify the distribution of jobs among CPUs. Many of our stages use publicly available Terapix/AstrOmatic codes[^1][@Tpix2002] including [@SCAMP2006] for astrometry, [@sex1996] to find objects, [@PSFEx2011] to determine the position-dependent PSF, and to sum individual exposures (to make “coadds”) and to align template images to search images. The sub-sections below describe in more detail.
Pre-survey Observations and Analysis {#ssec:preSurevy}
------------------------------------
### Calibration {#sss:calib}
For the results presented here, the calibration[^2] is determined from data taken during SV. The calibration is needed to determine magnitudes for detected transients, which are used to select transients of appropriate brightness for . The calibration is also used to convert the fake magnitudes into fluxes in CCD counts.
During nightly operations, DES typically observes a set of 3 standard star fields corresponding to low, intermediate and high airmass. These are done during evening twilight, and again during morning twilight [@Tucker2007 G.Bernstein et al. 2015, in prep]. These standard star fields are mostly in SDSS stripe 82, but supplemented with additional fields, mostly at decl. $\approx -45^{\circ}$ to $-40^{\circ}$. The stars in these fields, which we refer to as secondary standard stars, have had their magnitudes transformed into the defined DES “natural” system in which the color terms are close to zero. For photometric nights, these well calibrated secondary standard stars are used to determine a nightly calibration consisting of zero points (ZPs), atmospheric extinction coefficients, and color terms needed to transform the photometry from the individual DECam CCDs to the defined DES “natural” system. A set of standard stars within each of the ten SN fields, referred to as “tertiary standards," were calibrated from data taken during the SV period under photometric conditions, using exposures centered on the SN fields plus additional dithered exposures from the wide-area survey; this resulted in typically 100-200 well-calibrated tertiary standard stars per CCD-area in the SN fields (K.Wyatt et al. 2015, in prep). These tertiaries were used to calibrate the template images for (§\[sss:templates\]), and this calibration is transferred to each transient magnitude. The relative calibration between DES fields over large areas has been checked using the stellar locus regression method [@SLR2009; @SLR2014], where consistency of colors is verified at the 2% level. The absolute calibration has been checked at the 2% level using very short DES exposures on a handful of spectrophotometric standards measured by the Hubble Space Telescope. While this early calibration meets some of the DES requirements, extensive efforts continue to significantly improve the calibration for analysis.
### Templates {#sss:templates}
For Y1 we constructed deep coadded templates from the Y2 season, while the calibration is from SV. Starting with the image that has the lowest sky noise ($\SKYmin$), up to 10 epochs are selected with the smallest PSF that have sky noise less than $2.5\cdot\SKYmin$. The average number of coadded epochs per band is shown in Table \[tb:bands\], along with the total exposure time per epoch. In the deep-field $i$ band, for example, the templates include a CCD-average of 9.3 epochs which corresponds to a total exposure of 3.7 hr. With an average of 8 coadded epochs per template, the image-subtracted sky-noise ($\sigSKY$) is only 6% higher compared to using an ideal template with infinite S/N.[^3] Calibrated tertiary standards (§\[sss:calib\]) are used to determine the ZP for each exposure, and the pixel flux values in each exposure are re-scaled to a common zero point, ${\rm ZP}=31.1928$.[^4] The coadded templates are combined with a weighted average of each exposure, and the weight within each CCD is fixed to the inverse of the average sky-variance.
The astrometric alignment was done in two steps. First, the exposures were aligned to the USNO-B1 catalog [@USNO-B] and then coadded to produce an intermediate set of templates in which the alignment is good to $\sim 100$ mas, or 0.4 pixel. These intermediate templates were used to produce an internal DES catalog based on output. Next, the exposures were re-aligned to this internal catalog, resulting in $\sim 20$ mas (0.08 pixel) precision. After this final astrometric alignment, the exposures are coadded again to produce the final set of templates.
Single-CCD Processing {#ssec:proc1ccd}
---------------------
### Astrometry {#sss:astrom}
During SV and Y1, the astrometric solution was obtained for the entire focal plane in the detrending process, using the program and the UCAC-4 catalog [@UCAC-4] as an astrometric reference. While this worked well for the wide-area survey, there were sometimes very poor solutions in the SN fields leading to errors up to an arcsecond. We suspected that bright saturated objects contributed to this problem because of the longer exposure times in the SN fields compared to the wide-area survey.
After Y1, two astrometry updates were incorporated. First, we switched to using a fainter reference catalog in the SN fields, USNO-B [@USNO-B]. Second, rather than using to separately find an astrometric solution for the search and template images, we used the feature allowing a joint astrometric solution for the search and template images. While the absolute astrometric precision of the USNO-B catalog (250 mas) is worse than UCAC-4 (60 mas), the second change ensures good astrometric alignment ($<30$ mas) between the search and template, which is critical for good subtractions.
These changes were not incorporated into the detrending process, and were instead added to . Since is designed for single-CCD processing, a solution is obtained separately for each CCD rather than over the focal plane. The astrometric changes worked significantly better, but a few percent of the processed CCDs still suffered catastrophic failures in the astrometric solution. As a final refinement to eliminate these catastrophic solutions, we used our own DES data to construct a reference catalog (§\[sss:templates\]).
### Overlaying Fakes onto Images {#sss:fakes}
In the next stage, two classes of fake point sources are overlaid on the CCD image. The first class consists of four 20th mag fakes in each band (hereafter called “MAG20” fakes) overlaid in random locations away from masked regions. The resulting S/N from the flux measurements is part of the data quality evaluation (§\[sec:monObs\]).
The second class of fakes, “SN fakes,” consists of SN Ia light curve fluxes overlaid onto the CCD image near real galaxies. The fake SN Ia light curve magnitudes are generated by the simulation [@SNANA], and include true parent populations of stretch and color, a realistic model of intrinsic scatter [@Guy2010; @K13], a redshift range from 0.1 to 1.4, and a galaxy location chosen randomly with a probability proportional to its surface brightness density. All fake SN Ia light curves are generated and stored prior to the start of the survey in order to simplify the overlay software in . The fake SN Ia flux added to the image is determined by a ZP based on the comparison of calibration star magnitudes with their fluxes recovered by . The SN flux is spread over nearby pixels using the PSF found by the program , and the flux in each pixel is smeared by random Poisson noise.
Ideally, fake SNe would be overlaid onto a duplicate set of images so that images with and without fakes can be processed separately. For we did not prepare for this duplication, and therefore care is taken to avoid consuming too many galaxies with fake SNe that can overlap real transients and cause them to be undetected. Fig. \[fig:fakeGal\] shows the fraction of catalog galaxies populated by fake SNe Ia as a function of redshift; the redshift distribution has been sculpted to ensure adequate low-redshift fakes for monitoring without populating more than a few percent of the galaxies at the low and high redshift ranges. At a given epoch, the average number of overlaid fakes per CCD is $\sim 20$. Most of the overlaid fakes are far from peak or at high redshift, and thus only about 1/3 of these are bright enough to be detected.
There are a few caveats regarding the selection of galaxies and the placement of the fake. First, simulated SNe Ia are matched to a real galaxy based on the galaxy ($\zphot$) since we do not have a sufficiently large catalog based on redshifts. To avoid extreme outliers, we remove galaxies that are exceedingly bright or faint for its $\zphot$ value by requiring a brightness-redshift constraint for both the $r$ and $i$ band magnitudes ($m_{r,i}$), $$\mu(\zphot) - 23 < m_{r,i} < \mu(\zphot)-16~,$$ where $\mu(\zphot)$ is the distance modulus for a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\OL=0.7$ and $H_0=70$ (km/s)/Mpc. This caveat has negligible impact because the fakes are overlaid over a wide redshift range and a wide range of galaxy mags.
The second caveat is that the surface brightness profile is assumed to be Gaussian (Sérsic index = 0.5) rather than a more general sum of Sérsic profiles such as a bulge plus disk component. This overly simplistic profile results in fakes placed preferentially near the galaxy cores with inadequate sampling of the disk tails. While this feature may actually help monitor subtraction problems on galaxies, it can result in biased estimates of quantities that depend on the distance to the galaxy core, such as measuring the fraction of SNe correctly matched to its host galaxy.
The final caveat concerns masking of bad pixels. While the placement of fakes is independent of the masking, the analysis presented here ignores fakes in which more than 10% of their PSF-weighted pixels are masked; 7% of the fakes are therefore discarded. For analyses requiring the absolute , such as rates, we can impose masking cuts on the data, or perform additional fake studies to include the effects of masking.
### Image Coadding and Subtraction {#sss:hotPants}
The program is used to co-add the search exposures, and to remap the template to be aligned with the coadded search image. For image subtraction, we use a modified version of the difference imaging program . Our version is an attempt to improve the performance, and is based on the implementation[^5] of A. Becker, which uses the algorithm of @Alard1998 [hereafter AL98], and uses some of their original code. The basic approach in is to transform one image (which we call a template with pixel values $\txy$) so that it can be subtracted pixel by pixel from another image taken at a different time and under different observing conditions. This linear transformation is described by $$t'_{x,y} = \sum^{y-y'=+r}_{y-y'=-r}\quad\sum^{x-x'=+r}_{x-x'=-r}{{k_{x(x-x')y(y-y')}
t_{x'y'}}} \label{eqn:kernel}$$ where $t'_{xy}$ is the convolved image which is subtracted pixel-by-pixel from the unconvolved image. The main computation in involves the determination of the values of the kernel of the transformation $k_{x(x-x')y(y-y')}$. The parameter $r$ is the size of the kernel and $x$, $y$, $x'$ and $y'$ are the pixel coordinates. In general, one should add a constant term to Eq \[eqn:kernel\], but our version makes a global background subtraction of the images before determining the kernel. The kernel is assumed to vary slowly over the image and this variation is described by a polynomial: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{x(x-x')y(y-y')} & = & k^{00}_{(x-x')(y-y')} \nonumber \\
& + & x k^{10}_{(x-x')(y-y')} \nonumber \\
& + & yk^{01}_{(x-x')(y-y')} + ...
\label{eqn:kpoly}\end{aligned}$$ The AL98 algorithm allows a polynomial of arbitrary order, but since we process each CCD separately our version includes only linear terms.
A major difference between our version and the AL98 algorithm lies in the parameterization of the $k^{ij}_{(x-x')(y-y')}$. AL98 parameterize the kernel as an arbitrary number of Gaussian functions of fixed width multiplied by polynomials whose coefficients are parameters to be fit. In routine use, the number of polynomial coefficients is large and comparable to the number of pixels in the kernel. Instead, we have chosen a method similar to that in [@Bramich2008] in which the pixel values in the core of the kernel are fitted without the use of a function to parameterize them. We have, however, retained the Gaussian function for the pixels at the edges of the kernel: the Gaussian form is useful for cases where a large kernel is needed to match images with very poor seeing. While our approach seems more transparent in terms of understanding the fit parameters, we do not have solid evidence that our parameterization results in better subtracted images.
### Detections and Candidates {#sss:detect}
We first measure the PSF to define the detection profile we are searching for, and then PSF-like objects on the subtracted image are found by . Selection requirements in Table \[tb:obj\_cuts\] are applied to reduce the number of artifacts. An object satisfying these requirements is referred to as a “detection."
A “raw ” is defined when two or more detections have measured positions matching to within $1\arcsec$. The two detections can be in the same band or different bands, or on the same night or different nights. All raw are saved, which includes moving objects such as asteroids and KBOs. Requiring detections on separate nights (§\[ssec:pp\]) is used to reject moving objects.
[ | l |]{} (1) ${\rm S/N} >3.5$, although the effective S/N cut from\
is higher ($\sim 5$) as shown in Fig. \[fig:fake\_effSNR\]\
in $35\times 35$ pixel stamp around the detected object:\
(2) fewer than 200 pixels with a flux less than $-2\sigma$ below zero,\
(3) fewer than 20 pixels with flux less than $-4\sigma$ below zero,\
(4) fewer than 2 pixels with flux less than $-6\sigma$ below zero.\
(5) detection not near object in veto catalog containing\
80,000 stars with $r$-band mag $<21$.\
Veto radius is mag-dependent, and total vetoed area\
over all 10 fields is , or % of the area.\
(6) for co-added images, cosmic ray rejection based on\
consistency of detected object on each exposure.\
(7) detected object profile is PSF-like based on the\
`SPREAD_MODEL` variable [@Desai2012]\
(8) [A\_IMAGE]{} $<1.5 \times {\rm PSF}$\
\[tb:obj\_cuts\]
Post-processing {#ssec:pp}
---------------
In addition to the single-CCD operations, there are post-processing steps that operate on all fields and CCDs, and continually update the properties. A few percent of the events land on a CCD in two overlapping fields, and thus single-CCD processing is not a useful concept when constructing from multiple .
In some past surveys, as well as the start of , the first post-processing step was to perform a visual inspection of each detection in order to reject subtraction artifacts that produce false detections. In we use a new machine learning based code to replace human scanning; this “” program is described in detail in G15. The algorithm makes use of the supervised machine learning technique Random Forest. The training sample includes nearly 900,000 detections, half of which were flagged as artifacts by human scanners and the other half are detections of fakes. For each detection, the inputs to include a $51\times 51$ pixel$^2$ detection-centered stamp from the search, template, and subtracted images. The flux and from each pixel on these three stamps contributes $\sim 15,000$ pieces of information. However, rather than using the pixel-level information we found that performs better and faster using 37 high-level features computed from the stamps. The three most important features are (1) ratio of PSF-fitted flux to aperture flux on the template image, (2) mag-difference between the detection and the nearest catalog source, and (3) the `SPREAD_MODEL` output from .
For each object, the program returns a score between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds to an obvious artifact and 1 is for a high-quality detection. While could have been applied before making raw , we have so far been conservative and apply the requirement here in the post-processing in order to fully monitor the performance.
The first post-processing step is to define “science ,” a detection on two distinct nights, each satisfying the [autoScan]{} requirement. Science are the official product of , and as more epochs are acquired these are repeatedly analyzed to select targets (object and host galaxy) for . If there is a future science case requiring single-night detections, we can recover the raw single-night ; the caveat is that during survey operations, only the 2-night science are selected for .
The next post-processing stage is to match each science to a host galaxy, which is later targeted for a redshift. We use the “directional-light-radius” ($\dlr$) method described in [@Sako2014]. Currently the galaxy profiles are approximated by a Gaussian (Sérsic index = 0.5), and will eventually be updated with profile fits to an arbitrary Sersic index. If there are multiple nearby galaxies within $4\times\dlr$ they are all flagged to acquire a redshift.
The next post-processing stage, “forced photometry,” computes the PSF-fitted flux and its for each since the start of the observing season, regardless of whether there was a detection. The flux and are computed at the same coordinates (R.A., decl.) on each subtracted image, and the coordinates are computed as the weighted average from each detection. This stage allows recovering small fluxes just below detection threshold, and fluxes consistent with zero, in order to construct complete light curves. Ideally the program would be used to flag bad subtractions that could lead to badly measured fluxes. However, while the results exist for detections, we do not have the infrastructure to run on non-detections in a manner analogous to the forced photometry. In addition, would need additional training to accept subtractions with no significant detection. As an alternative to , forced photometry measurements are rejected from light curve fitting (below) if (1) the PSF-fitted flux and aperture flux differ by more than $5\sigma$, or (2) within a $1\arcsec$ radius there are 2 or more pixels with ${\rm S/N}<-6$.
The final post-processing stage is to use the program [^6] [@PSNID] to perform photometric classification by comparing each light curve to a series of photometric $griz$ light curve templates constructed on a redshift grid for (1) SN Ia, (2) CC type II, and (3) CC type Ib/Ic. For each -template $\chi^2$ calculation, we discard up to two epochs with the largest $\chi^2$ contribution (if above 10). This outlier rejection helps to avoid bad fits from a few poorly measured forced-photometry fluxes, particularly on bright galaxies as described in §\[sec:monObs\]. A relative probability is computed from each $\chi^2$, and a Bayesian probability is computed for each SN type; the largest probability (${P_{\rm max}}$) determines the type and redshift. If ${P_{\rm max}}< 0.5$, or the best fit $\chi^2$ is poor, the candidate type is flagged as unknown. The probability for each type and the estimate of peak magnitude contribute to the target selection process (§\[sss:liveSpec\]).
Spectroscopic Target Selection {#subsec:spec}
------------------------------
While target selection is outside the scope of , here we give a brief description to give a more complete picture of the program. The two components of targets, host redshifts and live transients, are described below.
### Host Galaxy Redshifts {#sss:zSpec}
The large numbers and faint magnitudes of SNe discovered in overwhelm the available resources for classifying each candidate. However, we can efficiently use multi-fiber resources to measure an accurate host-galaxy redshift for the majority of our SN . Using the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), the OzDES program [@OzDES] is a 100-night spectroscopic survey with the 400 fiber Two Degree Field (2dF) instrument feeding the dual-beam AAOmega spectrograph. The overlap between the field of view of DECam and 2dF is nearly complete. With repeat visits to the same source, spectra are coadded to enable redshift measurements for much fainter galaxies than would naively be expected from a 4 m class telescope; redshifts are obtained for about half of the 24th mag galaxies ($r$ band). In addition to targeting host galaxies for SN , OzDES also targets a variety of DES sources such as AGN to derive reverberation mapped black-hole masses, galaxies for DES photo-$z$ calibration, white dwarfs for calibration, and live transients for typing.
### Spectroscopic Identification of Live Targets {#sss:liveSpec}
The selection for live transients is primarily focused on SN Ia. The selection is based on a visual examination of light curves along with probabilities. The phase estimate is used to give higher priority to near peak brightness. Highest priority is given to with peak $r $ band magnitude $r_{\rm peak} < 20.5$ mag (mag-limited) and to with a photometric redshift below 0.2 (volume limited). These two samples have large overlap, and are expected to be very nearly complete. Lower priority is given to over the full redshift range where we expect to acquire a typing for $\sim 10\%$ of the SN Ia sample. Starting in Y2, transient activity in multiple seasons is used to reject AGN-like .
Telescopes used to confirm transients discovered by include the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) at Siding Springs Observatory in Australia, the 8.2-m Very Large Telescope (VLT) on Cerro Paranal in Chile, the 9.2-m South African Large Telescope (SALT) near Sutherland in South Africa, the 10.4-m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) in La Palma, the Keck 10-m on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, the 6.5-m Magellan Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, the 6.5-m MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona, the 3-m Shane telescope at Lick Observatory in California, the 4.1-m Southern Astrophysical Research (SOAR) telescope at Cerro Pachon in Chile, the 8.1-m Gemini-South telescope at Cerro Pachon in Chile, and the 9.2-m Hobby-Eberly Telescope at the McDonald Observatory in Texas.
Statistics Summary {#ssec:diff_stats}
--------------------
A summary of the first-season (Y1) statistics for single-epoch detections is shown in Table \[tb:obj\_stats\]. The average number of objects per field found by increases with the passband central wavelength. In the shallow fields there are $\sim 100,000$ per field in the $g$ band, increasing to $\sim 170,000$ in the $z$ band. In the deep fields there are 130,000 in the $g$ band, increasing to 270,000 in the $z$ band. A visual scanning assessment shows that more than 90% of these detections are subtraction artifacts. Following the detections on the subtracted image, there is a significant reduction from the selection cuts and . The selection cuts reduce the number of detections by a factor of 3-4 in the $g$ band, and a factor of $\sim 2$ in the $z$ band. The automated scanning provides a further reduction of a factor of $\sim 4$ in the $g$ band, increasing to an order of magnitude in the $z$ band. After all selection requirements and automated scanning, the average number of objects per field in Y1 is $\sim 10^4$ in both the deep and shallow fields, and the artifact fraction is $\sim 25\%$ as determined from a visual scanning assessment.
To determine the average number of detections per square degree for a single-epoch visit ($\ndetect$), the number of Y1 detections ( row in Table \[tb:obj\_stats\]) is divided by 2.7 and $\Nvisit$ from Table \[tb:fields\]: $\ndetect \approx \NDETECTg$ in the $g$ band and $\approx \NDETECTz$ in the $z$ band.
[ | l | l | cccc | ]{} & &\
& &\
& Detection &\
Fields & Stage & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$\
Deep & & 133 & 166 & 277 & 270\
& + selection cuts & 32 & 81 & 172 & 167\
& + & 8 & 8 & 9 & 12\
& /cuts ratio & 0.25 & 0.10 & 0.06 & 0.07\
Shallow & & 98 & 103 & 126 & 173\
& + selection cuts & 29 & 26 & 55 & 92\
& + & 8 & 7 & 9 & 10\
& /cuts ratio & 0.28 & 0.27 & 0.18 & 0.11\
\[tb:obj\_stats\]
The total number of raw in Y1, which requires two detections passing the selection cuts in Table \[tb:obj\_cuts\], is . Requiring two detections on different nights reduces this slightly to . Requiring the two separate-night detections to satisfy the automated scanning reduces the number of candidates to , or a factor of reduction. Table \[tb:cand\_stats\] shows the average number of per deep field and per shallow field.
Following detections, the selection cuts and have a dramatic effect on reducing the number of detections and . This is because the vast majority of the detections are false positives, or artifacts of the image subtraction. These artifacts come from a variety of sources, including bright stars and galaxies, defective pixels, edges of masked regions, CCD edges, and cosmic rays. Some of these artifacts are illustrated in Fig. 1 of G15. The large rejection by costs only a 1.0% loss of fake SNe Ia , mainly for fakes with low S/N at peak brightness. We are therefore confident that is highly efficient for real astrophysical transients.
Subtraction artifacts are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:ds9\] for a deep field image processed by . detections failing selection cuts (dashed red boxes) are the most clearly evident upon visual inspection, while those failing (solid red boxes) are more subtle. In this example, most of the artifacts are around a few bright objects even though most of the bright sources are cleanly subtracted. On average, artifacts are $\sim 1$ mag fainter than real transients. To get an estimate of the artifact rate for bright sources, $\sim 3$% of bright fakes (mag$<20$) fail the detection and requirements. The origin of these artifacts is not understood.
[ | l | cc |]{} Candidate &\
Selection & DEEP & SHALLOW\
2 detections (raw cand) & 18830 & 10410\
2 nights (without ) & 17460 & 8230\
2 nights + (science cand) & & \
\[tb:cand\_stats\]
Classification Summary {#subsec:psnid_summary}
----------------------
Here we show the breakdown of classifications for science (§\[ssec:pp\]). To avoid the noisiest light curves we consider the subset in which three bands each have an with S/N$>5$; this subset is roughly half of all . Applying to the entire light curves for the full Y1 sample results in nearly equal classification fractions ($\sim 1/3$) for SN Ia, SN CC (mostly Type II) and unknown.
While a full Y1 analysis is relevant after the survey, during survey operations is run on newly discovered light curves that have only a few epochs. To illustrate the real-time performance, Fig. \[fig:psnid\_frac\] shows the classification fractions as a function of time the light curve has been observed. ${{\rm MJD}_{\rm cand}}$ is the time when the second epoch is detected, or when the object became a science . ${{\rm MJD}_{\rm ref}}$ represents the current MJD, which we take to be 56,600 in this example. The fits include between ${{\rm MJD}_{\rm cand}}-20$ and ${{\rm MJD}_{\rm ref}}$. When only the early part of the light curve is available for fitting ($-5$ days in Fig. \[fig:psnid\_frac\]), about 70% of the are classified as SN Ia, fewer than 10% as SN CC, and the rest are unknown. When fitting 2 months of the light curve, more than half of the classifications are SN CC.
Data Reprocessing {#subsec:reproc}
-------------------
During Y1, the monitoring of fakes showed a significant that was traced to severe astrometry problems as described in §\[sss:astrom\]. This problem was fixed after Y1, and before the start of Y2 operations all of Y1 was reprocessed in order to recover hundreds of host-galaxy targets that had been missed during Y1. During Y2, the monitoring of fakes showed good performance in the shallow fields, but there were still significant flux-outliers in the deep fields. This problem was eventually traced to the program which determines the PSF used for calculating PSF-fitted fluxes, and it was fixed after Y2.
Both Y1 and Y2 have been fully reprocessed in all ten SN fields, with all fixes. Results presented in this paper are based on the Y1 season, using templates constructed from Y2 images. The reprocessed results are used to discover transients missed during the survey, to update the photometric classification with , and to update the host-galaxy target list for measuring redshifts. While transients discovered in the reprocessing have become too faint to target for , this is not a serious issue because we target only a small fraction of the transients anyway.
Another subtle change in the reprocessing campaign was to fully analyze each exposure in the deep field sequences (in addition to the coadd) to improve the KBO search. In particular, this reprocessing led to the discovery of one of the two Neptune Trojans in @KBO2015, as well as improved orbital fits for both objects. We are currently upgrading to overlay fake KBOs onto the images; these fake KBOs will allow measuring the search , and they will be used to develop improved KBO-finding algorithms.
We do not expect more improvements during the remainder of DES, unless our monitoring uncovers new problems or we improve the subtraction problem on bright galaxies as described in §\[subsec:SB\]. Even without software changes, we may reprocess the data in the future using better templates and lower detection thresholds in order to improve the depth of the search.
Processing Time {#subsec:cpu}
------------------
Using the IBM iDataPlex Carver computational system at NERSC[^7], we give the processing time for the steps in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:diffim\_overview\]. For a shallow field with a single exposure, the processing time for a single CCD is $\sim 10$ minutes, half of which is spent on the program. In the deep fields we perform the subtraction for each exposure as well as the coadded image, and thus the processing time scales roughly with the number of exposures. For a deep-field sequence with 11 $z$ band exposures, the processing time for a single CCD is $\sim 90$ minutes.
The post-processing steps (right panel in Fig. \[fig:diffim\_overview\]) run serially, and the processing time depends on how long the survey has been running. Near the start of a survey season the post-processing takes a few minutes, but near the end of the season it takes several hours.
Monitoring-I: Single Epochs {#sec:monObs}
============================
Here we describe monitoring of the single-epoch detection and data quality, using both the MAG20 fakes and the SN fakes processed by .
Data Quality Assessment {#subsec:dataq}
------------------------
The measured S/N from the MAG20 fakes is part of the data quality evaluation (See Fig. \[fig:SNR\_MAG20\]). We define $\SNRvingt$ to be the average S/N among all of the ($4\times 60=240$) MAG20 fakes overlaid on each exposure, where each S/N is the ratio of the PSF-fitted flux to its . If $\SNRvingt < 20$ in the shallow fields, or $< 80$ in the deep fields, the exposures are flagged to be retaken. In addition, an exposure is retaken if the $i$ band PSF width (FWHM) at zenith is $>2\arcsec$; this seeing value is computed by correcting the measured PSF for airmass and wavelength. These criteria for retaking an exposure are a compromise between data quality in the SN fields and lost observing in the wide-area survey. The largest $\SNRvingt$ values are from high-quality data triggered because there were no within the past 7 days. The lower $\SNRvingt$ values are typically from data triggered by seeing $>1.1\arcsec$ and from at larger airmass.
While $\SNRvingt$ and the PSF are used to determine if an exposure sequence needs to be retaken, the SN Ia fakes are used to determine complementary information about the data quality. For a given epoch, the fakes are used to determine the magnitude depth, $\mhalf$, defined as the mag where the detection has fallen to 50%. Figure \[fig:effTrueMag\] illustrates the determination of $\mhalf$. The $\mhalf$ distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:mageff50\] for each band, and for deep and shallow fields. The variation in $\mhalf$ is from the variation in observing conditions.
Detection Efficiency vs. S/N {#subsec:eff_vs_snr}
----------------------------
The detection as a function of S/N ($\effSNR$) is a crucial input to the MC simulation (§\[sec:monCand\]) and also provides another monitoring metric. We do not attempt a first-principles calculation of $\effSNR$, primarily because of the complicated behavior of that largely defines the detection threshold. Therefore $\effSNR$ is empirically measured from the fakes as illustrated in Fig \[fig:fake\_effSNR\] for the $i$ band. The effective S/N threshold, defined for $\effSNR = 0.5$, is about 5 in each band and is the same in both the deep and shallow fields. Each sub-panel shows the nominal $\effSNR$ curve computed from all of the fake data, along with a systematic test based on splitting the data into two equal-size samples. The probability of detecting a transient depends on the ZP, PSF, and sky-noise through their effect on the S/N, and we expect the detection to depend primarily on S/N. Fig \[fig:fake\_effSNR\] shows that there is no unexpected dependence, which is important because not all of the selection criteria are based on S/N.
Anomalous Subtractions on Bright Galaxies {#subsec:SB}
-----------------------------------------
The final issue is the reliability of forced-photometry flux measurements that are used to classify light curves, both visually and with fitting programs. The average fake fluxes are recovered to within few percent of their true values, which is adequate precision since it is smaller than the model errors used in light curve fitting. We have also checked the reliability of the flux , and found that these are underestimated in proportion to the local galaxy surface brightness (SB) under the SN location; we refer to this effect as the “.” The excess flux scatter can cause problems with monitoring and light curve fitting, and thus we have modeled this effect in both simulations and fitting programs (§\[sec:monCand\]).
To define the SB, we first sum the template flux at the location, using an aperture with $1.3\arcsec$ radius, which contains most of the flux for a typical PSF. The SB flux is defined as the average flux per square arcsecond, and the SB-mag ($\mSB$) is the corresponding magnitude per square arcsecond. For fakes we characterize the quality of the using the rms of $\DF / \sigF$ ($\rmsD$), where $\DF$ is the difference between the measured (forced photometry) flux and the true flux of the fake, and $\sigF$ is the on the forced-photometry measurement. Ideally $\rmsD=1$ in all cases, but we find that $\rmsD$ increases with SB as shown in Fig. \[fig:pullSB\_deep\] for the deep fields and in Fig. \[fig:pullSB\_shallow\] for the shallow fields. For low SB ($\mSB > 24$), $\rmsD$ is very close to unity as expected. For the brightest galaxies where $\mSB \approx 20$, $\rmsD \approx 5$ in the deep fields and $\sim 3$ in the shallow fields.
Figures \[fig:pullSB\_deep\] and \[fig:pullSB\_shallow\] also show rms vs. $\mSB$ separately for dim fakes with $m>26$ (red curve) and for brighter fakes with $m<24$ (blue curve). The consistency shows that this effect depends mainly on the brightness of the galaxy and not the transient source.
Monitoring-II: Science Candidates {#sec:monCand}
==================================
While monitoring the single-epoch detection and data quality are important on a nightly basis (§\[sec:monObs\]), the science prospects ultimately depend on the and our ability to select targets based on a small number of epochs. Here we describe the monitoring of science using SN fakes combined with MC simulations. The basic idea is to use the MC simulation to predict the SNe Ia versus redshift, and compare with the true measured from the fakes.
There are two different to monitor as a function of redshift. The first is the fraction of fakes that become a science ($\effCand$). As long as $\effCand$ is optimal, then even if measures fluxes with many catastrophic outliers an improved offline photometry analysis can make all of the discovered light curves useful for science analysis. However, if there are too many flux outliers then real-time photometric classification becomes more difficult, which complicates the selection of targets.
It is therefore important to monitor a second , the fraction of fakes passing the photometric analysis ($\effPSNID$) used for targeting, which is based on the program [@PSNID]. The key component of the analysis (Table \[tb:PSNID\_CUTS\]) is a requirement on the fit probability computed from the template-fit $\chi^2$, and therefore even a few measured fluxes that are highly discrepant from their true values can cause to reject the light curve. Up to two highly discrepant fluxes (w.r.t. the fit) are rejected, allowing for a small level of subtraction problems. In summary, simply discovering an event is not adequate unless the flux measurements are of sufficient quality to perform light-curve template fitting without suffering significant .
[ | l | l | ]{}
Category & Requirement\
Sampling & 5 or more .\
& 3 bands with at least one S/N$>5$ .\
& An with $\Tobs < -2$ days.\
& An with $\Tobs > +5$ days.\
Fit-$\chi^2$ & Fit prob $\Pfit > 0.1$\
& Reject up to two $3.16\sigma$ data-fit outliers ($\Delta\chi^2>10$).\
Typing & Best fit template (among Ia, II, Ib, Ic) is Type Ia.\
\[tb:PSNID\_CUTS\]
Details of the MC simulation are given in Appendix \[app:mc\], and here we give a brief overview. The MC simulation uses the observed cadence, and the simulated flux and noise are computed from the observing conditions at each epoch: ZP, PSF, sky noise, CCD gain.
While the cadence information is trivially obtained from survey , the MC simulation also needs two inputs based on the fakes processed by . First, we use the vs. S/N ($\effSNR$) measured in each passband, and illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fake\_effSNR\] for the $i$ band. Since there is good agreement between the deep and shallow fields, we use the same $\effSNR$ function in all fields.
The second input from the fakes is a model for the , the anomalous flux that increases with the local surface brightness. The galaxy Sersic profile in the simulation is used to analytically compute $\mSB$, and the $\rmsD$-versus-$\mSB$ curves in Figures \[fig:pullSB\_deep\] and \[fig:pullSB\_shallow\] are used to scale the sky noise as a function of passband, and as a function of deep or shallow field. These same $\rmsD$-versus-$\mSB$ curves are used in the analysis to scale the flux . The analysis results in $\NFAKEPSNID$ fakes passing the selection criteria in Table \[tb:PSNID\_CUTS\] (includes all 10 fields), and a similar number of SNe Ia from the MC simulation.
Figure \[fig:fake\_effz\_shallow\] shows the science- ($\effCand$) and PSNID-analysis ($\effPSNID$) as a function of redshift for one shallow field in each group. The analogous deep-field plots are shown in Fig. \[fig:fake\_effz\_deep\]. In the shallow fields, $\effCand \simeq 1$ for redshifts $z<0.5$, and falls to 50% at $z\simeq \zShallowEffHalf$. In the deep fields, $\effCand \simeq 1$ for redshifts $z<0.8$, and falls to 50% at $z\simeq \zDeepEffHalf$. The overall agreement is good between the fakes and the MC simulation. While we might have expected the to affect the discovery of lower redshift SNe that preferentialy lie on brighter galaxies, we find that the low-redshift are $\sim 100$% and thus the has a negligible impact on discovering SNe Ia. The and its impact are discussed further in §\[subsec:discuss\_SBa\]. The most notable discrepancy is in $\effCand$ for redshifts $z>1.2$ in the C3 deep field, and $\effPSNID$ for redshifts $z>0.8$ in both of the deep fields (Fig. \[fig:fake\_effz\_deep\]). Finally, it is worth noting that prior to the final reprocessing the fake were significantly worse than the MC prediction for the reasons described in §\[subsec:reproc\].
What are the Science Candidates ? {#subsec:cands}
----------------------------------
Here we give a very approximate breakdown for the 7500 science discovered by in Y1, where each requires a detection on 2 separate nights with no other selection requirements. First we use our MC simulation to predict the SN contribution (Ia+CC; see Appendix \[app:mc\]) and we include events that reach peak brightness well before and after the Y1 season. We find SNe, where the is from the rate measurements, and nearly 60% of the SNe are Type Ia. This SN contribution corresponds to about % of the .
A non-astrophysical , or artifact, is defined as a in which more than half of the detections fail the automated scanning requirement (§\[ssec:pp\] and G15). Using this arbitrary but illustrative definition, $\sim \candFracCRAP$% of the science are artifacts (i.e., $\sim 2300$ in Y1), compared with 1.5% of the fakes. These artifacts become a science because of the relatively loose requirement of only 2 detections passing the selection requirements and automated scanning. The relatively small number of artifacts does not cause problems during survey operations, and thus we choose to reject them with offline analysis software rather than trying to reduce the number of science .
For the remaining science , a preliminary assessment of the OzDES spectral classifications shows that they are mostly AGN and variable stars.
Reality Check: Data-MC Comparison {#sec:datamc}
=================================
Since the results presented so far are based on fakes and simulations, here we perform a reality check and compare the -based MC simulation to Y1 data, where the MC simulation is a mix of SNe Ia and CC SNe as described in Appendix \[app:mc\]. Recall that the MC simulation has input from fakes processed by , but there is no tuning with real science . Here we make a data-MC comparison for the photometric redshift distribution ($\zphot$) of a photometrically selected SN Ia sample, using only the SN light curve information. We do not use any confirmed typing information, nor do we use any host-galaxy redshifts.
For this comparison we do not use the selection criteria in Table \[tb:PSNID\_CUTS\]. Instead, we use a more stringent analysis designed to photometrically select a highly pure SN Ia sample. We fit both the data and MC samples with the model [@Guy2010] using the photo-$z$ technique described in [@K10_zphot]. Finally, the fit parameters are used in a nearest neighbor (NN) analysis similar to that described in [@Sako2014]. Details of the analysis are given in Appendix \[app:photana\], and the resulting $\zphot$ comparison is shown in Fig. \[fig:zphot\]. The high-redshift roll-off in the $\zphot$ distributions is mainly from the requirement that three bands each have an with S/N$>5$. The overall agreement is reasonable, except for $z>1$ in the deep fields. This data-MC discrepancy will be monitored as we continue to improve photometric classification methods and the simulation.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
Comparison of Search with SNLS {#subsec:SNLS}
------------------------------
Here we make some rough performance comparisons between the SNLS and deep field search for SNe Ia. These two surveys have similar depths and passbands, and they each measured their with fake SNe Ia overlaid on images. While the trigger requires 2 epochs in any band, the SNLS trigger requires a single detection in the Megacam $i_M$ band. For the single-epoch detection , Fig. 9 of P10 shows that the magnitude at 50% is $\mhalf = 24.3$ in the $i_M$ band for an exposure time of 3640 s.[^8] This depth is very similar to our average DES $i$ band depth, $\mhalf = 24.5$ (Fig. \[fig:mageff50\]), using 1440 s exposures.
P10 also measure the vs. redshift for finding fake SNe Ia. Both the P10 and simulations predict the observed color and stretch distribution for SNLS, and thus the two simulations are consistent in describing the parent populations of stretch and color. Fig. 10 of P10 shows that $\effCand=50\%$ at $z\simeq 0.95$, slightly below the corresponding redshift $z\simeq \zDeepEffHalf$.
{#subsec:discuss_SBa}
As described in §\[sec:monObs\], our image subtractions degrade with increasing galaxy surface brightness, leading to increased flux scatter (see Figsures \[fig:pullSB\_deep\] and \[fig:pullSB\_shallow\]). The origin of this has not been identified, but we speculate that it may be caused by an underestimate of the pixel flux errors in resampled images in the vicinity of bright galaxies. In particular, resampling introduces pixel-to-pixel correlations in the galaxy profile which are not included in our estimate of the PSF-fitted . Other possibilities include subtle problems in the astrometric solution, the PSF determination, or the coadding of exposures.
To check for the possibility that we introduced the in our customized version of , we have run a few tests using the publicly available version. We find that the subtracted images look very similar, and that our version results in notably fewer outlier fluxes. We are therefore confident that we have not introduced bugs to cause the .
In the literature on transient-search pipelines we could not find a quantitive analysis on the effect of subtractions on bright galaxies. However, there are some interesting clues in the final-photometry results reported by and SNLS. In the recent cosmology analysis, which uses the same underlying subtraction technique as our , their light curve fits have a reduced $\chi^2$ distribution with a larger high-side tail than expected (see Fig 6 in [@Rest2014]). They attribute this effect to subtraction artifacts on bright galaxies, which is similar to our .
In the SNLS final photometry [@Astier2013], they use a scene modeling technique with stacked images, originally developed for SDSS [@SMP2008], which does not use resampled images. As a function of total SN + galaxy brightness, they find no evidence for flux bias or scatter (see Figs. 7 and 10 in @Astier2013, which is encouraging that the can be resolved in the offline analysis. It is not clear if their lack of is due to a different photometry method, their astrometric precision being an order of magnitude better compared to our ,[^9] or because they do not probe sufficiently bright galaxies to see the effect.
We are actively developing a final-analysis photometry method similar to that in @SMP2008 [@Astier2013], but the may not get resolved for finding transients with . The ’s impact on discovering SNe Ia, however, is quite limited because of their brightness at low redshifts where the is most pronounced, and because only 2 detections are needed among of the many above-threshold . The main impact is that the larger flux at low redshift slightly degrade the classification performance of the program.
In contrast to bright SNe Ia, the can have a more dramatic effect on detecting and measuring fluxes for faint or fast transients, such as CC SNe or kilonovae. For example, kilonova models for neutron-star (NS) mergers suggest optical signals that are much dimmer redder, and short-lived compared to SNe Ia [@BK2013]. Using to search for such events in very nearby galaxies, the could significantly degrade the detection , and those that are detected could have color much larger than expected from photo-electron statistics, thereby making it difficult to distinguish kilonovae from other astrophysical transients.
To further diagnose the , Fig. \[fig:mlscore\] shows the score distribution for $i$ band fake detections in the two deep fields (X3,C3). [AutoScan]{} assigns a score near zero to a clear artifact, and a score near one to a cleanly subtracted point-source transient; scores above 0.5 are used to make . The upper-left panel in Fig. \[fig:mlscore\] shows the score distribution for all of the $i$ band detections; this reference distribution is strongly peaked near one, showing that most of the detections are from good subtractions. The remaining panels show the score distribution, in bins of $\mSB$, for the small subset of $>3\sigma$ flux outliers. For the brightest SB range ($20<\mSB<21$) the scores are all close to zero, indicating that these are visibly poor subtractions. As the SB decreases, the scores improve. We have checked the distributions of PSF, sky noise and ZP, and find no significant difference between the outliers and the reference; hence there is no apparent correlation of the with observing conditions.
For light curve fitting we could remove the few that fail but we do not currently have the infrastructure to apply this requirement to the many non-detections that are often more numerous than the failures. As described in §\[sec:monCand\], we have chosen instead to model the increased flux scatter and inflate the flux based on $\mSB$.
Finally, we note that our characterization of the bright-galaxy subtraction artifact is a dependence on a single parameter: $\mSB$. While this description is adequate to classify newly discovered SNe for , a more accurate description may be needed for dimmer transients (e.g., kilonovae), and the Hubble-diagram analysis if this effect persists in the final photometry. For example, the could also depend on the exposure conditions and the SB gradient at the SN location.
Host-galaxy Matching {#subsec:hostMatch}
--------------------
The SN science analyses will rely mainly on photometric classification, and the redshifts will come from host galaxy spectroscopy, primarily from OzDES [@OzDES]. The redshifts are very accurate in principle, if the correct galaxy is matched to each SN. We have used fakes to measure the SN-host matching performance in Y1, and found a 99% success rate. However, our fakes are preferentially distributed close to the galaxy cores with too few events in the disk tails, and thus the SN-host matching result from fakes is too optimistic.
We are therefore preparing to test SN-host matching with an independent set of fake locations based on more realistic galaxy profiles from semi-analytic models that are fit to Sérsic profiles. As we obtain more accurate DES galaxy profiles in future analyses, we will be able to use our own data to evaluate the SN-host matching . Also note that fake locations can be rapidly generated and analyzed at the catalog level since there is no need to overlay SN fluxes on images to process with . The eventual goal is to update the simulation to include a model of outlier redshifts from mis-matched host galaxies.
Conclusions {#sec:fin}
===========
We have assembled a pipeline capable of using hundreds of CPU cores to process up to GB of raw imaging data in less than a day, with the goal of discovering astrophysical transients. For the subtracted images produced by in Y1, the typical number of -detected objects per band is a few hundred thousand per 3 field, and the vast majority ($>90$%) are subtraction artifacts. Selection requirements and automated scanning reduce the artifact fraction down to 25%, and $\sim 10^4$ detections per band (Table \[tb:obj\_stats\]). The number of detections per single-epoch visit is $\sim \NDETECT$ per .
The number of science , requiring a detection on 2 separate nights, is per deep field, and per shallow field (Table \[tb:cand\_stats\]). Our MC simulation predicts that roughly % of the discovered transients are SNe Ia or CC SNe. Another $\sim 30\%$ are artifacts, and most of the remaining are AGN or variable stars.
We have implemented extensive monitoring in based on overlaying fake SNe Ia near galaxies on the search images. Comparing the for fakes to the from MC simulations shows that the performance is close to what is expected. The main defect of is the in which larger host-galaxy surface brightness results in larger flux-scatter that is not described by the (see Figures \[fig:pullSB\_deep\] and \[fig:pullSB\_shallow\]). There are other small fake-MC discrepancies in the (e.g., Fig. \[fig:fake\_effz\_deep\]); it is not clear if the cause is a more subtle defect, or if the MC simulation is too optimistic.
As a rigorous demonstration of our monitoring technique, we performed a very preliminary photometric classification analysis on real (non-fake) data, and compared the resulting $\zphot$ distribution to a MC simulation. Inputs to the MC simulation include observed conditions (PSF, ZP, sky noise) and the behavior measured with fakes ( vs. S/N and anomalous flux scatter vs. SB). The resulting data-MC agreement is reasonable in both the deep and shallow fields (Fig. \[fig:zphot\]).
Finally, the results presented here are based on fully reprocessed data after the first two DES seasons. issues during Y1 and Y2 resulted in some poor subtractions, but with recent improvements and a reliable model of the flux , we expect our target selection to be more efficient and more automated in the remaining seasons.
MC Simulation to Predict the Efficiency {#app:mc}
========================================
The fast MC simulation of SNe Ia is from [@SNANA]. It uses the exact same generation parameters as those used to generate the fakes (§\[sss:fakes\]): parent populations of color and stretch, intrinsic scatter model, and a random galaxy location in proportion to its surface brightness density. For studies requiring SN CC we use the simulation as described in [@K10_SNPCC]. For studies requiring the absolute rate, we use the SN Ia volumetric rate from [@Dilday2008] and the CC rate from [@Bazin2009]. Each simulated epoch corresponds to a real in the survey where the model magnitude is converted to an equivalent forced-photometry flux using the measured ZP. The observed PSF and sky noise at each epoch are used to predict the measurement , $$\begin{aligned}
\sigSIM^2 = [ F & + & (A\cdot b \cdot \rmsD^2) ]
\label{eq:sigSIM}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigSIM$ is the uncertainty in photoelectrons, $F$ is the flux, $A = [2\pi\int {\rm PSF}^2(r,\theta) r dr]^{-1}$ is the noise-equivalent area, and $b$ is the effective sky level including dark current, readout noise, and noise from the host galaxy. $\rmsD$ is an empirical error scaling of the sky noise that increases with the local surface brightness as shown in Figures \[fig:pullSB\_deep\] and \[fig:pullSB\_shallow\]; this term accounts for the : systematic subtraction problems near bright galaxies. While the measured $\rmsD$ curves are used to compute anomalous fluctuations in the measured fluxes, the reported are computed with $\rmsD=1$ in the same way as the data.
The simulation includes the selection requirement of a detection on two separate nights. The detection is computed from the $\effSNR$ curves in Fig. \[fig:fake\_effSNR\]. A simulated detection requires $\effSNR > r$, where $0<r<1$ is a random number.
Finally, the simulated light curves are stored in data files and analyzed in exactly the same way as transients (fakes or real events) found by .
Photometric Analysis and Selection Requirements {#app:photana}
===============================================
Here we describe a photometric analysis and selection requirements to obtain a high-purity sample of SNe Ia in the first season of the DES-SN program. The goal of this analysis is to compare the $\zphot$ distribution for data and the MC simulation. Using the model, light curve fitting is done with the program [snlc\_fit.exe]{}. For each candidate, the 5 fitted parameters are (1) time of peak brightness ($t_0$), (2) color parameter ($c$), (3) stretch parameter ($x_1$), (4) amplitude ($x_0$), and (5) photometric redshift ($\zphot$).
The first fit iteration chi-squared ($\chi_1^2$) is computed in the usual manner: from the data-model flux-difference for each epoch, and the quadrature sum of the data and model . Since the model depends on the fitted parameter $\zphot$, the second fit iteration chi-squared ($\chi_2^2$) is $$\chi_2^2 = \chi_1^2 + \chisqSigma ~~~~{\rm where} ~~~~
\chisqSigma = \sum_e 2\ln(\sigma^e/\sigma^e_1)~.
\label{eq:chisqSigma}$$ The index $e$ is the epoch index and $\sigma^e_1$ is the quadrature sum of the data and model- from the first fit iteration in which there is no $\chisqSigma$ term. While the $\sigma^e_1$ add an irrelevant constant to $\chi_2^2$, it has the effect of making $\chisqSigma$ small. The analysis selection requirements are as follows:
1. three bands with at least one satisfying S/N$>5$.
2. at least 1 with $\Trest < -2$ days, where $\Trest \equiv \Tobs/(1+\zphot)$.
3. at least 1 with $\Trest > +10$ days.
4. stretch parameter $|x_1| < 4$
5. $0.02 < \zphot < 2$
6. fit probability $\Pfit > 0.1$, calculated from fit $\chi^2$/dof.
7. $|\chisqSigma| < 2.5$.
8. NN requirement described below.
The NN analysis is based on the four-dimensional space of $x_1$, $c$, $\zphot$ and $\restB$. The first three variables are from the light curve fit (see above). $\restB$ is the true rest-frame $B$-band magnitude as described in Sec 4.3 of [@K13], and is not the naive best-fit model magnitude. For a given set of fitted parameters, the NNs are simulated events that satisfy a four-dimensional distance constraint, $$d^2 = \left[
\frac{(c-c')^2}{{\Delta_c}^2} + \frac{(x_1-x_1')^2}{{\Delta_{x_1}}^2} +
\frac{(\zphot-\zphot')^2}{{\Delta_z}^2} + \frac{(\restB-\restB')^2}{{\Delta_B}^2} \right]
< 1
\label{eq:NNdist}$$ where the primed quantities are the fitted parameters from a simulated training sample that includes SNe Ia and CC SNe events. The optimal distance-metric parameters (${\Delta_c},{\Delta_{x_1}},{\Delta_z},{\Delta_B}$) are trained with the simulation to maximize the product of the SN Ia purity and the . The final selection requirement is that for simulated neighbors satisfying Eq. \[eq:NNdist\], more than half are true SNe Ia with at least $1\sigma$ confidence.
[^1]: http://www.astromatic.net
[^2]: The global DES calibration plan is available at\
http://des-docdb.fnal.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ShowDocument?docid\
=6584&version=7
[^3]: $\sigSKY/\sigSKYideal \simeq \sqrt{(1+1/\Ntemplate)}$ where $\Ntemplate$ is the number of coadded templates.
[^4]: ZP$= 25 + 2.5\log_{10}(300)$, where 25 is a nominal ZP per second and 300 sec is a reference exposure time.
[^5]: http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/becker/v2.0/\
hotpants.html
[^6]: PSNID—Photometric SN Identification
[^7]: National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
[^8]: See Table 2 in P10 for SNLS exposure time in each band.
[^9]: While the SNLS final-photometry pipeline has much better astrometric precision than our , the SNLS search pipeline (P10) and have similar astrometric precision.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this work, a benchmark to evaluate the retrieval performance of soundtrack recommendation systems is proposed. Such systems aim at finding songs that are played as background music for a given set of images. The proposed benchmark is based on preference judgments, where relevance is considered a continuous ordinal variable and judgments are collected for pairs of songs with respect to a query (i.e., set of images). To capture a wide variety of songs and images, we use a large space of possible music genres, different emotions expressed through music, and various query-image themes. The benchmark consists of two types of relevance assessments: (i) judgments obtained from a user study, that serve as a “gold standard” for (ii) relevance judgments gathered through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. We report on an analysis of relevance judgments based on different levels of user agreement and investigate the performance of two state-of-the-art soundtrack recommendation systems using the proposed benchmark.'
author:
- |
Aleksandar Stupar\
\
\
Sebastian Michel\
\
\
title: |
Benchmarking Soundtrack Recommendation\
Systems with SRBench
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
With the increase of available multimedia content, searching for information contained in images, speech, music, or videos became an integral part in the information retrieval field. Evaluating the quality of such systems introduces new challenges as interpreting abstract associations—such as similarity between images—is complex and can be done in various ways. Similar to the text retrieval evaluations considered in TREC [@DBLP:journals/cacm/Voorhees07; @link:trec], evaluating music, image, and video retrieval systems has been the main concern of venues such as MIREX [@link:mirex], TRECVID [@link:trecvid], and ImageCLEF [@link:imageclef].
One of the largest contributions made by these venues is the proposal and standardization of a retrieval corpus, i.e., the standardization of a document and a query collection. In addition to this, the defined benchmarks contain human relevance judgments that assess the quality of query results with respect to the information need as described by the query.
In order to estimate standard retrieval measures, such as precision and recall, it is essential for these assessments to be complete and reusable. If constructed properly, they enable a fair and unbiased comparison among systems—which in turn increases competition and the pace of improvements in the field.
![Recommending music for slideshow images[]{data-label="fig:recommendation"}](images/recommendation){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In this work, we consider the problem of creating a benchmark dataset that is used to assess the quality of soundtrack recommendation systems. A soundtrack recommendation system is an information retrieval system that recommends a list of songs for a given set of images. The goal of the system is to retrieve the best matching songs to be used as background music during the presentation of images, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:recommendation\]. The main difference to traditional information retrieval tasks is that, here, queries and documents originate from completely different domains; queries are given in form of images while the “documents” are music pieces.
As of now, the soundtrack recommendation state-of-the-art consists of only two approaches, namely an approach by Li and Shan [@DBLP:conf/mm/LiS07] and our own Picasso approach [@DBLP:conf/sigir/StuparM11]. We investigate and report on the performance of these two approaches using the proposed benchmark. However, the benefit of a re-usable benchmark is far greater as it can improve the efficiency of continuous re-evaluations and comparisons of the existing approaches in the future. We expect that an open benchmark will, thus, foster the research on soundtrack recommendation systems.
Problem Formulation and Outline {#sec:problem}
-------------------------------
A soundtrack recommendation system, over a set of indexed songs $S=\{s_{1}, s_{2},...\}$, takes as input/query a set of images $q=\{img_{1}, img_{2},...\}$ and the size of the result set $K$. It returns a subset of the indexed songs $S_{r} \subseteq S$, with $|S_{r}|=K$, ordered with respect to their relevance to act as background music for a slideshow that features the given query images.
In this work, we address the problem of creating a benchmark to evaluate the retrieval performance of a given soundtrack recommendation system. The proposed benchmark $B=(Q, S, R)$ contains a set of queries $Q=\{q_{1}, q_{2},...\}$, a set of songs $S=\{s_{1}, s_{2},...\}$, and a set of human relevance judgments $R=\{r_{1}, r_{2},...\}$, with each query $q_{i}$ defined as a set of images $q_{i}=\{img_{1}, img_{2},...\}$. The proposed benchmark fulfills the following important requirements:
- [it enables an unbiased comparison between different recommendation systems]{}
- [it is reusable, that is, once created it can be used to evaluate systems with no additional human intervention]{}
- [it provides high coverage in terms of “document” collection (songs) and evaluated queries (images) ]{}
- [it contains judgments with high agreement between assessors]{}
- [it is publicly available[^1]]{}
Intuitively, the task of soundtrack recommendation appears to be highly subjective as the taste in music largely varies. However, as we will see, the agreement level between the assessors is quite high, indicating that it makes sense to address the problem for the general case, i.e., to recommend soundtracks for the “average” user. It is important to note that the proposed benchmark can also be used to evaluate personalized recommendation systems where the evaluation is performed with respect to assessments of the individual assessors.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:relatedwork\] discusses related work. Section \[sec:dataset\] describes the used document collection and the queries. Section \[sec:relevance\] shows how relevance assessments are used to measure retrieval effectiveness. Section \[sec:building\] explains the process of collecting relevance assessments and elaborates on various statistics of the collected assessments. Section \[sec:evaluation\] reports on the results of the evaluation concerning the state-of-the-art approaches using the proposed benchmark. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
Our approach is based on the notion of pairwise comparisons, first mentioned and analyzed by Fechner [@fecherelemente] and made popular later by Thurstone [@thurstonelaw]. Thurstone [@thurstonelaw] used them to determine the scale of perceived stimuli and referred to it as the [*law of comparative judgment*]{}. A large body of research exists on reconstructing the final ranking from a set of pairwise comparisons [@DBLP:conf/sigir/CarteretteP06; @DBLP:conf/rskt/Janicki08; @journals/scw/Schulze11].
For information retrieval tasks, Thomas and Hawking [@DBLP:conf/cikm/ThomasH06] use pairwise comparisons in order to compare systems in real settings, where interactive retrieval is used in specific context over ever-changing heterogeneous data. They show that click-through data highly correlates with perceived preference judgments. Sanderson et al. [@DBLP:conf/sigir/SandersonPCK10] employ pairwise comparisons with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk [@link:mturk] to obtain the correlation between user preference for text retrieval results and the effectiveness measures computed from a test collection. The result of their study shows that Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) [@DBLP:journals/tois/JarvelinK02] is the measure that correlates best with the user perceived quality.
Using preference-based test collections is introduced by Rorvig [@DBLP:journals/jasis/Rorvig90] and later developed for text retrieval by Carterette et al. [@DBLP:conf/ecir/CarteretteBCD08]. In this work, the authors show that preference judgments are faster to collect and provide higher levels of agreement, compared to absolute relevance judgments. Preference-based effectiveness measures are proposed by Carterette and Bennett in [@DBLP:conf/sigir/CarteretteB08], showing that they are stable and adhere to the measurements based on absolute relevance judgments.
Preference judgments between blocks of results are used by Arguello et al. [@DBLP:conf/ecir/ArguelloDCC11] to evaluate aggregated search results. In this work, the small number of such blocks enabled the collection of preferences between all pairs of blocks. A suitable effectiveness measure in this case is the distance between the ranking produced by the system and the reference ranking created based on the all-pair preferences. In our setting, the huge number of possible pairs prohibits an exhaustive evaluation, in which case the quality measure is more appropriate based directly on pairwise comparisons rather than using the reference ranking.
For music similarity, Typke et al. [@DBLP:journals/jdim/TypkeHNWV05] conclude that coarse levels of relevance measure, usually used in text retrieval, are [*not applicable*]{}. Instead, they use a large number of relevance levels created from partially ordered lists. The ground truth in this case is given as ranked list of document groups, such that documents in one group have the same relevance. The work by Urbano et. al. [@DBLP:conf/ismir/UrbanoMML10] addresses some limitations of this approach by proposing different measures of similarity between groups of retrieved documents. Measuring retrieval effectiveness with these large number of levels can be achieved using the Average Dynamic Recall [@DBLP:conf/icmcs/TypkeVW06].
Due to its low price and high scalability, crowd sourcing is a popular technique to obtain relevance assessments for information retrieval tasks [@DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoB11; @DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoST10; @DBLP:conf/sigir/SandersonPCK10; @DBLP:conf/sigir/KazaiMC09]. The work by Alonso and Baeza-Yates [@DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoB11] addresses the design and implementation of assessments tasks in a crowd-sourcing setting, indicating that workers perform as good as experts at TREC [@link:trec] tasks. Similar results have also been achieved by Alonso et al. [@DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoST10] in the context of XML retrieval. Snow et al. [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/SnowOJN08] show that Mechanical Turk workers were successful in annotating data for various natural language processing tasks, even correcting the gold standard data for some specific tasks.
Evaluation Dataset {#sec:dataset}
==================
A suitable evaluation dataset has to provide a wide coverage of both documents and queries. A common approach in traditional text retrieval is to use a large number of documents (e.g., obtained by crawling parts of the Web) and to perform an initial filtering of documents based on existing approaches.
First, existing approaches are used independently to retrieve the top ranked documents and then these documents are combined (merged) to create, a so called, “pool” of documents. Relevance assessments are then collected only for the documents in the pool in order to minimize the effort of the human judges. This technique is commonly referred to as [*pooling*]{}. Due to the small number of existing soundtrack recommendation approaches, pooling would result in a highly biased dataset. Hence, we have to assemble the set of queries (images) and documents (songs) independently from the existing approaches in a way that ensures wide coverage while keeping the collection size tractable.\
As defined above, an evaluation benchmark $B=(Q, S, R)$ consists of a set of queries $Q$, a set of documents $S$ (that are songs in our case), and a set of human relevance judgments $R$. The first step in creating the dataset is to select songs as documents and image sets as queries.
Song Collection
---------------
While building the song collection, we focus on popular music and try to achieve high coverage through understanding common music aspects. There are two major aspects that people refer to when talking about music: the [*feelings*]{} induced by the music and the [*genre*]{} it belongs to. We use Wikipedia [@link:genreswiki] to obtain a hierarchy of modern popular music genres and focus on the genres that appear in the top level of the hierarchy. According to the creators of this Wikipedia page, music styles that are not commercially marketed in substantial numbers are not included in the list.
Additionally, in order to avoid the complexity of working with a large number of nation-specific music styles, we eliminate genres specific to the origin of music, such as “Brasilian music” and “Caribbean music”. The resulting genres, shown in Table \[tb:genres\], range from Country and Blues, over Metal to Hip Hop and Rap.
[@llll@]{}\
Blues & Classical & Country & Easy listening\
Electronic & Hip Hop and Rap & Jazz & Metal\
Folk & Pop & Rock & Ska\
Next, we collect a set of feelings and organize them in two high-level groups: [*positive and negative feelings.*]{} We obtained an exhaustive list of fine-grained feelings from [*Psychpage*]{} [@link:psychpage]. As the obtained list contains generic feelings, some are rarely conveyed by music, such as admiration, and satisfaction. To identify feelings expressed through music we used the data from the [*last.fm*]{} [@link:lastfm] music portal. For each general feeling, we check how frequently an artist or a song is annotated with the tag (term) that describes a feeling, for instance, “Sad”. This “[*wisdom of crowds*]{}” is gathered using Last.fm’s search capabilities that retrieves all artists and songs annotated with a specific tag. While building the list, we employ a policy that a given feeling is not related to music if there are less than $500$ users who used this feeling as a tag. As the result, we get 7 positive and 7 negative feelings conveyed by music, shown in Table \[tb:feelings\]. We see that not only apparent feelings such “Happy” and “Sad” are there, but also less frequent ones, such as “Tragic” and “Optimistic”, are contained. This way, the number of feelings is limited while still supporting high coverage.
[@llll@]{}\
Happy & Love & Calm & Peaceful\
Energetic & Positive & Optimistic
[@llll@]{}\
Sad & Hate & Aggressive & Angry\
Depressing & Pathetic & Tragic
For each of the genres and feelings in the lists, we retrieve the top-10 played (listened to) artists. Again the [*last.fm*]{} portal is used for this task, as it contains the number of times an artist is listened to and enables the search for the top-K artists for a given query tag. For each artist, we acquire two representative songs, and automatically cut them to 30 seconds length—from minute 1:00 to 1:30. As some artists appear in multiple groups, (e.g., in the “easy listening” genre and in “optimistic” feeling), the document collection consists of 470 songs in total. Having a total of 470 songs make a moderate collection size, while all major music genres and feelings are covered.
Query Collection
----------------
In the addressed soundtrack recommendation scenario, a query is represented by a set of images. We create a list of $25$ queries, each containing 5 images, such that all images of a query follow a specific image theme. The initial list of image themes is retrieved from a list of photography forms, specified on Wikipedia [@link:imagewiki]. For each of these themes, we retrieve images that are annotated with the theme, using the search functionality of Google’s [*Picasa*]{} [@link:picasa] photo sharing portal. We manually inspect the returned results and use only themes that provided at least 5 coherent and meaningful images. This filtering step results in the final list of $25$ image themes shown in Table \[tb:imagethemes\]. As we can see, image themes vary from photos taken underwater, over photos of people playing sports, to photos of special cloud forms. For each theme, a query is formed by manually selecting 5 publicly available images from Picasa, again keeping in mind the coherence and the meaningfulness of the image theme.
[@llll@]{}\
Aviation & Architectural & Cloudscape & Conservation\
Cosplay & Digiscoping & Fashion & Fine art\
Fire & Food & Glamour & Landscape\
Miksang & Nature & Old-time & Portrait\
Sports & Still-life & Street & Underwater\
Vernacular & Panorama & War & Wedding\
Wildlife
Relevance Measure {#sec:relevance}
=================
Estimating the effectiveness of a retrieval engine is based on measuring the relevance of the returned results with respect to the given query. In traditional text retrieval, relevance is represented by absolute judgments that usually make use of a binary variable indicating that a document is either relevant or not relevant to a given query. J[ä]{}rvelin and Kek[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen [@DBLP:conf/sigir/JarvelinK00] proposed a larger grading scale that allows for a finer separation of relevant documents. We adopt such a fine-grained grading scale to assess the suitability of songs for series of images, extending it to the extreme such that for each document (song) there is one level of relevance. Note that such fine-grained scales emphasize the point of possible disagreement between human assessors, when determining how relevant a document is [@DBLP:conf/sigir/Voorhees98].
In the task of soundtrack recommendation, there is no such a notion of fulfilling a particular information need expressed by the query. This renders the assessment less strict in the sense that in general [*all*]{} songs can be used as background music. That is, we do not explicitly have the notion of a document (song) being not relevant. Further, user perceived relevance of a song with respect to images highly depends on knowledge of other available songs—it is a very relative assessment task: we can not simply present users small subsets of songs and let them perform the assessment. A consistent full ranking of all available songs, for each query, is required. Thus, we define the relevance $R(s|S,q)$ of the song $s$, given a song collection $S$, and a query $q \in Q$, as the rank of that document in the [*perfect ranking*]{}. With a “perfect ranking” we denote the full ranking that would be created by the “expert” user. For a result list computed by a specific system for a given query, we can easily aggregate the relevance scores of the individual documents to obtain a final (non-zero) score.
A similar measurement is proposed for the task of similarity search in [*sheet music*]{} [@DBLP:journals/jdim/TypkeHNWV05], with expert users providing a full ranking of the documents. In contrast to our setup, there, it can indeed be decided if two music sheets are completely not related (relevant to each other), which enables the use of pooling to obtain a filtered and shorter, list of documents for which the full ranking is done.
Pairwise Preference Judgments {#sec:pairwise_preference}
-----------------------------
What remains is the problem of obtaining the full relevance ranking, for each benchmark query. Doing this in an exhaustive way is prohibitively expensive, though. Instead, the idea is to let users evaluate a large number of song pairs, for each benchmark query.
We ask human judges to evaluate a large number of song pairs, answering which one of the two presented songs fits better for a given query. This method of assessing is known as [*preference judgments*]{}. It is a convenient way to obtain relevance assessments, compared to obtaining absolute relevance judgments [@DBLP:conf/ecir/CarteretteBCD08]. Ideally, the number of pairs judged for one query is large enough to reconstruct the whole ranking—which is not achievable in practice. Thus, we collect judgments for only a subset of song pairs.
In addition to selecting the best out of two proposed songs, each judge is asked to assess how much better the selected song fits to the query compared to the other song, on the scale from $1$ to $5$. A rating of $1$ means “almost the same” while $5$ means “large difference”. The result of one human assessment is given in the following form $r=(q, s_{1}, s_{2}, p, d)$, where $q$ is the image theme query, $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$ are songs, $p$ is the preferred song and $d$ is the difference between the songs. Optionally, assessors can provide a textual description (justification) of their decision.
The task at hand is, however, often influenced by the individual taste of the human judges—for some queries more than for others. To capture this factor, we ask multiple assessors to judge the same song pair and use only the ones that show a high level of agreement. This way, the benchmark can serve to evaluate generic soundtrack recommendation approaches.
To isolate the subjectivity of an individual assessor, based on the agreement level, we can check if the selection performed by the judges is [*statistically significant*]{}. In case the performed selection is statistically significant we know that the agreement level between judges is high. In case selection is not statistically significant but there is still one song selected more then the other, we can take this pair into consideration, keeping in mind that this was not an easy task—even for human judges.
To check the statistical significance of the agreement between the judges, we formulate the following null and alternative hypotheses:\
$ \mathbf{H_{0}}$[**: assessors are selecting songs randomly, i.e., do not consider the given query images**]{}
$ \mathbf{H_{1}}$[**: assessors are selecting songs based on the given query images**]{}\
If the null hypothesis is true, each song (of a song pair) is independently selected with probability $p=0.5$. In that case, the songs are selected independently from the given query and due to the independent trials we can calculate the probability of the final outcome using a binomial distribution. Applying a binomial test [@statisticsPsy] gives us the probability of the outcome, given that the null hypothesis is true. In case the probability of the assessment outcome is smaller than the required significance level (e.g., $\alpha=0.05$) we reject the null hypothesis and say that the agreement level for this question is statistically significant.
We create questions for human assessment by first creating song pairs in four different categories: genre, positive, negative, and positive-negative. The pairs in the genre category are all song pairs of the songs gathered based on the genre information. Similarly, the positive category contains all song pairs that have a positive feeling and negative category contains all song pairs with songs having a negative feeling. The positive-negative category consists of song pairs where one song is selected from the positive-feeling group and the second song is selected from the negative-feeling group. The first and the second song are shuffled before presenting them to the user to avoid an ordering bias.
Creating questions posed to human assessor is done by creating all possible triples where one element is an image-theme query and the other two are songs coming from song pairs of one of the four categories created in the previous step. All question triples are stored and the next question to be assessed by judges is selected randomly among all non-assessed questions.
System Effectiveness Measures {#sec:effectiveness}
-----------------------------
While collecting the assessments we had each question, i.e., song pair for a certain query, answered by 6 assessors. Hence, the individual preference judgments need to be reconciled. To achieve this, we compute the majority vote for each of the different agreement levels (four out of six (4/6), 5/6, and 6/6). Note that for the agreement level 3/6 there is no majority vote, so we leave this level out. For a certain agreement level, we then obtain a set of relevance judgments $R$ with each $r\in R$ of the form $r=(q, s_{1}, s_{2}, p, d)$, where $q$ is an image query, $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$ are songs, $p$ is the indication of the song preferred by the majority of users, and $d$ is the difference between songs averaged over multiple users assessing the same pair.
Then, the quality (goodness) $G$ of a ranking can be computed using preference precision [@DBLP:conf/sigir/CarteretteB08] defined as: $$G=\frac{ \mbox{\# correctly ordered pairs} }{\mbox{\# evaluated pairs}},$$ where the pair of songs is correctly ordered if the song preferred by most assessors is located higher in the ranking compared to the other song, and the evaluated pairs are all song pairs that are assessed by the judges and are contained in the top-$K$ ranking. A pair of songs is contained in the final top-$K$ ranking if at least one of the songs appears in the top-$K$ results. If only one song is in the top-$K$ results the rank of the second song is considered to be $K+1$. Intuitively, this measure rewards a system if its ranking agrees with a user’s perceived preference, resulting in a higher value with a higher agreement between the two.
Although $G$ is normalized to the $[0, 1]$ interval, due to possible inconsistencies in the transitivity caused by pairwise comparisons, this interval might shrink. An example of the inconsistency can be seen in three pairwise comparisons between the three elements, $\{a,b,c\}$, where $a$ is preferred to $b$, $b$ preferred to $c$, but $c$ is preferred to $a$. We see that it is impossible to create a ranking satisfying all comparisons so the upper bound is lower than $1$, and the lower bound is higher than $0$. Of course, this kind of situations arise as pairwise comparisons are created independently from each other and potentially by other assessors. Still, the actual lower and upper bounds can easily be computed once all preference judgments are collected.
### Weighted Effectiveness Measure {#sec:difference .unnumbered}
The specified difference between the songs, denoted as $d$, can be considered as the strength of preference and, hence, can be taken into account when assessing the quality of a system. As multiple judges are evaluating the same pair of songs for a given query, the final value of the difference between songs is taken as the average of the single evaluations.\
The obvious way to extend the preference precision measure using the preference strength is as follows: $$G_w=\frac{ \sum_{\mbox{correctly ordered pairs}}p_s}{\sum_{\mbox{evaluated pairs}}p_s}$$ where $p_s$ is the preference strength, having higher value if the preference is stronger. For instance, the preference is strong toward one song if the difference between the two songs is large. Thus, we can use this difference between songs directly as preference strength. Clearly, this measure gives more weight to the preference judgments which were obvious for humans, and dampens the effect of judgments for which even the assessors were not sure about their preference.
The Benchmark {#sec:building}
=============
Processing large amounts of human-involved tasks can be efficiently addressed using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk [@link:mturk]. This service represents a mediator between the requester—a person or an organization posting tasks to be done—and a number of workers—people willing to perform these tasks, while getting paid for it.
There are studies [@DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoB11; @DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoST10; @DBLP:conf/sigir/SandersonPCK10] on the usage of the Mechanical Turk service to collect relevance assessments. All of these studies face the same problem: determining whether the worker really prefers a selected document (song), or if the selection is done randomly to simply gain money, without spending sufficient effort on the assessment task.
To remove assessments of such “cheaters”, a certain set of question with known answers is inserted in the evaluation task. These questions are referred to as “trap questions”, “honey pots” or “gold standard” questions. Creating trap questions for text retrieval, in case of preference judgments, is an easy task: a pair of one relevant and one obviously irrelevant document are presented to the evaluator. Cheating evaluator are then identified by the percentage of times the obviously irrelevant document is selected as the preferred answer.
As our task is more prone to subjectivity, we collect judgments in two phases. In the first phase, we build a set of “gold standard” questions by collecting judgments from students on our campus, in the controlled environment of our offices. These “gold standard” questions are used as trap questions for the second phase of assessments gathering, using Mechanical Turk workers. The main hypothesis behind this approach is that evaluators (workers) employed in our offices would have less incentives to cheat as we pay them by hour, not by the number of performed assessments.
Each question (song pair and query image theme) is answered by six assessors. We chose six assessors, as the significance level of $\alpha=0.05$ is achieved in case when all six assessors agree on the preferred song. Only the questions with an agreement level of “six out of six” are used to create trap questions for the next phase—considering only the preferred song, not the level of difference $d$. The probability of achieving this level of agreement randomly is quiet low, with a p-value of $0.03125$, which makes it safe to use these questions as trap questions.
Note that at the evaluation phase, we can choose to perform the quality assessment using only the second phase assessments, obtained from Mechanical Turk, to indisputably avoid a potential student population bias.
### Collecting through Mechanical Turk {#collecting-through-mechanical-turk .unnumbered}
Collecting a larger amount of assessments is achieved in the second phase, with assessments being made by Mechanical Turk workers. To obtain a robust benchmark, again, each question is answered by six workers. This enables a later evaluation based on different levels of agreement.
[*Cheating*]{} workers are identified as the ones that have performed a large number of questions—expecting high money reward—while choosing answers at random. Due to the binary nature of the questions, cheaters answer approximately only 50% of all trap questions correctly. We used a threshold of at least $100$ answered questions and less than 65% correct trap questions to [*reject*]{} a work of a [*cheating*]{} worker. We used one trap question per five regular questions.
Because workers prefer small tasks [@DBLP:conf/ecir/AlonsoB11], we created one HIT (Human Intelligent Task) for each question. We set the reward to $\$0.02$ for each performed task, as the reward per task has only a small impact on the quality but rather influence the quantity of the performed tasks [@DBLP:conf/kdd/MasonW09].
Benchmark Statistics {#sec:statistics}
--------------------
To obtain trap questions for the Mechanical Turk workers, we collected assessments from $30$ students. Students were able to choose whether they want to participate in the study for one hour or two hours, while being payed on an hourly basis. $29$ out of $30$ students participated in the study for two hours, resulting in the total of $665$ questions, each question assessed by 6 students.
![Distribution of assessments per student[]{data-label="fig:evalsStudents"}](images/evalsStudents){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:evalsStudents\] shows the number of assessments per student, sorted in descending order. We observe a high variance in assessment performance, even if we exclude the student that assessed songs for only one hour. Using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, we investigate if this variance comes from the open ended question, used to elaborate their decision. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between total text length (word count) and a number of assessments is only $-0.0875$, indicating that typing the explanation answer is not the reason for the variance in individual assessment performance. If we characterize the agreement with other assessors as a quality estimate of the assessor, we can also check if assessors that produced a large number of assessments have a drop in quality, i.e., have low agreement with others. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between assessments made and agreement with other assessors is only $0.04141$ indicating that the quality of the work is also independent of the assessors performance.
-------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6
percentage 12.33 32.18 26.17 29.32
average difference 2.75 2.90 3.11 3.65
-------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Agreement levels for student assessors[]{data-label="tb:agreementLocal"}
Table \[tb:agreementLocal\] shows the percentages of questions with different agreement levels for student evaluations. Agreement level “x/y” means that x out of y assessors agreed on one song. The observed values in Table \[tb:agreementLocal\] suggest that we can reject the null hypothesis that student answers were done by randomly choosing songs, supported by the Chi-square test $\chi^{2}=1586.86$, $df=3$, $p<0.0001$. This level of significance shows that such a high level of agreement between assessors is almost impossible to achieve by pure chance, but that the task at hand is reasonable and meaningful for the assessors. As we can see, 29.32% (i.e., 195) of all questions have agreement level of 6/6, making them applicable as trap questions for the second phase. The global agreement statistics shows that student assessors agree with each other in 66.94% of all cases. This is lower than the agreement level for the traditional text retrieval task (75.85%) [@DBLP:conf/ecir/CarteretteBCD08], which indicates that the task of soundtrack recommendation is more subjective.
The averaged difference between songs is also reported for student evaluations in Table \[tb:agreementLocal\]. We see that the average difference is smallest, $2.75$, for the questions with low agreement level and gradually increases to $3.65$ for the questions with the [*six out of six*]{} agreement level. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between agreement level and the average difference between songs is $0.3556$, with a randomization test ($100.000$ permutations) showing that this result is not achievable randomly, $p < 0.0001$.
While assessing the songs, assessors were able to provide textual description of their decision. We analyzed the collected descriptions to see which concepts assessors use for music and images when they are being matched together. We manually extracted all concepts from the descriptions collected from students, shown in Figure \[fig:concepts\] where the size of a word represent its frequency in the text.\
In the second phase, we used Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect a larger number of assessments. Our aim was to collect enough assessments such that each song for each image query had a chance of being judged once. This required us to have more than $5875$ questions evaluated, each question assessed by six assessors. In the end, we collected assessments evaluating $5990$ questions in total.
Overall, we had $269$ assessors participating in the study. On average, each of them performed $138.69$ assessments. As there was no time limit for each assessor, the skew in the number of performed assessments is much larger than for the students in phase one, ranging from one evaluation up to $3845$ evaluations per assessor. Gold standard questions enabled us to detect $15$ [*cheating*]{} workers and to reject their work, being replaced by other workers’ assessments.
-------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6
percentage 17.15 33.89 28.60 20.37
average difference 3.09 3.17 3.37 3.68
-------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Agreement levels for Mechanical Turk workers[]{data-label="tb:agreementMturk"}
The percentage of questions with respect to agreement levels for Mechanical Turk workers is shown in Table \[tb:agreementMturk\]. As we can see, the percentages of questions with high-agreement levels are lower than for student assessments. Still, we can safely reject the hypothesis of randomly provided answers, with $\chi^{2}= 6605.18$, $df=3$, $p<0.0001$. The reduction in the agreement level might also be an effect of the more diverse population of workers compared to the population of students.
We see that the percentage of questions with agreement level of “5/6” and “6/6” is close to 50%, which renders almost half of the evaluated questions usable with high confidence. Overall, the agreement between mechanical turk workers was achieved in 62.10% of all cases, slightly less than the overall agreement of students, which corresponds to the drop in the number of high-agreement questions.
Again we see that there is a correlation between average difference between the songs and the agreement level. Pearson’s correlation coefficient in this case is $0.2928$, with randomization test ($100.000$ permutations) showing again that the probability of randomly achieving this value is $p < 0.0001$.
### Query Type Statistics
In this section, we report on the statistics of the assessments concerning question types and image themes.
After merging evaluations performed by students and by the Mechanical Turk workers we calculated the percentage of questions at different levels of agreement for each of the question types, shown in Table \[tb:agreementSubgroupsMturk\]. The average difference between songs is also reported for each agreement level and each question type.
As we can see, the largest percentage of high-agreement questions is achieved for questions where both songs have a negative feeling. Inspecting the assessments for these questions revealed that melancholic songs with slow rhythm were usually preferred to fast, loud, and aggressive songs. It is interesting to see that questions formed from different music genres had the least amount of high agreement. This might indicate that songs from different genres might not always be largely different, or that assessments were biased towards preferred music genre, which could be a cause of disagreements.
------------ ----------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6
percentage 18.24 37.51 28.30 15.95
avg. difference 3.16 3.23 3.37 3.65
(l)[2-6]{} percentage 17.28 35.57 29.27 17.88
avg. difference 2.98 3.06 3.24 3.56
(l)[2-6]{} percentage 13.89 30.01 28.84 27.26
avg. difference 3.00 3.10 3.37 3.67
(l)[2-6]{} percentage 17.35 31.85 26.95 23.85
avg. difference 3.10 3.17 3.43 3.79
------------ ----------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Statistics by question type[]{data-label="tb:agreementSubgroupsMturk"}
The percentage of questions with [*five out of six*]{} and [*six out of six*]{} agreement levels together with the average difference between songs is shown for each image theme in Table \[tb:imageTheme\]: The average difference between songs does not change a lot over different image themes, varying from $3.19$ for architecture up to $3.41$ for fashion and wedding themes. On the other hand, the number of high-agreement questions varies substantially, ranging from $35.7$% for the war theme to $60.9$% for the fine art theme. As expected, emotionally intense themes such as the war, fire, and aviation themes have a substantially lower level of agreement than the “calm” themes such as fine art, portrait, and nature.
Image theme Agr. Diff.
-------------- ------ -------
architecture 41.2 3.19
aviation 41.4 3.26
cloudscape 49.8 3.23
conservation 44.9 3.28
cosplay 42.1 3.26
digiscoping 55.5 3.34
fashion 45.0 3.41
fineart 60.9 3.29
fire 38.1 3.30
food 53.9 3.33
glamour 47.4 3.27
landscape 51.7 3.24
miksang 51.8 3.32
: Statistics by image theme[]{data-label="tb:imageTheme"}
Image theme Agr. Diff.
------------- ------ -------
nature 58.8 3.34
old-time 54.1 3.27
panoram 51.6 3.23
portrait 60.1 3.40
sports 42.1 3.29
still life 48.2 3.26
street 40.0 3.29
underwater 58.8 3.39
vernacular 52.1 3.26
war 35.7 3.36
wedding 58.6 3.41
wildlife 53.6 3.30
: Statistics by image theme[]{data-label="tb:imageTheme"}
Evaluating State-of-the-art {#sec:evaluation}
===========================
To go beyond the plain proposal of a benchmark, we now present its application to the evaluation of the two state-of-the-art approaches in the area of soundtrack recommendation. First, an approach by Li and Shan [@DBLP:conf/mm/LiS07] that is based on emotion detection in images and music—we refer to this approach as the [*emotion-based approach*]{}. Second, our approach, coined Picasso [@DBLP:conf/sigir/StuparM11], that extracts information from publicly available movies and uses that information to create a match between images and music.
Approaches {#sec:approaches}
----------
[**Emotion-based Approach:**]{} The approach by Li and Shan [@DBLP:conf/mm/LiS07], was originally developed to recommend music for impressionism paintings, but can in general be applied to arbitrary sets of images. The key idea is to detect emotions in both images and music and to employ this information for the match making. The detection of emotions and the recommendation of music is done through methods based on a graph representation of multimedia objects, called the [*mixed media graph*]{}.
In the mixed media graph, each multimedia object and the associated attributes are represented as vertices, where attribute vertices are either labels associated with the object or the low-level features extracted from the object. Object vertices are connected to the corresponding attribute vertices, with additional edges created between the vertices containing low-level features, based on K-Nearest Neighbor search [@MultiDimensionalStructures]: for each feature vector, edges are created to its $N$ closest neighbor vertex.
To detect emotions in given query images, a training set of images with labeled emotions is represented in the mixed media graph, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:emotionbased\]. After introducing nearest-neighbor edges, a [*random walk with restarts*]{} is applied to find the labels, i.e., emotions, with the largest weight.
The mixed media graph is again used in the second step of the soundtrack recommendation—this time with songs as multimedia objects. In this step a “dummy” object is created as a query, with emotions from the previous step as labels. Once the edges are created between the labels, again the random walk with restarts is applied but this time with the aim of finding the songs with the highest weight. The songs from the collection are recommended in decreasing order of their weight.\
![Emotion-based approach: detecting emotions in query images[]{data-label="fig:emotionbased"}](images/emotionbased){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
[**Picasso:**]{} The recommendation process in Picasso [@DBLP:conf/sigir/StuparM11] is based on information extracted from publicly available movies. This extraction is done in a preprocessing phase through the following eight steps:
- [the soundtrack of the movie is extracted]{}
- [music/speech classification is done on the soundtrack]{}
- [speech parts are discarded]{}
- [screenshots, during the music parts, are taken]{}
- [parts of the same scene are detected]{}
- [the soundtrack is split according to the scenes]{}
- [for each soundtrack part the distance to all songs is calculated]{}
- [the song lists are sorted in increasing order of distance]{}
The result of the extraction is an index that contains $<$movie screenshot, soundtrack part$>$-pairs, where the soundtrack part is the one that is surrounding that screenshot. For each of these pairs, the index additionally contains a sorted list of songs by their similarity to the soundtrack part.
When an image is submitted to the system, Picasso finds the $K$ most similar movie screenshots to the given query image. It then retrieves the $K$ most similar songs to the soundtrack parts that corresponds to the retrieved screenshots. After the song lists are retrieved, smoothing is applied to dampen the effect of outliers and the final score for the song is calculated.
Having multiple images submitted to the system, the recommendation process starts by recommending songs individually for each image. The problem is then to combine the lists of songs for each individual recommendation into a single recommendation list. Picasso casts this problem into a group recommendation problem [@Amer-Yahia:2009:GRS:1687627.1687713] and uses the established approaches to solve it. The casting is achieved by representing the images as users, and song lists as their preferences.
Evaluation Results {#sec:results}
------------------
For the emotion-based approach to operate we need two training datasets, that is, a set of images and a set of songs with labeled emotions. As part of the songs in the benchmark were acquired based on their emotion labels, we already have a training dataset for the songs.
As a training dataset for images we use the International Affective Picture System [@LangBradleyCuthbert99] dataset. It contains $1196$ images, each placed on the three dimensional space of emotions it evokes. The three dimensional space consists of two primary dimensions, namely valence—ranging from pleasant to unpleasant—and arousal—ranging from calm to excited. Third less strongly related dimension represents a dominance expressed in the image. For more details on this emotion space representation see [@russell1980circumplex].
To create a match between music and images, we need a unified representation of emotions. This is achieved by mapping emotions, used to label music, into the three dimensional space of emotions, used to label images. Each image is labeled by one emotion, where the emotion label corresponds to the area of the space indicated by the two primary dimensions valence and arousal. The used mapping is shown in Figure \[fig:mapping\].
![Mapping emotion labels to two dimensional emotion space[]{data-label="fig:mapping"}](images/mapping){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
To create the index for Picasso, we extracted information from 50 publicly available movies. All the movies originate from Hollywood production but cover a wide variety in genres and styles. In total, the final index contains $10,454$ snapshots taken and the same number of corresponding soundtrack parts.
We execute both systems for each of the $25$ queries from the benchmark requesting the top-20 songs as a recommendation result.
---------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
(l)[2-4]{} System 6/6 +5/6 +4/6
Emotion-based 0.658 0.595 0.559
Picasso 0.782 0.690 0.614
Fisher’s exact test (two-tailed) 0.0530 0.0249 0.0938
---------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
: Preference precision[]{data-label="tab:precision"}
The preference precision for both systems is shown in Table \[tab:precision\]. The first column contains the preference precision measures when the systems are evaluated using only the questions with [*six out of six*]{} level of agreement. Further, adding questions with [*five out of six*]{} agreement level to the evaluation results in precision shown in the second column, and finally, the evaluation with [*four out of six*]{} agreement level questions added is shown in the third column.
Fisher’s exact test is used to examine the probability of achieving these differences in precisions in case the results come from the [*same*]{} system (hypothetically). The contingency tables for the Fisher’s exact test are created by counting the number of correctly and incorrectly ordered pairs for both approaches.
We see that both systems perform best when the questions used for evaluation are the ones for which assessors agreed on the answers. The performance of both systems drops when questions, for which users did not easily agree on the answers, are added to the evaluation. The achieved precision numbers indicate that Picasso performs better with regard to questions at all levels of agreement. Fisher’s exact test shows that it is not likely that this difference in precision is achieved by chance. Although the systems achieve precision up to $0.782$ (Picasso system for [*six out of six*]{} agreement level) there is still a large space for improvements in both systems.
We calculate also the weighted preference precision that takes into account the difference between songs specified by the assessors. As the difference between songs is bigger when one song fits a lot better to the query we put more emphasis on these song pairs to reward/penalize a system for correct/incorrect ordering of these pairs.
------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
(l)[2-4]{} System 6/6 +5/6 +4/6
Emotion-based 0.667 0.607 0.570
Picasso 0.818 0.728 0.645
Student’s t-test (two-tailed) 0.0148 0.0042 0.0197
------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
: Weighted preference precision[]{data-label="tab:weighted"}
The weighted preference precision of both systems is shown in Table \[tab:weighted\]. As we can see, the weighted precision for both systems is higher than the preference precision. This shows that incorrectly ordered song pairs were the ones with a small difference between the songs. Again, the best precision is achieved for high agreeing questions as the number of correctly ordered song pairs is higher. We also see that Picasso performs better than the emotion-based approach. By calculating student’s t-test, also shown in Table \[tab:weighted\], with positive differences for correctly ordered pairs and negative for incorrectly ordered ones, we can reject the hypothesis the means for the two systems are the same.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this work, we addressed the problem of building a comprehensive and reusable benchmark for soundtrack recommendation systems. We formally defined the task of soundtrack recommendation and the format of the evaluation benchmark. Assessments were collected in form of preferences judgments: In the first phase from the students at the university and in the second phase through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. We presented detailed statistics for collected assessments with respect to the agreement levels between assessors and different query types. We showed how the obtained judgments can be used to evaluate the quality of the soundtrack recommendation engines and reported on the performance of the state-of-the-art approaches.
[10]{}
O. Alonso and R. A. Baeza-Yates. Design and implementation of relevance assessments using crowdsourcing. In [*ECIR*]{}, pages 153–164, 2011.
O. Alonso, R. Schenkel, and M. Theobald. Crowdsourcing assessments for XML ranked retrieval. In [*ECIR*]{}, pages 602–606, 2010.
S. Amer-Yahia, S. B. Roy, A. Chawlat, G. Das, and C. Yu. Group recommendation: semantics and efficiency. , 2(1):754–765, Aug. 2009.
J. Arguello, F. Diaz, J. Callan, and B. Carterette. A methodology for evaluating aggregated search results. In [*ECIR*]{}, pages 141–152, 2011.
B. Carterette and P. N. Bennett. Evaluation measures for preference judgments. In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 685–686, 2008.
B. Carterette, P. N. Bennett, D. M. Chickering, and S. T. Dumais. Here or there: preference judgments for relevance. In [*Proceedings of the IR research, 30th European conference on Advances in information retrieval*]{}, ECIR’08, pages 16–27, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag.
B. Carterette and D. Petkova. Learning a ranking from pairwise preferences. In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 629–630, 2006.
G. Fechner. . Breitkopf und Haertel, 1860.
<http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/assess/feelings.html>.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_music_genres>.
D. C. Howell. . Cengage Learning-Wadsworth, 2009.
<http://www.imageclef.org/>.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography>.
R. Janicki. Ranking with partial orders and pairwise comparisons. In [*RSKT*]{}, pages 442–451, 2008.
K. J[ä]{}rvelin and J. Kek[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen. Ir evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 41–48, 2000.
K. J[ä]{}rvelin and J. Kek[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of ir techniques. , 20(4):422–446, 2002.
G. Kazai, N. Milic-Frayling, and J. Costello. Towards methods for the collective gathering and quality control of relevance assessments. In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 452–459, 2009.
P. J. Lang, M. M. Bradley, and B. N. Cuthbert. International affective picture system (iaps): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical report, University of Florida, 2008.
<http://www.last.fm/>.
C.-T. Li and M.-K. Shan. Emotion-based impressionism slideshow with automatic music accompaniment. In [*ACM Multimedia*]{}, pages 839–842, 2007.
W. A. Mason and D. J. Watts. Financial incentives and the “performance of crowds”. In [*KDD Workshop on Human Computation*]{}, pages 77–85, 2009.
<http://www.music-ir.org/mirex/wiki/MIREX_HOME>.
. <https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome>.
<https://picasaweb.google.com/>.
M. E. Rorvig. The simple scalability of documents. , 41(8):590–598, 1990.
J. A. Russell. A circumplex model of affect. , 39(6):1161–1178, 1980.
H. Samet. . The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics, 2006.
M. Sanderson, M. L. Paramita, P. Clough, and E. Kanoulas. Do user preferences and evaluation measures line up? In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 555–562, 2010.
M. Schulze. A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method. , 36(2):267–303, 2011.
R. Snow, B. O’Connor, D. Jurafsky, and A. Y. Ng. Cheap and fast - but is it good? evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In [*EMNLP*]{}, pages 254–263, 2008.
A. Stupar and S. Michel. Picasso - to sing, you must close your eyes and draw. In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 715–724, 2011.
P. Thomas and D. Hawking. Evaluation by comparing result sets in context. In [*CIKM*]{}, pages 94–101, 2006.
L. Thurstone. A law of comparative judgments. , 34(4):273–286, 1927.
<http://trec.nist.gov/>.
<http://trecvid.nist.gov/>.
R. Typke, M. den Hoed, J. de Nooijer, F. Wiering, and R. C. Veltkamp. A ground truth for half a million musical incipits. , 3(1):34–38, 2005.
R. Typke, R. C. Veltkamp, and F. Wiering. A measure for evaluating retrieval techniques based on partially ordered ground truth lists. In [*ICME*]{}, pages 1793–1796, 2006.
J. Urbano, M. Marrero, D. Martín, and J. Llor[é]{}ns. Improving the generation of ground truths based on partially ordered lists. In [*ISMIR*]{}, pages 285–290, 2010.
E. M. Voorhees. Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. In [*SIGIR*]{}, pages 315–323, 1998.
E. M. Voorhees. Trec: Continuing information retrieval’s tradition of experimentation. , 50(11):51–54, 2007.
[^1]: <https://sites.google.com/site/srbench/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present a series of 2-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of massive disks around protostars. We simulate the same physical problem using both a ‘Piecewise Parabolic Method’ (PPM) code and a ‘Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic’ (SPH) code, and analyze their differences.
The disks studied here range in mass from $0.05 M_*$ to $1.0 M_*$ and in initial minimum Toomre $Q$ value from $1.1$ to $3.0$. We adopt simple power laws for the initial density and temperature in the disk with an isothermal ($\gamma=1$) equation of state. The disks are locally isothermal. We allow the central star to move freely in response to growing perturbations. The simulations using each code are compared to discover differences due to error in the methods used. For this problem, the strengths of the codes overlap only in a limited fashion, but similarities exist in their predictions, including spiral arm pattern speeds and morphological features. Our results represent limiting cases (i.e. systems evolved isothermally) rather than true physical systems.
Disks become active from the inner regions outward. From the earliest times, their evolution is a strongly dynamic process rather than a smooth progression toward eventual nonlinear behavior. Processes that occur in both the extreme inner and outer radial regions affect the growth of instabilities over the entire disk. Effects important for the global morphology of the system can originate at quite small distances from the star. We calculate approximate growth rates for the spiral patterns; the one-armed ($m=1$) spiral arm is not the fastest growing pattern of most disks. Nonetheless, it plays a significant role due to factors which can excite it more quickly than other patterns. A marked change in the character of spiral structure occurs with varying disk mass. Low mass disks form filimentary spiral structures with many arms while high mass disks form grand design spiral structures with few arms.
In our SPH simulations, disks with initial minimum $Q=1.5$ or lower break up into proto-binary or proto-planetary clumps. However, these simulations cannot follow the physics important for the flow and must be terminated before the system has completely evolved. At their termination, PPM simulations with similar initial conditions show uneven mass distributions within spiral arms, suggesting that clumping behavior might result if they were carried further. Simulations of tori, for which SPH and PPM are directly comparable, do show clumping in both codes. Concern that the point-like nature of SPH exaggerates clumping, that our representation of the gravitational potential in PPM is too coarse, and that our physics assumptions are too simple, suggest caution in interpretation of the clumping in both the disk and torus simulations.
author:
- 'Andrew F. Nelson'
- Willy Benz
- 'Fred C. Adams'
- David Arnett
title: Dynamics of Circumstellar Disks
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Over the past several years a broad paradigm of star formation has been developed (see Shu, Adams & Lizano 1987). First, a cloud of gas and dust collapses and forms a protostar with a surrounding disk. Later the star/disk system ejects matter in outflows as well as continuing to accrete matter from the cloud. Finally, accretion and outflow cease and the star gradually loses its disk and evolves onto the main sequence. While this paradigm provides for a good qualitative picture of the star formation process, many important issues require further work. For example, observations by several groups (Simon 1995, Ghez 1993, Leinert 1993, Reipurth & Zinnecker 1993) show that young stars in many different star forming regions are commonly found in binary or higher order multiple systems, with a broad peak in separation distance at around 30 AU. In addition, many of the higher order multiples show hierarchical characteristics: a distant companion orbiting a close binary for example. In what manner are multiple systems such as these formed?
A variety of studies have been undertaken to model the processes leading to the observed systems. One class of models begins with the collapse of a cloud of matter. These results (Bate 1995, Foster & Boss 1996, Boss 1995, Burkert & Bodenheimer 1993, Bonnell & Bastien 1992, Myhill & Kaula 1992) show that both single stars and multiple systems can be formed from the collapse and subsequent fragmentation of rotating, spherical or elongated molecular cloud cores. This class of simulations focus on the collapse phase but do not follow in detail the dynamics of disks formed from the material with initially higher angular momentum.
In addition, a number of models extended beyond the initial collapse (Bonnell 1994, Pickett 1996, Woodward 1994) have shown that post-collapse objects can be driven into fragmentation, or into spiral arm and bar formation prior to the development of a Keplerian disk. Laughlin & Bodenheimer (1994) have simulated the evolution of a collapsing cloud in 2D and then followed its late time behavior with a 3D disk simulation. They have found that such a collapse leads to a core plus a long lived, broad torus. The development of $m=1$ and $m=2$ spiral patterns may lead to late time fragmentation of the torus ($m$ is the number of arms in the spiral pattern).
As a star-disk or multiple-star-disk system evolves, the dynamics of the disk itself as well as its interaction with the star or binary becomes important in determining the final configuration of the system. Depending on its mass and temperature, a disk may develop spiral density waves and viscous phenomena of varying importance. Each may be capable of processing matter through the disk as well as influencing how the disk eventually decays away as the star evolves onto the main sequence.
A variety of mechanisms for production of spiral instabilities in disks around single stars have been suggested. An incomplete list includes the linear perturbation results of Adams, Ruden & Shu (1989) (hereafter ARS) who suggest a mechanism (‘SLING’– see Shu 1990) by which a resonance between the star and a one-armed ($m$=1) spiral mode may become globally unstable. Both perturbation theory (Papaloizou & Lin 1989) and numerical calculation (Papaloizou & Savonjie 1991, Heemskirk 1992) have shown another instability mechanism based on the distribution of specific vorticity (termed “vortensity”) which can influence evolution in disks and tori. It is driven primarily by wave interactions at corotation and can act either to suppress or amplify spiral waves in the disk, depending on the vortensity gradient there. Another family of instabilities is based upon vortensity gradients at the boundaries of the disk or torus. The SWING amplifier (Goldreich & Lynden-Bell 1965, Julian & Toomre 1966, Goldreich & Tremaine 1978) provides an instability channel whereby low amplitude leading spiral arms unwind and are transformed into much larger amplitude trailing waves. A feedback cycle then creates additional leading waves and the instability grows.
This paper is a continuation of work by two of us (Adams & Benz 1992, hereafter AB92), who began modeling of disks of mass $M_D\gtrsim 0.5 M_*$ and observed formation of spiral arms and clumps. We present a series of two dimensional numerical simulations of circumstellar disks with masses between $0.05 M_*$ and $1.0 M_*$. We attempt to characterize the growth of instabilities and pay particular attention to the existence and effect of the SLING instability. In section \[codes\], we outline the numerical methods used and discuss the limitations of each code and their effects on our simulations. In section \[phyasmpt\], we outline the initial conditions adopted for the disks studied and in section \[results\], we first describe qualitatively the results of our simulations and then begin a quantitative analysis of the pattern growth, the correspondence between two hydrodynamic codes, and the correspondence between linear analyses and hydrodynamic simulations. In Section \[summary\], we summarize the results and their significance in the evolution of stars and star systems.
The Codes {#codes}
=========
Solving the Hydrodynamic Equations
----------------------------------
In order to understand the properties of protostellar disks we have adapted two complementary hydrodynamic codes to the task of simulating such evolution: the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) method and the Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM). These codes use very different techniques for solving the equations of hydrodynamics, and it is hoped that, by the use of such widely different techniques, numerical artifacts can be sorted out from true physical evolution. Each code has unique features that allow the simulation of these systems in some regimes not accessible to the other.
The SPH method (see reviews by Benz 1990, Monaghan 1992) uses a procedure by which hydrodynamic quantities and their derivatives are calculated from an interpolation technique over neighboring particles. The interpolation kernel used in our simulations is the standard B-spline kernel with compact support. The smoothing length $h$ is varied over time in a manner such that the number of neighbors is approximately conserved, subject to the condition that a minimum value of $h\sim R_D/1700$ (where $R_D$ is the disk radius) is set to ensure time steps do not become too small. A second order Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg integrator which includes time step control is used to evolve the system in time. Being gridless, the main advantage of the SPH method in our context lies in its ability to follow structure formation anywhere in the disk without the limitations associated with a prescribed grid. The two main disadvantages of the SPH technique are (1) the inherent random noise level associated with the discrete representation of the fluid and (2) the high shear component of the dissipation connected with the mathematical formulation of the artificial viscosity.
We also have adapted the PROMETHEUS hydrodynamic code (Fryxell, Müller & Arnett 1989, 1991) to the problem of evolving disks around protostars. PROMETHEUS is based on the ‘Piecewise Parabolic Method’ (PPM) of Colella & Woodward (1984) in which a high order polynomial interpolation is used to determine cell edge values used in calculating a second order solution to the Riemann shock tube problem at each cell boundary. The interpolation is modified in regions of sharp discontinuities to track shocks and contact discontinuities more closely and retain their sharpness, while a monotonizing condition smoothes out unphysical oscillations. The solution to the one-dimensional Riemann problem is then used to calculate fluxes and advance the solution in time. This code was selected because of its low numerical dissipation and its excellent resolution of discontinuities and shocks.
Both codes incorporate self-gravity using modified versions of the binary tree described in Benz (1990) which approximates the gravity of groups of distant particles in a multipole expansion while calculating interactions of nearby particles explicitly. Gravitational forces due to neighbor particles are softened to avoid divergences as particles pass near each other. Due to the organization of the grid, the tree construction can be considerably simplified in the PPM version by substituting a procedure by which adjacent grid cells (modeled as point masses for the purpose of the gravity calculation) or groups of grid cells become progressively higher nodes in the tree. Two simulations run at higher resolution (simulations [*pch2*]{} and [*pch6*]{} in table \[ppm-tabl\] below) implemented an FFT based solution to Poisson’s equation (Binney & Tremaine 1987, pp. 96ff). Results for a disk simulation at identical resolution showed that the tree and the FFT solutions gave identical dynamical results, however the FFT version proved to be substantially faster. The torus simulations of section \[sphppm\], which are more sensitive to resolution, are also more sensitive to the implementation of the Poisson solver. In these cases the simulations using the tree code gave slower pattern growth rates than simulations using the FFT.
It is important to make a distinction between the resolution of the hydrodynamics and that of the representation of the gravitational potential. Just as PPM is well adapted for discontinuities, SPH is well adapted for gravitational clumping. The density reconstruction procedure utilized by PPM contains more structure than is available from the $N$ grid point algorithm used here. Better resolution of the gravitational potential may be possible using densities defined at both the cell centers and at cell interfaces. Further, this grid effectively implies a gravitational softening which is about one cell in size. This algorithm uses only the cell center information, and references below to grid resolution in PPM simulations will imply this fact.
Viscosity in the Codes {#visc-sec}
----------------------
Because disk evolution is partially driven by viscosity in the disk, we must look carefully at issues related to numerical viscosity. Except for codes based on a local solution of the Riemann shock problem such as PPM, most methods require implementation of an artificial viscosity to enforce stability and/or improve the shock treatment by the code. In this regard SPH is no exception and our version of the code implements the standard form discussed in Benz (1990). We use bulk and von Neumann-Richtmyer (so called ‘$\bar\alpha$’ and ‘$\beta$’) viscosities to simulate viscous pressures which are linear and quadratic in the velocity divergence. We incorporate a switch (see Balsara 1995) which acts to reduce substantially the large undesirable shear component associated with the standard form.
The bulk component of the artificial viscosity $\bar\alpha$ in the SPH code can be identified with a kinematic viscosity $\nu$ (see Murray 1994) using the relation $$\nu = {{ \bar\alpha c_s h}\over 8},$$ where $c_s$ is the sound speed and $h$ is the smoothing length of a particle. It is possible to relate the coefficient of bulk artificial viscosity $\bar\alpha$ to the $\alpha$-parameter of the standard viscous prescription of accretion disks. We equate the artificial viscosity to the Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) viscosity (defined by $\nu = \alpha c_s H$ and $H$ is the disk scale height defined as the local sound speed over the angular rotation rate $c_s/\Omega$). Solving for $\alpha$ yields $$\label{sph-alpha}
\alpha = {{ f\bar\alpha h \Omega}\over {8c_s} },$$ where $f$ is the shear reduction factor discussed in Benz 1990 suitably averaged over particles and time. We caution the reader that the identification of the SPH form of the viscosity is not necessarily equivalent to that of the Shakura and Sunyaev form, especially because of the approximate manner in which the Balsara switch must be taken into account. We estimate equation \[\[sph-alpha\]\] may be valid to a factor of a few but should not be taken as exact.
For a nearly Keplerian disk with a temperature $T \propto r^{-1/2}$ and a roughly linear variation of the smoothing length, $h$, with radius, we obtain $\alpha \propto r^{-1/4}$. Depending on the temperature constant describing each disk ($T_0$, see section \[init\]), $\alpha$ is of order $\sim10^{-2}$. Only at small radii ($r\lesssim 2$AU) and low disk mass (for which $T_0$ becomes correspondingly small for a specified value of ) does $\alpha$ rise to values in the range $\alpha\sim0.1-1$. These values of $\alpha$ imply that the viscous time scale, $\tau= r^2/\nu$, remains significantly longer than the few orbital time scales we simulate. For most of the disk, the SPH viscosity is small enough not to affect the evolution of the disk significantly. The von Neumann ($\beta$) term in the viscosity does not mirror the alpha prescription as the bulk term does. Derived from the assumption that the viscosity is proportional to square of the velocity divergence, its effect is limited to portions of the flow in which shocks occur.
The numerical viscosity inherent to the PPM code is difficult to quantify. The nonlinear nature of the Riemann solver (with the associated PPM ‘switches’ to sharpen discontinuities and enforce monotonicity) renders an artificial viscosity term unnecessary. However, a small numerical viscosity still appears in the code. Porter & Woodward (1994) derive fits for numerical dissipation proportional to the third and fourth powers of ${\delta
x}/\lambda$ where ${\delta x}$ is a cell dimension and $\lambda$ is the wavelength of a disturbance. Thus, large scale disturbances like the spiral arms will experience little dissipation, but small scale motions will be damped more.
Physical Assumptions and Constraints {#phyasmpt}
====================================
Because our simulations involve dimensionless quantities such as the disk/star mass ratio and the Toomre stability parameter $Q$, the physics itself is scalable to systems of different size. We shall express all quantities in units with values typical of the early stages of protostellar evolution. These units are also comparable (for the most massive disk simulations) to the final dimensions of our own solar system. The star mass will be assumed $M_* = 0.5 M_\odot$ and the disk radius $R_D$ = 50 AU. Time units are given in either years or the disk orbit period defined by $T_D=2\pi\sqrt{R_D^3/GM_*}$ which, with the mass and radius given above, is equal to 500 years.
Circumstellar Disk Initial Conditions {#init}
-------------------------------------
The initial conditions for prototype low and high mass disks are summarized graphically in figures \[dinit-ppm\] and \[dinit-sph\] for our PPM and SPH simulations respectively. In functional form, the disk mass is initially distributed according to a density power law $$\Sigma(r) = \Sigma_0 \left[ 1 + \left({r\over r_c}\right)^2\right]^
{-{p\over{2}}}, \label{denslaw}$$ where the power law exponent $p$ is set to 3/2. As we shall discuss in the following section we found that our PPM simulations implementing the initial density profile of eq. \[\[denslaw\]\] became violently dynamic and we could not simulate the evolution of the system. Instead, we have chosen to remove matter completely at small radii in our PPM runs by adopting an initial density law which ensures that little matter remains at small radii or interacts with the boundary. This density law takes the form $$\label{denslaw-a}
\Sigma(r) = {\Sigma_0{\left\{[{1-e^{\left({{r-R_0}\over{R_c}}\right)^2}]}
\over{r}\right\}^p}},$$ where $R_0$ is set to the radius of the innermost boundary cell and $R_c$ is set arbitrarily to 6 AU. With this choice, the surface density is substantially reduced near the inner boundary while retaining a nearly pure $r^{-3/2}$ distribution for radii greater than about 10 AU.
The temperature is given by similar power law as $$T(r) = T_0\left[1 + \left({r\over r_c}\right)^2\right]^{-{q\over{2}}},
\label{templaw}$$ with the exponent $q$ set to 1/2. The softening radius $r_c$ for both power laws is set to $r_c=R_D/50$(=1 AU). $\Sigma_0$ and $T_0$ are determined from the disk mass and a choice of the minimum value over the disk of the Toomre stability parameter $Q$, defined as $$\label{Qdef}
Q = {{\kappa c_s}\over{ \pi G \Sigma}},$$ where $\kappa$ is the local epicyclic frequency. For an ideal gas with an isothermal equation of state (see section \[eos-sec\]), the sound speed is defined as $$c_s^2 = {{kT}\over{\mu m_p}},$$ where the mean molecular weight is $\mu$ and we assume the gas is of solar composition.
We choose the value of the temperature power law index based on observed temperature profiles in T Tauri disks (see Beckwith 1990; Adams 1990). The density power law is much less well constrained, and our choice of $p=3/2$ is roughly consistent with the infall collapse calculations of Cassen & Moosman (1981). As an additional motivation, this choice of exponents matches the one adopted by ARS and allows a direct comparison with their work. We assume that the disks are vertically thin so that two dimensional ($r$,$\phi$) simulations are justified. The variables of interest (density, pressure, etc.) are taken to be vertically integrated quantities. Magnetic fields are neglected in our simulations.
These temperature and density laws produce a profile for the instability parameter $Q$ that is nearly flat over the largest portion of the disk, with a steep rise at small radii and a shallow increase towards the outer edge of the disk. The minimum value of $Q$ in the disk is therefore located at $\sim 30-40$ AU, depending upon the mass and temperature of a specific disk. The $X$ parameter, important for SWING amplification and is defined by $$X = {{r\kappa^2}\over{2\pi mG\Sigma}},$$ with $m$ the number of spiral arms (the azimuthal wave number). The $X$ parameter shows a similar pattern to that seen for $Q$, but with a steeper increase at large radii. In order for a system to be unstable to SWING amplification, the value of $X$ must be $\lesssim$3 in the region of interest. For most of the disks we study, $X$ is larger than that required to keep the disk stable for the lowest order spiral modes, so that we expect SWING not to contribute to the growth of instabilities. Like the $Q$ and $X$ profiles, the vortensity profile shows a steep increase at small radii. In this case, such an increase may serve to stimulate growth due to the family of instabilities discussed by Papaloizou and Lin (1989). We will discuss this possibility in more detail below.
The star is represented as a point mass, free to move in response to gravitational forces from the surrounding disk. Initially, disk matter is placed on circular orbits around the star, with rotational equilibrium in the disk and radial velocities set to zero. Gravitational and pressure forces are balanced with centrifugal forces such that the rotation curve is given by $$\Omega^2(r) = { {GM_*\over{r^3}} + {1\over{r}}{
{\partial\Psi_D}\over{\partial{r}}} + {1\over{r}}{
{{\bf\nabla}{P}}\over{\Sigma} } }, \label{rotlaw}$$ where the symbols have their usual meanings and $\Psi_D$, the gravitational potential of the disk, is calculated numerically with the same potential solver utilized in the full hydrodynamic code. The magnitudes of the pressure and gravitational forces are small compared to the stellar term, therefore the disk is nearly Keplerian in character.
Boundary Conditions, Construction of Circumstellar Accretion Disks and Numerical Resolution {#bound}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To complete the specification of the initial state of the systems, we must define the conditions at the boundaries of each simulation. The results of ARS suggest that the dynamics of an accretion disk will be relatively insensitive to the implementation of the inner boundary condition, becoming active only at distances far from the star. On the other hand, the shape of outer edge of the disk is predicted to be critical for the eventual growth of the SLING instability. In order to search for evidence of the SLING instability we shall implement boundary conditions which may be favorable to its growth.
To ease time step constraints, we set the inner boundary at a greater distance than that which is physically the case for a star/disk boundary. With a grid code, we can define the inner boundary by modeling the inner regions in some steady state approximation or by modifying the density law at small radii (in effect modeling tori) to reduce interactions with the inner boundary. Since ARS predict that the inner regions of the disk will be relatively stable, instabilities are not expected to grow there, given a disk initially in rotational equilibrium. Any boundary condition which does not perturb this equilibrium should be sufficient to describe the inner disk. Since by assumption, the inner disk begins in rotational equilibrium (i.e. with $v_r=0$), no matter will cross the boundary and a simple reflecting boundary condition will suffice. The reflecting boundary will also serve a second function. The four wave cycle (Shu 1990, hence STAR) important for the amplification of SLING requires a corotation or $Q$-barrier from which waves can be reflected or refracted during part of the cycle. Until such resonances may develop on their own further out in the disk, the reflecting boundary serves as a surrogate for the actual resonances.
Our PPM simulations showed that for a pure power law for the density (omitting the core radius of eq. \[\[denslaw\]\]), the inner regions of the disk to be quite dynamic and unstable. After a few orbits, matter in the inner disk moved off its initial circular orbit and began interacting with the boundary. The effect of these interactions is to give a “kick” to the system center of mass as matter reflects off the boundary. In the worst cases, serious computational problems occurred after 20-50 orbits of the inner disk edge and the calculations had to be stopped.
Several prescriptions for avoiding this behavior were attempted without real success. These prescriptions included allowing matter to accrete through the boundary onto the star, attaching the inner disk matter to the star itself, treating the inner disk as a softened point mass at the origin with varying degrees of softening or by treating the inner disk matter as an additional point mass free to move in response to the star and the rest of the disk. In each case results obtained were strongly dependent on the prescription followed. We conclude that the dynamics important for the global behavior of the physical system extend to quite small radii.
With this degree of activity in the inner disk it becomes reasonable to assume that a portion of the inner disk matter becomes depleted by accretion onto the star or ejected in an outflow on short time scales. The inner disk may expand in the $z$ direction and become truly three dimensional as the dynamical effects create dissipation and heating. In light of these ideas, and in order to concentrate our efforts on the large scale features, we have chosen to implement the density law of eq. \[\[denslaw-a\]\] and study a system for which little mass exists close to the star but which retains a power law profile further out. Due to the already artificial nature of mass distribution at small radii, little physical meaning can be attached to mass accretion rates through the inner boundary, therefore for simplicity we implement reflecting boundary conditions to complete the specification of the inner grid edge.
For our SPH simulations, we define the inner boundary by establishing an accretion radius at a distance from the current position of the star of $R_D$/110(=0.4 AU). This distance is set to be slightly smaller than the initial position of the innermost ring of particles in the disk. The gravitational softening radius for the star is set to the same value. As a particle’s trajectory takes it inside the accretion/softening radius, its mass and momentum are added to the star and it is removed from the calculation. This inner boundary condition does not prove to be as difficult to manage as in our PPM simulations. Even though a great deal of activity occurs in the inner portion of the disk, no particular computational difficulties were experienced. We believe this activity is largely due to crude boundary conditions which obscure the true physical behavior of the system. Particles near the boundary have no neighbor particles further inward to provide pressure support, while accretion of a particle through the boundary implies a sudden loss of pressure support to its neighbors further out. Also, the stellar gravitational softening reduces the effect of the star on the orbit of each SPH particle there. A small number particles near the boundary are strongly affected.
Because of our interest in characterizing disk instabilities, especially SLING, we have experimented with several outer boundary conditions as well. In the PPM simulations we have implemented both a reflecting boundary and a boundary condition in which matter falls onto the outer edge of the disk (an “infall” boundary). With the pure reflecting conditions, we imitate the boundary conditions implemented by ARS which have been identified as critical for the SLING instability. With the infall boundary condition, we relax this assumption slightly to allow the disk edge to begin outward expansion or begin to break up if conditions require.
With the infall boundary, the outer disk edge is defined to be initially located at a cell interface several cells inward from the outermost computational cell. We define the disk boundary assuming an isothermal shock, so that the density and radial component of the velocity are determined directly from the shock jump conditions. Since by definition a shock implies that the tangential velocity across the shock is continuous, we know that at the disk edge, $R_D$, the $\phi$ component of the infall velocity is the same as the orbit velocity, $R_D\Omega(R_D)$. If we then specify the temperature of the infalling gas as $T=10$ K, conservation laws for mass, momentum and energy determine the flow from the shock to the outer grid radius. The infall is kept constant throughout the simulation at the values which initially define it. We note in passing that a flow constructed in this manner is quite artificial and may have little relation to flows in real systems. For our simulations, infall provides a mechanism by which the outer edge of the disk can be reasonably well defined.
In our SPH simulations, we adopt a free outer boundary. This choice has the advantage of simplicity in implementation, but suffers because quantities such as the density or pressure are less well defined within about two smoothing lengths of the boundary (see fig \[dinit-sph\]). The result is that over time the surface density at the disk edge spreads radially to a width of $\sim$5 AU. The disk edge is no longer defined by a sharp discontinuity, but does remain distinct except for very high simulations, for which the mass at the outer disk edge is nearly unbound. The sharp outer boundary condition required for SLING to become active is satisfied under these conditions.
At time zero in our SPH simulations we set approximately 8000 equal mass particles on a series of concentric rings with the innermost ring at a radius of $R_D$/100. For our PPM simulations we use a inner to outer radius ratio of 50 and several grid resolutions. Our main series of simulations, with reflecting outer boundary conditions, have a $64\times102$ cell cylindrical polar ($r,\phi$) grid. Two higher resolution simulations are performed with a $100\times152$ grid, and we have explored the use of an infall boundary at two resolutions of $44\times64$ and $64\times96$. Grid cells are defined to be ‘squares’ in the sense that $\delta r = Cr\delta\phi$ over the entire grid, with $C$ a constant $\sim$1. With the resolution used for our simulations, SPH particle smoothing lengths are less than a few tenths of one AU in the inner portion of the disk up to $\sim$1 AU in the outer disk. Grid resolution in the PPM simulations is of order 0.1 AU at the inner grid edge and $\sim$2 AU at the outer edge.
The relatively low resolution of our simulations results in part from the large radial extent of the systems we study. Many of the important dynamical processes in a disk occur on time scales for orbits in the outer regions of the disk, but the size of a time step (the Courant condition) is derived from the cell size at the inner grid edge, where the cells are the smallest and the velocities are largest. Assuming nearly Keplerian rotation around the star, an inner grid radius at 1 AU, and a moderate resolution of order 150 azimuth cells, the time step is a few days, while the dynamical time scale of the disk is a few $T_D=$500 yr. In order to evolve a given simulation to completion, we must integrate over a half a million or more time steps. For ‘high’ resolution simulations of say, 300 or more azimuthal cells, the number is correspondingly increased. With the workstations available, it is not computationally feasible to run a large number of models to explore the relevant parameter space. A similar problem exists for our SPH simulations.
The Equation of State and Energy Considerations {#eos-sec}
-----------------------------------------------
In each code, a vertically integrated gas pressure is implemented using a single component, ‘isothermal’ ($\gamma=1$) gas equation of state given by $$\label{eos}
P=\Sigma c_s^2.$$ In PROMETHEUS (our version of the PPM algorithm), a truly isothermal equation of state with $\gamma = 1$ is not easily obtained, therefore we use an ‘almost isothermal’ ideal gas with $\gamma = 1.01$ for these simulations.
Each simulation is evolved isothermally, by which we mean that the temperature of each cell, once defined at time zero (by eq. \[\[templaw\]\] and an input value of ), is fixed thereafter. Loss processes such as radiative cooling are assumed to balance local heating processes in the disk. Under this assumption, a packet of matter which moves radially inward or outward, heats or cools according to the prescribed temperature law. Matter which expands or is compressed is heated or cooled according to the same law.
With SPH comes the ability to choose the manner in which one incorporates the isothermal evolution. We may set the temperature of each particle as a function of its distance to the star (Eulerian implementation), or we may keep its temperature fixed no matter where the particle moves (Lagrangian implementation). In most of our simulations, we have chosen to use the Eulerian version. This choice is dictated by consistency, since the isothermal assumption implies that the star must contribute the bulk of the heating, and by the desire to match as closely as possible the PPM calculations.
Results of Simulations {#results}
======================
With the initial conditions outlined above, we have run a series of simulations with both codes in which we vary disk mass but keep a constant minimum Toomre parameter $=1.5$. A free outer boundary condition was implemented for each SPH simulation, while one series of PPM simulations was run with a reflecting outer boundary. A second series of PPM simulations used an infall through the outer few cells onto the outer disk edge, which was assumed to be an initially stable isothermal shock. To explore varying stability, we also ran two SPH and one PPM series varying between $1.1$ and a maximum value defined by the condition that the outer edge of the disk remained bound. Each simulation was evolved for periods ranging between a small fraction of an orbital period $T_D$ (in the case of very low runs in which rapid clumping was seen), to several complete orbital periods for runs in which clumping was not observed.
Unless otherwise specified, no explicit initial perturbations have been assumed beyond computational roundoff error. Due to the discrete representation of the fluid variables, this perturbation translates to a noise level of order $10^{-3}$ for the SPH calculations. The relatively large amplitude of the noise originates from the fact that the hydrodynamic quantities are smoothed using a fixed number of neighbors (see Herant & Woosley 1994). An increase in the number of particles does not necessarily decrease the noise unless the smoothing extends over a larger number of neighbors. Because of its similarity to Monte Carlo methods, the decrease in noise goes as the square root of the number of neighbors, and so decreases slowly with a large increase in computational cost.
For PPM, the noise level can be made as small as machine precision (while double precision is used internal to the code, single precision is used in initialization and dumps, so we obtain $\sim 10^{-7}$). The PPM simulations are terminated at a perturbation amplitude of $\delta\Sigma/\Sigma \sim20$% because matter on elliptical orbits begins to interact strongly with the inner and outer boundaries. SPH simulations on the other hand, are carried out until clumps begin to form (clumping causes the time step to drop drastically and halt the evolution). Highly stable disks, for which clupms do not form, are terminated when no significant additional evolution is anticipated. Each of the SPH simulations run for much of their duration with high amplitude ($\delta\Sigma/\Sigma \sim100$%) perturbations. Comparison simulations on a simple test problem (see section \[sphppm\] below) were run to high perturbation amplitude using both SPH and PPM in order to confirm the late time behavior of the SPH simulations.
We did not formally introduce a perturbation in our initial conditions, however two conditions provide indirect seeds for perturbations. First, the disk is cut off at an inner radius which, while small, is nonetheless large compared to the stellar radius. This cut off creates a gravitational potential hump at the center, and is equivalent to a strong seed for the $m=1$ disturbances. As the star moves away from the origin, it is further accelerated by the hump, effectively sliding down the incline. We show in figure \[gravpot\] the gravitational potential near the origin for the disks with the characteristics described above as well as the tori used in our comparison calculations below (section \[sphppm\]). By following the procedure of Heemskirk (1992), who derive an equation of motion for the star including the zeroth order hump term plus first order perturbations, we note that initially the growth rate for a $m=1$ pattern will be $$\gamma_1 = \left(\sqrt{ {{d^2\Psi_D}\over{dr^2}} }\right)_{r=0}.$$ Computing numerically the curvature of the hump, we derive a $m=1$ growth rate due to the hump of $\gamma_1/\Omega_D\sim 5$. Indeed during the very earliest stages of our simulations ($t\lesssim 0.1T_D$), we find a growth rate of this (quite large) magnitude. After the initial transient, growth rates quickly fall to more sedate levels. The contribution to the long term global growth of instability due to this initial perturbation is thought to be a small component of the total.
A second indirect seed of dynamical instability is connected to the fact that the density law has been softened (eq. \[\[denslaw\]\]) or modified (eq. \[\[denslaw-a\]\]) in the innermost regions of the disk in order to avoid a singularity at small radii. This density decrease creates a region of high vortensity gradient which excites excites wave growth (see Papaloizou and Lin 1989). This instability channel also requires a seed, but its proximity to the inner edge, where orbit times are small, coupled with the hump perturbations, make the time scale for its initial excitation quite short.
Features of our simulations are tabulated in Tables \[sph-tabl\] and \[ppm-tabl\]. The first column of each table represents the name of the simulation for identification. The second column defines the resolution (in number of particles or grid size). Initial disk/star mass ratio and minimum $Q$ are given in columns 3 and 4, while total simulation time and spiral features of each simulation fill out the remaining columns.
We illustrate the phenomena seen in our simulations by presenting two representative cases: mass ratios $=1.0$ and $=0.2$. Both use initial values of $=1.5$. These disks represent points near either end of a spectrum of behavior. In section \[tempvar\], we show additional models which vary , demonstrating behavior along another axis in parameter space. We first examine the qualitative nature of the simulations, then examine in detail the structures which form. A comparison of the results of SPH and PPM and limitations imposed by numerical features is discussed in section \[sphppm\].
General Observations and Morphology {#genobs}
-----------------------------------
Spiral arm growth occurs with varying rates and amplitudes. Growth is not smooth or continuous. Frequently arms change shape, stretch, or break off and drift until hit by another passing disturbance. Well developed spiral arms, while subject to irregular change on short time scales, do survive. In figure \[sph-himas\], we show a series of snapshots of particle positions in simulation [*scv6*]{}, characterized by $=1.0$ and an initial minimum $=1.5$. Instability first develops in the central regions of the disk, and propagates outward in radius. Even early ($0.5 T_D$) in the simulation, variations of density $\delta\Sigma/\bar\Sigma$ approach 10-50%; at late times they reach unity.
The dominant patterns are two and three-armed spirals with significant components having other symmetries. At late times we see multiple tails on a single arm, arms unevenly spaced in azimuth, and patterns which have one arm which is significantly stronger than its counterparts. Often such spacing and asymmetry is preceded by the breakup of an arm at its base, and subsequent drift through the disk or capture by another arm. For example, between the $0.94 T_D$ and the $1.41 T_D$ images, an $m=2$ structure breaks up, and reforms as an asymmetric $m=3$ spiral pattern. It then returns to its previous two armed structure by $1.73T_D$.
A comparable series of plots for a PPM simulation ([*pch6*]{}) with analogous initial conditions is shown in figure \[ppm-himas\]. The variable plotted is density variation defined by $$\label{densvar}
{\Sigma_{ij}-\bar\Sigma_i}\over{\bar\Sigma_i}$$ where $i$ and $j$ refer to the grid indices of the $r$ and $\phi$ coordinates respectively, and $\bar\Sigma_i$ is the azimuth average of the surface density at radial grid index $i$. Only positive variation contours are shown. The linear spacing between one contour and the next higher contour is noted in the upper right hand corner of each plot. The dotted line denotes the disk edge at 50 AU. As in the SPH simulation, instability begins in the inner regions of the disk. Complex structures follow at midtime epochs. Later behavior shows well defined regular spiral patterns, with a mix of several patterns dominated by $m=2$ and $m=3$ which dynamically reorganize themselves with time.
The simulations above display a number of similar characteristics, though on a different spatial scale and mass distribution, to the protostellar core/inner disk simulations presented in Pickett (1998). In each case, large scale spiral structures grow from marginally stable systems. The instabilities begin their growth in the innermost regions of the system and proceed to involve the entire disk as the simulation proceeds. At late times in both sets of simulations, the spiral arms become azimuthally condensed. A notable difference between our results and theirs, which will be discussed in section \[disk-grw\] below, is the fact that our simulations exhibit a pattern speed which increases toward the center of the disk. In contrast, Pickett report constant pattern speeds.
Initial behavior of our low disk mass runs is similar to those of high mass, with instabilities first becoming apparent in the inner regions of the disk. Evolution at later times differs from that for high mass disks. We see the rapid development of patterns with large numbers of spiral arms, which display a tenuous, filamentary structure not present in higher mass disks. The disk shown in figure \[sph-lomas\] (simulation [*scv2*]{}) has a five armed pattern which predominates, and at late times fragments into multiple clumps from each arm. A region of apparent stability against spiral arm formation becomes apparent in the extreme innermost regions (see also section \[tempvar\]). Such regions are present to some extent in all of our SPH disks except those which form clumps immediately and are defined by a value of Toomre’s $Q$ parameter greater than $\sim$2.
In a low disk mass PPM simulation ([*pch2*]{}), shown in figure \[ppm-lomas\], we also find a change in character and an increased number of spiral arms. As in figure \[ppm-himas\], the instability begins to form its first spiral structures at amplitudes of 0.01-0.1%. Although the precise number of arms seen does not correspond to that in the SPH run (showing instead the 2-4 armed patterns dominant), the degree of small scale fragmentation in the region around 5-25 AU is similar. We believe that the partial suppression of the high $m$-number patterns can be attributed to the wavelengths of those patterns approaching the gravitational softening length implied by the grid. This statement is supported by the fact that for the low mass disks ([*pch2*]{} and [*pcm2*]{}), the amplitude of the perturbations $\delta\Sigma/\bar\Sigma$, is larger in the higher resolution simulation. These simulations do not resolve the small scale structure. Note that the PPM run with $=0.1$ ($pcm1$) developed only minimal spiral structure after nearly six full disk orbit periods.
Structures observed in the moderate resolution PPM simulations (runs [*pcm1-pcm6*]{}) were qualitatively similar to those observed for our highest resolution runs ([*pch2, pch6*]{}), although the growth of the low mass/low resolution structures was slower. Growth rates are similar for the low and moderate resolution high mass disks. The simulations may have reached a level of convergence sufficient to resolve the large scale features of the evolution, but further improvement is desirable.
The Effects of Temperature {#tempvar}
--------------------------
Two series of SPH simulations were run varying the minimum stability parameter $Q$, with mass ratios $=0.8$ and $0.4$. Other things being equal, high $Q$ implies high temperature in the disk (eq. \[\[Qdef\]\]). We vary $Q$ for different simulations between a minimum value of $Q=1.1$, at which the disk is only marginally stable to ring formation, and a maximum value such that the outer edge of the disk remains bound. For the high mass series, this limit was found at $=2.3$, while for the lower mass disks up to $=3.0$ were available.
In figure \[sph-qvar\] we show ‘late time’ behavior of each of the disks in the $=0.8$ series ([*sqh1-sqh6*]{}). Below an initial value of $\sim1.4$, strong instability and clump formation occurs during a few orbit periods of the inner portion of the disk. The outer disk remains largely unaffected during the simulation (which suffers drastic decreases in time step size once clumps form). At moderate (1.4 to somewhat less than 1.7), instability in the inner regions is slowed to the extent that spiral instabilities involving the entire disk have time to grow. These spiral arms then become filamentary and clump on time scales of one or two $T_D$. The last few frames in figures \[sph-himas\] and \[sph-lomas\] show such behavior for a disk with $=1.5$ and $=1.0$ and $0.2$. The portions of the spiral arms at large distances from the central star remain thicker and more diffuse, while the inner regions evolve toward more sharply defined features. As increases the character of the spiral instabilities changes from narrow, filamentary structures and clumps in the inner disk to thicker arms which develop on disk orbital time scales at higher initial .
Above initial $\sim2.0$, we see only limited asymmetry and spiral structure. However, there is a strong transient epoch in which the centers of mass of the star and the disk orbit each other at large distances (relative to their late time behavior or to other, less stable (lower ) simulations). Simulations have been carried out to more than $4 T_D$ for these cases. This resonance gains in strength with increasing up to the maximum values simulated. Accretion of disk matter onto the star occurs at higher rates in these runs as well. The star makes a hole in which little disk matter remains.
Figure \[hiq-trans\] shows an example of this transient for simulation [*sqh6*]{}. The orbit of the star begins with a slow transient to relatively large distances from the system center of mass (as large as $\sim0.05 R_D$ in the disk shown). In the first $\sim 2 T_D$, the star accretes a large fraction initially located in the inner part of the disk. After this time the star settles to a smaller orbit, with occasional fluctuations as it moves in response to disk perturbations, and continues to accrete from the inner disk. We believe this transient is largely due to the high mass accretion rates with nonaxisymmetric flow. With such fast accretion, the flow of mass onto the star is rapid enough that appreciable angular momentum is swept along as well. A comparable simulation, with the star fixed at the origin, shows nearly as large an accretion rate. We conclude that high accretion drives the stellar migration, rather than the reverse process where the star moves by some other means (caused for example by a torque from the outer disk) into a region of the disk in which high accretion may take place.
Although we find that the accretion rates seen in the most $Q$-stable disks are higher than low stability disks, it is not clear whether the magnitude of the accretion rates are correct. In SPH the accretion of a particle implies a sudden unphysical loss of pressure support to the neighbors of the accreted particle. As the disk reorganizes itself, additional particles move inward towards the accretion radius. If the mass accretion for all of our disks were to be scaled up or down by a common factor, the transient in figure \[hiq-trans\] might increase or decrease in magnitude or even disappear. What we can say with certainty is that if a star can accrete matter from the inner disk quickly enough that it loses its pressure support further out, accretion of disk material which has not lost all of its orbital angular momentum can occur, driving the star away from the system center of mass. In the simulations we study here, such a condition occurs when the accretion rate is above $\sim 6-8\times 10^{-5} M_\odot$/yr for the high mass series and $\sim 2\times 10^{-5} M_\odot$/yr for the lower mass series.
Behavior of the lower disk mass series of SPH simulations with varied is similar. The overall characteristics of the evolution mimic that of the higher mass runs but are ‘stretched’ along the $Q$ axis to higher values of . Azimuthal condensation of spiral arms is again seen up to initial $=1.5$, but the $=1.7$ run at this mass ratio appears to be just beyond the critical stability for clumping: many preliminary characteristics of clumping such as well resolved spiral arms and short duration over-density spikes (see below) were evident but no actual formation occurred at the time we stopped the run at $T=5 T_D$. Production of thick arms continues as high as $=2.3$ and global star/disk resonances again manifest themselves all the way up to the maximum values studied. Distinct one-armed spiral waves form at $=2.0$ for short periods, then lose coherency and fade back into a smooth, global pattern.
One series of PPM simulations was run with varying . The late time density variation contours for the series are shown in figure \[ppm-qvar\]. Because of the low amplitude of the initial noise, these simulations were continued to $\sim 2 T_D$ even for the lowest minimum $Q$ values. In the highest stability ( $=2$) simulation, we find that the strength of the instabilities near the inner boundary dominate the instabilities over the disk as a whole. This instability does not seem to be the same as the transient seen in the SPH runs: it is limited to small radii inside the density maximum, and does not enter the outer disk at all. Because of the boundary behavior noted above, simulation of the disks into epochs having large amplitude variations was possible for only short times. We could not determine if a large transient in the orbits of the centers of mass of the star and the disk developed at late times for these simulations.
At low and moderate ($\leq1.7$), there is a great deal of correspondence between the qualitative results of our SPH and PPM runs. For simulations with moderate initial ($\sim1.4-1.7$) multiple spiral arm structures develop with the $m=2$ and $m=3$ patterns most prominent. The $m=1$ pattern is present at varying levels as an asymmetric component of the dominant $m=2$ or 3 patterns.
For the lowest stability simulation, run at $=1.1$, density variations up to $\sim$40% are present in the disk and variations within a single spiral arm produce local density maxima within that arm. Continued collapse from large amplitude spiral structure into one or more clumps is not observed, probably because we have not resolved the gravitational potential or the rotational motion of the matter about a collapsing core to the necessary scale. The evolution of these lowest stability disks (i.e. simulation [*pqm1*]{} and [*pqm2*]{}) at early times in the simulations are dominated by the growth of the $m=1$ pattern which, unlike their more stable cousins, is distinct even at the $10^{-5}-10^{-6}$ level. Later, these patterns tend to break up and reform as $m=2$ and $m=3$ patterns.
Spiral Pattern Growth {#patterns}
---------------------
An important connection of numerical simulations to linear perturbation analyses is to define, if possible, the linearly growing spiral patterns of a system. To do so requires a specification of the growth rates and pattern speeds of the dominant spiral patterns in each system.
We compute the growth rates by first computing the amplitude of spiral patterns by Fourier transforming a set of annuli spanning the disk in the azimuthal coordinate. The amplitude of each Fourier component is then defined as $|A_m|=\ln (|\Sigma_m|/|\Sigma_0|)$, where $\Sigma_m$ is $$\label{mode-amp}
\Sigma_m = {{1}\over{\pi}}\int_{R_i}^{R_o}\int_0^{2\pi}
e^{im\phi}\Sigma(r,\phi)rd\phi dr,$$ for $m>0$ and the inner and outer radii of the disk are defined by $R_i$ and $R_o$. The $m=0$ term is defined with a normalization of $1/{2\pi}$. With this normalization, the $\Sigma_0$ term is the mass of the disk and the amplitudes, $A_m$, are dimensionless quantities. The phase angle is then defined from the real and imaginary components of the amplitude $$\phi_m = \tan^{-1}\left[{{Im({\Sigma_m})}\over{Re(\Sigma_m)}}\right].$$ Local amplitudes for each component can also be derived for annuli by neglecting the integration over radius in eq. \[\[mode-amp\]\]. Each Fourier component is computed about the center of mass of the system.
Assuming strictly linear growth for each Fourier component, we can use least squares techniques to fit a growth rate, $\gamma_m$, to each amplitude as a function of time with the equation $$A _m = \gamma_m t + C_m, \label{grwtheq}$$ where $C_m$ is an constant defining the initial amplitude of the component. If we keep track of the number of times, $N$, a pattern has wound past a phase angle of 2$\pi$ and add $2\pi N$ to the derived phase at each time, we can derive a pattern speed by a similar fit as $$\label{phidot}
\phi_m = {{\dot\phi_m}\over{m}} t + \phi_{m,0}.$$ This definition effectively averages over all short term variations (if any) in the pattern speed. A periodogram analysis gives similar results to this fit technique. The frequency with which we produce dumps of the simulation is sufficient to produce accurate pattern speeds over all but the inner $\sim 3-5$ AU of our disks, and over the full radial extent of the tori (see section \[sphppm\]).
We may independently derive an additional global growth rate for the $m=1$ component by noting that it is the only component which can contribute to the motion of the star. All higher order components are symmetric under a rotation smaller than 2$\pi$ radians (i.e. $2\pi/m$ respectively for each Fourier component) and therefore do not contribute to the motion of the disk center of mass. By fitting the distance between the centers of mass of the star and disk as a function of time, we find a growth rate independent of the precise geometry of the spiral arms in the disk. In general we find good agreement between this growth rate and the value derived from the above procedure.
The analysis of the pattern growth in disks and tori can proceed at either a local or a global level by either including or excluding the integration over radius in eq. \[\[mode-amp\]\]. If we derive a growth rate and pattern speed in a succession of narrow rings in the system and compare the values over the entire system, we can readily identify structures which are coherently growing and moving over large temporal and spatial scales. This feature is limited in a global analysis because the integration effectively averages the amplitude and speed of a given pattern over the entire system.
On the other hand, a local analysis can be quite misleading. If we consider a series of concentric narrow rings making up a disk, we must account not only for the growth of instability within any given ring, but also for the transport of already formed instabilities from one ring to another. For example: if some ‘lump’ of matter grows in one ring in the disk, then moves by some process to a second, the amplitude of the Fourier components in each of those rings will be affected: one will exhibit a net loss in amplitude, while the other a net gain. A growth rate based upon amplitudes affected by such processes would no longer represent the physical instability mechanisms present in the disk.
In the analysis that follows, we shall use a local analysis to identify patterns which are growing coherently over large spatial scales, but in order to compare our results to the global analyses of ARS and STAR, we shall utilize globally integrated quantities.
### SPH and PPM: A Direct Comparison of Results and Numerics {#sphppm}
Each code does well with different aspects of the evolution of disks. For the example of the disks discussed here, the low noise in the PPM calculations allows an accurate growth rate calculation, but with our treatment of boundaries, problems develop as a simulation becomes nonlinear. Matter reflected from the boundaries changes the total momentum of the system to such an extent that its center of mass (exhibited particularly in the position of the star) attempts to move to infinity. Because of its ability to dynamically adapt the available resolution to the interesting parts of the flow and relative sensitivity to boundaries, SPH is able to follow the nonlinear evolution much further. These same features however, forbid simulating a disk with a low density central hole because the steep density gradient near the inner disk edge cannot be adequately resolved at a computationally affordable level. Even for disks without a hole (for which the gravitational softening at the inner boundary blurs the physics and allows the simulation to proceed), the initial noise in SPH (of order $10^{-3}$) leaves very little time for random perturbations to organize themselves into ordered global spiral structures while remaining in the linear regime.
Fitting growth rates to the SPH simulations requires much more caution than is required for the PPM runs. The initial noise level is such that only a very short time baseline is available prior to saturation. Typically, we observe a period during which Fourier components grow linearly until reaching a saturation level. This period of linear growth lasts for about one disk orbit $T_D$ or less for SPH and 2–3 $T_D$ for the PPM simulations.
The SPH disk simulations often reach high perturbation amplitudes close to the star before more distant regions of the disk have become active. To compare the two numerical methods and minimize this time scale problem, we have simulated relatively narrow tori. Such tori have a much more restricted dynamic range than a disk, so that the entire system becomes active at once. We use a torus with an outer to inner radius ratio of $R_i/R_o=5$ and a $\gamma=1$ equation of state given by eq. \[\[eos\]\] with temperature, density and individual particle mass given by a Gaussian function of radius $$\label{torus-law}
f(r) = f_0e^{ -\left({{r-r_0}\over{R_w}}\right)^2},$$ where $r_0$ is defined at the midpoint, $r_0=(R_i+R_o)/2$, of the torus and $R_w=(r_0-R_i)/2$, so that the torus extends about three ‘standard deviations’ in either direction from the highest density point (figure \[torus-init\]). Each simulation is then evolved isothermally in the same way as is done with our simulations of disks.
With a $\gamma=1$ equation of state, it is difficult to find toroidal configurations which are initially stable to axisymmetric perturbations (i.e. $Q>1$ everywhere), except for relatively low mass tori. For a variety of temperature or density laws, either the high density central region will collapse (i.e. the initial will be less than unity), or the outer edge will be unbound. For our test problem, a ratio of $M_T/M_*=0.2$ yields a minimum $Q$ of about $1.05$ near the center of the torus. As before, the star mass is $M_*=0.5M_\odot$, the outer torus radius of $R_o$=50 AU, and thus the outer edge of the torus orbit period is $T_T=T_D=$500 yr.
Table \[cmp-tabl\] summarizes the characteristics of the simulations. The linear and nonlinear regimes are divided by the condition that the amplitudes of Fourier components other than the dominant pattern (or patterns) reach comparable amplitudes to that dominant pattern, and total perturbations reach $\sim$10%.
One SPH and two PPM simulations were run with this toroidal configuration at a resolution of $40\times150$ cells for the PPM runs and $6998$ particles in the SPH run. One PPM simulation with initial random noise amplitude $10^{-3}$ (comparable to the initial noise in SPH) and one with noise of amplitude $10^{-8}$ were run. The $10^{-3}$ noise is input as a random density perturbation in each cell as $$\Sigma_{ij} = \left(1 + 10^{-3}(2R-1)\right)\Sigma_{ij}$$ where $i$ and $j$ refer to the radial and azimuthal grid indices and $R$ is a pseudo-random number between zero and one. The $10^{-8}$ amplitude noise is derived from truncation error in the initial state. Boundary conditions are identical to those used in our disk simulations.
The relatively large amplitude of the noise in the SPH simulations is caused by smoothing over a finite number of neighbors (see Herant and Woosley 1994). Increasing the number of neighbors used in the interpolation has a small effect in decreasing the noise amplitude but at a high computational cost. We have used a varying number of neighbors (depending on local conditions of the run) with a distribution centered near 15–20 neighbors per particle, a number which is standard for two dimensional simulations.
The resolution of features within the torus or disk must inevitably be less accurate in a finitely resolved system than in a physical system. PPM spreads shocks over at least two cells, for example, while further loss of resolution may come from the representation of the gravitational potential. In SPH, resolution is limited by the smoothing length of the particles and the artificial viscosity required to adequately reproduce shocks.
Two additional PPM and two additional SPH simulations of tori have been run to test resolution. One PPM run has 1.5 times the resolution in each dimension (60$\times$225–roughly doubling the number of cells) and the second twice the resolution (80$\times$300–quadrupling the number of cells). The SPH simulations increase by a factor of two and a factor of four the number of particles in each simulation. Comparing runs of different resolution is difficult, however, because the power spectrum of the initial perturbations may not be controlled to the limit required. In an attempt to duplicate the perturbation at low and high resolution, but remain above the uncontrollable level imposed by the grid itself, we have input an initial random noise amplitude of $10^{-3}$ in each 2$\times$2 block of cells in each of the two higher resolution PPM runs.
We show the evolved configuration of each run in figure \[tor-cmp\]. The time at which each is shown is near the linear regime cut off discussed below. The SPH runs are mapped onto a grid and plotted in the same manner as the PPM runs in order to make the visual comparison as direct as possible. In each of the runs, instability growth is dominated by $m=2-4$ spiral patterns with the higher resolution runs tending to show progressively less of the $m=4$ pattern and more of the $m=2$ pattern. The $m=3$ pattern predominates in each simulation except for the two low resolution PPM runs. The change in morphology in different simulations is probably an artifact of the resolution. As we show for the growth rates below, the lowest resolution simulations are apparently not converged.
In comparison, the results of Laughlin & Różyczka (1996) show a dominance of an $m=2$ component without a large presence of other patterns. The origin of instabilities in their systems is attributed to the family of vortensity instabilities with corotation exterior to the torus. Different initial conditions seem to be responsible for the $m=2$ rather than $m=3$ dominance. Our test simulations use a narrower torus than theirs, with an isothermal rather than adiabatic equation of state. A simulation with an identical initial condition and equation of state compares favorably to their results.
The amplitudes and fits for growth rates for the $m=3$ spiral pattern at the center of the torus (at $R=30$ AU) are shown for each simulation in figure \[torm3\_30\]. The fit parameters are derived from only the portion of the curve in which the patterns are growing and little disruption of the large scale structure of the tori has begun. This disruption is characterized by an onset of fragmentation at the inner and outer edges of the torus (SPH) or significant radial distortions in the torus (PPM). We also allow a short period ($\sim 0.1T_D$) prior to the first fitted time point, for some initial transients (eg. the unphysical ‘ringed’ structure in the SPH initial state) to settle.
The pattern speeds and growth rates for the $m=1-4$ patterns are shown in figure \[ppmpatgrw1-4\] for each of the PPM simulations and in figure \[sphpatgrw1-4\] for each of the SPH simulations. The pattern speeds for the $m\geq 2$ patterns for each of the runs agree for both codes over the range of resolution and initial perturbation amplitude. The growth rates from the SPH simulations differ by as much as 50% between runs. For the SPH simulations obtaining a constant rate across each ring in the torus was not possible. For the PPM simulations, the growth rates near the inner and outer boundaries of the tori are reduced due to the fact that perturbations there do not begin to grow until after the denser regions of the torus have been disturbed. A similar effect is found for the pattern speed near the inner edge.
The growth rates for the SPH runs are affected by the high amplitude of perturbations in the initial state and the short time span over which the fit must be derived. Longer lived initial transients caused by the excitation of multiple eigenmodes of the system or by small inhomogeneities in the initial state can cause the amplitude curves to become quite nonlinear in form. The PPM simulations have longer time baselines so such transient effects are less important.
The growth rates for the $m=4$ pattern in the PPM simulations decrease with increasing resolution, while the $m=2$ and 3 growth rates are less affected. This fact and the trend towards $m=2$ and 3 spiral patterns for higher resolution runs suggest that they may be true linearly growing patterns for the system. The change in character with increasing resolution may be due to the fact that the torus begins its life very close to the stability limit, $=1.0$. Any inaccuracies in the resolution of the gravitational potential or the mass distribution (hence the pressure) will have their greatest effect in such a circumstance. The SPH simulations show no comparable effect, but reliable local growth rates can not be obtained for those simulations.
Late in each simulation the tori collapse into several condensed objects, but the details of the collapse vary. Not all of the spiral arms present during the growth of structure condense into separate objects. In many cases the spiral arms break up and/or merge as clumps begin to form. Figure \[tor-late\] shows snapshots of each of the runs at the time at which the spiral arms begin to collapse. Each simulation is halted at this point because of the influence of the boundaries on the simulation and because we did not properly simulate the physics important in the collapsed objects. The structures which develop resemble the simulations discussed by Christodoulou & Narayan (1993) because the tori tend to deform radially as instabilities grow. With both codes the torus becomes so distorted radially that a line of condensations forms from the torus matter which has moved outwards.
We now summarize the similarities and differences between the results of each code.
Each code produces instabilities which grow in the tori as they evolve forward in time. The instabilities produced are multi-armed spirals structures which, at the end of each simulation, have begun to radially distort the torus and collapse into clumps. In both codes predominantly 2–4 armed spiral structures are produced. The high resolution simulations each produce 2 and 3 armed structures while low resolution simulations (apparently incompletely converged), produce predominantly 3 and 4 armed structures.
The initial state of an SPH simulation begins with random noise of amplitude $\sim 10^{-3}$ above or below an ‘ideal’ initial value. Near the boundaries, where particles are not distributed evenly with respect to each other, additional differences from an ideal initial state are present. PPM can begin with noise in the initial state as small as machine precision for any given simulation.
The differences between one code and the other can be attributed to several effects. First, perturbations in the initial state may trigger more than one true eigenmode of the system which, taken together, cause more or less observed growth in a given simulation with respect to another. Because the noise input for each code arises from such different sources, the stimulated pattern growth may therefore initially have a much different character. This growth rate variation is exhibited predominantly by the amplitude of a given pattern ‘waving’ above and below its true linear growth curve and, in essence, constitutes an error estimate for a calculated growth rate. The PPM simulations, for which the growth rates are calculated over longer time baselines and with a smaller initial noise amplitude per Fourier component are not nearly as strongly affected by such effects. We estimate errors of 10-20% in the growth rates due to this effect in the PPM simulations and perhaps an additional 20-40% in the SPH runs because of their very short time baseline. Pattern speeds do not seem to be as strongly affected by these transient effects.
The adaptive nature of the resolution and high noise in SPH causes small scale filamentary structures to become active and develop more quickly than in our counterpart PPM simulations, which are limited to the resolution of the fixed grid. SPH will tend toward developing grainy and filamentary structures quickly, perhaps to a larger extent than is physically the case.
Because the grid boundaries are far away from the main concentration of mass in the torus, they have only a small effect until late in any given simulation. Such is not true for the disk simulations using the PPM code so those simulations cannot be carried out far into the nonlinear regime due to the growing influence of the boundaries at late times. The physics important for the global dynamical evolution of the disk ranges over a dynamic range larger than we are able to simulate. The state at which the PPM runs must be terminated (with 10-20% perturbations) are qualitatively quite similar to those of the SPH runs over most of their duration. It may be that for the disks we discuss below, the PPM runs are representative of the linear regime, while the SPH simulations are our only representation of the late time nonlinear behavior of the system.
### Pattern Growth in Disks {#disk-grw}
With a clearer understanding of the numerical properties of our codes on a test problem, we return now to the study of disks. Due to the high initial noise of the SPH runs and large radial extent of the disks we study, saturation at small radii often occurs well before the entire disk has become involved in the instability. Because of this noise we do not believe growth rates calculated from these simulations are reliable for any Fourier component except the globally integrated $m=1$ pattern (for which we have the behavior of the centers of mass of star and disk), and we limit discussion of the growth rates in this and the following sections to the PPM simulations.
The qualitative observations of sections \[genobs\] and \[tempvar\] have shown that there is rarely a single spiral pattern present in a disk. More quantitative measurements show that growth is present in all Fourier components up to very high order. Such growth does not necessarily imply that actual spiral arms of that order are present in the simulation, but rather that the arms that do exist become more filamentary than pure sinusoids, creating power in higher order Fourier components (a Dirac $\delta$-function will yield power at all wave numbers for example). In order to be more definitive regarding the true morphology of each disk we visually examine each simulation and tabulate the dominant spiral patterns in Tables \[sph-tabl\] and \[ppm-tabl\].
Which patterns represent linear growth in each of the systems? To begin to answer this question we must fit growth rates and pattern speeds to the various spiral patterns present in each disk and determine which patterns exhibit rates which are constant at differing resolution, across a large portion of the system and over a large time period. In figure \[m2and3hi\] we show the amplitude of the $m=2$ and $m=3$ patterns as a function of time near the middle of the power law portion of the disk and integrated over all radii for our prototype massive disk shown in figure \[ppm-himas\]. Over long periods the growth is essentially linear in character. Over shorter periods it is punctuated by transients which can change the amplitude by up to an order of magnitude. The amplitude variations apparently arise as short-lived structures successively grow and fragment throughout the disk. Time dependence of pattern speeds within the disk will be discussed in section \[non-lin-phenom\] below.
Radius dependent growth rates and pattern speeds for the $m=1-4$ are shown in figure \[patgrwm1-4hi\] for two different grid resolutions. The growth rates and pattern speeds are similar at both resolutions, suggesting that the simulations may have resolved the physical processes important in this disk. The growth rates for the $m\geq 2$ patterns are nearly constant with radius but the pattern speeds derived are not at all constant with radius; they decrease as a steep function of the distance from the central star.
Low mass disks show a marked absence of the dominant low order ($m=1-3$) spiral patterns so common among higher mass disks. Typically, the amplitudes and growth rates of all Fourier components are comparable. We plot the growth rates and pattern speeds for the same patterns ($m=1-4$) as above for our prototype low mass disk in figure \[patgrwm1-4low\]. We again find that the pattern speeds are steeply decreasing functions of the radius. We also find that the growth rates do not exhibit the same values for different grid resolutions. This fact suggests that the low mass disks have not fully converged at the grid resolution used in our simulations. The systematic trend towards faster growth in the higher resolution simulation indicates that the small scale features which dominate the morphology of this system may be somewhat inhibited by the resolution of the gravitational potential and the hydrodynamic quantities on the grid. Much higher resolution simulations are required to be able to fully resolve the features important for disks of mass less than $\sim 0.2 M_*$ than are required for more massive systems.
With simulations of varying stability we would ordinarily expect larger $Q$ values to lead to slower instability growth. Similarly, we expect smaller $Q$ values should imply more rapid growth of instability. In fact, as discussed in section \[tempvar\], both extremes lead to rapid instability growth, but of different character.
Although it begins with an extreme initial condition, the simulation [*pmq5*]{} (with $=2.0$, $=0.8$) shows an interesting example of the limiting behavior displayed in a highly stable disk ($Q>>1$ everywhere) with a turnover in its density profile near the central star. We show the $m=1$ and $m=2$ pattern amplitudes at two locations in the disk and integrated globally in figure \[hiq-amp\]. In this simulation, rather than being suppressed, the amplitude of the instabilities begins to grow quickly in a region limited to the innermost portion of the disk. Further out in the disk much slower growth occurs. The development of such instabilities in disk systems cannot be attributed to a global, linearly growing phenomenon; its localized character and the different behaviors of the amplitude growth at different locations in the system argue against that. It remains unclear to what extent this type of growth happens in real systems, but it seems that with a turn-over in the density law at small radii or the less severe case where the density law flattens (as in our SPH simulations) can lead to increased local instabilities.
It is interesting to note that Pickett (1996) report similar behavior (which they refer to as ‘surge’ growth) in several of their more $Q$-stable simulations. In their work however, the initial mass distribution and and rotation curve are somewhat different than in our own work. The fact that similar behavior is observed in simulations of such different character suggests a similar mechanism may be driving the evolution of both sets of simulations.
The lowest stability simulations also show rapid growth of spiral instabilities. In these simulations there are no growth features similar to the ‘hump,’ or sudden rise in amplitude shown in figure \[hiq-amp\]. In general, the qualitative features of the growth are similar to those seen in figures \[m2and3hi\] and \[patgrwm1-4hi\] but with as much as 50–100% larger growth rates in the case of the lowest stability run ([*pmq1*]{}).
The results of our analysis in this section show that in spite of its large amplitude at early times and its continued presence for the duration of the run, our simulations do not show evidence of a pure $m=1$ pattern. In no case is the $m=1$ growth rate or pattern speed constant across a large portion of the disk. In contrast to several higher $m$ patterns, the wide variation is true of both the growth rate as well as the pattern speed. Because of the variation of the growth rate and pattern speed we must conclude that a direct connection to the SLING mechanism is not possible. At the high amplitude (late time) phase of evolution shown in the SPH simulations, the $m=2$ and $3$ patterns have become dominant for disks more massive than $\approx 0.2$, while at the lower amplitudes typical of our PPM runs, $m=1$ has the largest amplitude, though the pattern itself is ordinarily seen only as asymmetries in higher $m$ structures.
None of the disk simulations we have performed produce pattern speeds for any $m$ pattern which are constant across the entire disk. The growth rates, while ordinarily stable at a single value over the whole system for at least some patterns (see eg. fig. \[patgrwm1-4hi\]), do not reflect the short term behavior of the system as structures fragment or deform over time. In this case the ‘linear growth modes’ of the system, defined as the complex eigenvalue of a system of equations, become difficult to define or to interpret.
### Suggestions for the Mechanisms of Instability Growth {#mechanisms}
In each of our simulations, instabilities are generated in the innermost portions of the disk, eventually impacting the entire system. Such growth occurs in spite of the fact that the inner regions are the most stable as measured by two of the classic stability indicators, namely the Toomre $Q$ criterion and the SWING $X$ parameter. If we are to suggest a mechanism for the instability growth we are limited to mechanisms which can produce instabilities in what are ostensibly highly stable regions.
We have already discussed the possibility that in some cases instabilities may due to nonaxisymmetric accretion of disk matter onto the star or by accretion of infalling material onto the disk, rather than to dynamical instabilities in the disk itself. In other cases, the vortensity based instabilities of Papaloizou & Lin 1989 (see also Adams & Lin 1993) may provide an answer because they can grow in highly ‘stable’ regions and their growth can be local in nature. They discuss three classes of vortensity instabilities which can exist in a disk: those dependent on vortensity extrema within the disk or at its edge (‘edge modes’), those dependent on resonances (‘resonance modes’), and those which have corotation exterior to the disk (dubbed ‘slow modes’ and studied extensively by Laughlin & Różyczka 1996). Because we find corotation within the disk for most times (though at varying position), we can eliminate the last of these classes from consideration. The remaining two, we believe, are both active at different times and to a greater or lesser extent in the disks we model. At early times, our initial condition (the softened power law or density turn-over at small radii) implies a vortensity extremum near the inner boundary of the disk. This condition may excite an edge mode which over time propagates outward over the density maximum in our PPM simulations via a resonance mode into the disk, exciting global instability channels such as SLING as it propagates into the main disk. We have not established a definite connection between the instabilities in our simulations and the vortensity based instabilities however.
We cannot definitely connect the SLING instability directly to phenomena present in our simulations; see section \[disk-grw\]. We may still perhaps be able to make qualitative connections between phenomena predicted to be important via linear analyses and our results. One example of such phenomena would be growth rates which depend upon the outer boundary condition imposed. Another might be a growth rate which, as a function of disk mass, increases for disks more massive than some critical value, as suggested by the ‘maximum solar nebular mass’ discussed in STAR. Such characteristics would not necessarily be limited to the $m=1$ pattern but may also exist in $m>1$ patterns as well.
We do see such characteristics in the variation of the growth rates with respect to the disk/star mass ratio. For each series of PPM simulations varying disk mass, figure \[disk-mratrates\] shows the value of the globally integrated growth rates for the $m=2$ patterns. Growth rates for other $m$ patterns appear qualitatively similar to those shown. As one expects, growth rates of the highest mass disks are the largest, while instabilities in low mass disks grow much more slowly. In the reflecting boundary runs, a distinct ‘turn on’ mass is evident between $0.2<$ $<0.4$, a value which corresponds to the ‘maximum mass solar nebula’ predicted by the results of STAR. The infall series does not exhibit such a distinct onset, but rather a continuous rise to a plateau which does not flatten out until the mass ratio reaches $\approx 0.5$.
For low disk masses, the growth rates for each pattern are of order $\gamma_1/\Omega_D=0.15-0.2$. These rates are comparable to the rate attributable to numerical effects. The numerical effects have their origin primarily in the fact that mass interacting with the grid boundaries gives an impulse to the system center of mass, which must be stable in order to determine the amplitude of the $m=1$ spiral pattern. Higher $m$ patterns are also affected as spiral waves reflect off the grid boundaries back into the simulation.
For higher mass disks, the outer boundary has a marked influence. As ARS predict, details of the outer radial boundary are an important factor in the growth pattern. The simulations with matter infalling onto the outer disk edge develop spiral structure with growth rates as much as 2-3 times faster than with a purely reflecting boundary. Simulations at two resolutions were run with an infall boundary to test the degree to which numerical effects of the boundary were affecting the growth. Both series show similar growth rates (fig. \[disk-mratrates\]).
### Importance of Phenomena not Included in Linear Analyses {#non-lin-phenom}
On short time scales the pattern speeds in our disks can vary by as much as 100%. One example, shown in figure \[m2pat\_tme\], is taken from the high mass disk simulation [*pch6*]{}. There we show the instantaneous pattern speed for the $m=2$ pattern near the middle of the disk, as calculated by numerically differencing the pattern phase $\phi_m$, at successive output dumps of the simulation. Such variations in time are typical of each pattern in each disk simulation we have performed, and appear in both local and globally integrated pattern speeds. Pattern speeds calculated this way for the torus simulations of section \[sphppm\] show much slower variations.
In the case of the $m=1$ pattern, whose global pattern speed is reflected in the motion of the star, we find that the star occasionally loops back upon its own trajectory and counter-rotates with the disk for a short period. Such a condition is not an uncommon occurrence in systems with disturbances with different orbital (pattern) periods. In our own solar system, for example, the sun’s motion about the solar system barycenter was retrograde most recently in 1990, when Jupiter was on the opposite side of the sun from the other three major planets.
The variations seem to arise because of the growth, fragmentation and reformation processes undergone by the spiral arm structures over the course of their evolution. Because the pattern speeds vary, an averaged pattern speed at any location in the disk (via eq. \[\[phidot\]\]) loses meaning and the location of the corotation and Lindblad resonances for each pattern also vary in time. When such variations are occurring, wave analyses, which typically assume stable resonances, may be of limited utility (wave analysis is of course useful in less chaotic circumstances–see, eg., STAR and Laughlin, Korchagin, & Adams 1996).
The growth of instabilities does not diminish as $Q$ increases, but the instabilities do change character; this change is due to the increasing importance of effects not modeled in semi-analytic treatments of disks. For the high SPH runs, these effects are dominated by the nonaxisymmetric accretion of disk matter onto the star. As the star begins to move from the center of mass of the system (due to ordinary disk processes or the potential hump at the origin), some portion of the accretion becomes nonaxisymmetric. In the warmest disks, as much as 10% or more of the disk is accreted over the life of the simulation. Disk matter accreting onto the star sweeps along some residual angular momentum which is transferred to the star either as spin (an effect we neglect here) or as net angular momentum of the star about the system center of mass. In these cases, the star may gain enough momentum to be driven further away from the center of mass and create power in the $m=1$ pattern.
In the PPM runs with infall, the instability growth can include a component due to the outer disk edge perturbations. These may be due to infall itself, or to the fragmentation of the boundary. Although the linear analyses of ARS and STAR showed that the conditions at the outer boundary were important for the evolution of the system, they were unable to fully model the effects that the boundary can have on the system (see however Ostriker, Shu, & Adams 1992).
Clump Formation and Characteristics {#clump}
-----------------------------------
Returning now to our SPH simulations, in this section we describe several qualitative features of clump formation and evolution in the disks. Due to the unsteady nature of the spiral instability growth and the presence of multiple spiral patterns in the system, each disk sequentially approaches and moves away from conditions in which clump formation is likely. These conditions are most readily apparent in plots of the minimum $Q$ value in the disk and in the maximum over-density in the disk (defined as $\Sigma(r,\phi,t)/\Sigma(r,t=0)$) with respect to time.
The value of $Q$ is defined rigorously only for an azimuthally symmetric disk. Nevertheless, as an indicator of the most unstable locations in the disk, we examine its value in nonaxisymmetric systems. To calculate its value locally we must first determine the epicyclic frequency at each point in the disk. We use the same procedure by which SPH obtains derivatives of all other hydrodynamic quantities. By definition $$\kappa^2 = {{1}\over{r^3}}{{d}\over{dr}} [\left(r^2\Omega\right)^2],$$ so the value $d[(r^2\Omega)^2]/dr$, taken pairwise over each neighbor, is weighted using the SPH kernel. The result is summed to form a local value of the epicyclic frequency.
Plots of maximum over-density and minimum $Q$ are shown in figure \[odqplot\] for our two prototype SPH $=1.5$ disks. Each variable is a global extremum. As such, the value of one could be determined from a completely different portion of the disk than the other. However, after only a relatively small fraction of an orbit time $T_D$, the locations of minimum $Q$ and maximum over-density are close, at a position between about 10 and 30 AU.
After a few orbit periods of the inner disk regions, the over-density rises to about twice its initial value (of unity). A slow secular trend towards stronger spiral arms over the course of the run follows, punctuated by one or more sharp, short-duration episodes of very strong activity in which density locally increases to 5-10 times. Over-density spikes become more and more frequent as the simulations progress, finally leading to clump formation. With the one exception $=0.4$, $=1.7$ which, as noted in section \[tempvar\], appears to lie on the ‘boundary’ between clumping and non-clumping disks, simulations which do not eventually form clumps also do not show these large over-density events. We attribute the origin of the over-density events in our simulations to the growth of spiral instabilities into a high amplitude nonlinear regime. In this regime spiral patterns present constructively interfere with each other or collide with other arms and orphaned arm fragments.
The results of Adams & Watkins (1995; hereafter AW) show that a density enhancement within a disk will lead to collapse if the condition $${{\Sigma(r,\phi,t)}\over{\Sigma(r,0)}} > {5 \over 2} Q$$ is met, where $Q$ is the local value (azimuth average) of the Toomre parameter at the location of the density enhancement. For the disks in our study, this expression implies that an over-density factor of 3 or higher must be present in the disk, depending on where in a disk the collapse event occurs. This prediction is supported by our numerical results, which show that disks can survive (i.e. not exhibit collapse) for long periods with over-densities of 2-4, but collapse when over-density spikes of magnitude 6-10 occur.
For all disk masses, the minimum value of $Q$ rapidly falls below its initial value to well below unity. After the initial steep decline, a slower decrease occurs until clumping begins and minimum $Q$ falls to zero. The initial decline occurs most quickly in the highest mass disks, in which instabilities of any type are most strongly felt. With $Q$ below unity, the disk becomes unstable not only to spiral instabilities but also to ring formation or, in the case of isolated patches, collapse. The collapse is slowed by the effects of rotation within the forming clump.
We can verify that it is rotation which slows the collapse by noting that the effects of the over-density spikes manifest themselves at only the 20-30% level in $Q$. We also know that the sound speed is constant in the proto-clump (due to our assumption that the disk evolves isothermally), from the definition of $Q$ we know that the rotation of an individual proto-clump (really the shear across the clump, measured by the local value of the epicyclic frequency $\kappa$) is the mechanism which inhibits further collapse. Only after spiral arm amplitude has reached sufficient levels to overcome rotation can an irreversible collapse begin.
Clumps condense out of the spiral arms on quite short time scales in even the least massive disks. During and after the initial stages of their formation, we find that the clumps show prograde rotation. No clumps were seen to form in any disk studied whose initial was greater than 1.5. Clump formation is most common at radii less than $\sim0.5R_D$ and usually several clumps will form from the same disk (and even within the same spiral arm). Less massive disks form many low mass clumps and higher mass disks form 2-4 higher mass clumps. The mass inside the clumps is of order 1% of the star mass at the time each simulation is ended. It is clear, however, that from the amount of remaining disk that no final mass has been determined.
The clumps form with such vigor in each of these disks because of the strong cooling implied by the isothermal assumption. Any density enhancements like those seen in figure \[odqplot\] instantly lose their pressure support and collapse rather than dispersing. With more realistic cooling, the clumping behavior seen in our results may change. Thus our results are most useful as an indication of the behavior of disk clumping and as indicator of where clumps may be most likely to form in more physically realistic disks.
Figure \[formrad\] shows a plot of the radius at which each clump formed for each disk in the series. Only in the case of the $=0.2$ disk, in which clump formation is prolific in nearly all regions, were any clumps formed at radii greater than 0.5 $R_D$. With this exception, we believe the variation in the locations of clump formation in disks of different mass in figure \[formrad\] to be due more to stochastic effects rather than any physical process. To test this idea we ran a comparison series of simulations ($\times$’s), utilizing the Lagrangian version of the equation of state. When such an assumption is made, the background noise inherent in the code changes character. No overall structural changes are evident in figure \[formrad\], but differences in detail are present. Also, for the disk with $=0.2$, clumps were not formed at the largest radii. We believe this lack of clumps is due in part to the radial motion of some warmer particles into the outer disk, causing clumping to be suppressed.
The prior results of AB92, in which clumps are seen to form at much larger radii, correspond to a somewhat different initial configuration. In particular, our present results use a much smaller ‘core radius’, $r_c$, for the density and temperature power laws. The gravitational softening parameter for the star is correspondingly smaller, and no initial perturbations are assumed. These differences conspire to push collapse instabilities to larger radii in the AB92 results, since in their simulations more mass is concentrated at large distances from the star. We believe the present conditions to be more realistic and thus to represent an improvement over the AB92 results.
### Initial Orbital Characteristics
Out of the entire sample of newly formed clumps, none have an initial eccentricity much higher than $\epsilon=0.2$, and most are between zero and 0.1. The low mass companions now being discovered around nearby solar type stars show both small and large values of eccentricity (Mayor 1997; Marcy & Butler 1995; Butler & Marcy 1996). Although the clumps in our simulations form only in relatively low eccentricity orbits and are therefore dissimilar to many of those being discovered, considerable evolution of eccentricity can take place between the times corresponding to the end of our simulations and the final morphology of the system (see e.g., Artymowicz 1993, 1994; Goldreich & Tremaine 1980).
Conclusions {#summary}
===========
By using two conceptually different hydrodynamic methods (SPH and PPM), we are able to simulate a broader range of problems, but gain a sobering insight into the limitations of these tools. It is striking that PPM indicates violent behavior near the inner boundary (weakly supported by SPH), and that SPH indicates pronounced clumping (weakly supported by PPM). Both methods indicate that instability growth is not a steady progression from low to high amplitude perturbations with a single dominant pattern present throughout. Both methods indicate a marked change in the character of instabilities with disk mass. Low mass disks form many armed filimentary spiral structures while high mass disks form few armed grand design spiral structures.
In this study of the evolution of circumstellar accretion disks, we have found simultaneous growth of global spiral instabilities with multiple Fourier components. Growth of each of the components occurs over the course of a few orbit periods of the disk and a single component rarely dominates the evolution of a disk. As expected, the massive disks are found to be the most unstable, due to self-gravitating instabilities within the disk. Accretion of matter onto the star itself can, in warm disks (i.e. those with high values), significantly drain matter from the disk on similar time scales to the self-gravitating instabilities. Short-term variations in the amplitude of a given component, and strong constructive interference behavior between different components, can produce ‘spikes’ in the surface density. These spikes can eventually grow to such amplitude that gravitational collapse occurs resulting in the production of one or more clumps.
Pattern growth is stimulated at early times by the rapid growth of instabilities at small radii which eventually engulf the entire disk. Steady spiral arm structures are not generally present. Instead, spiral arms progressively grow, fragment and reform as time progresses. In cases where accretion is rapid, power can be produced in an $m=1$ spiral pattern due to nonaxisymmetric accretion of mass and momentum onto the star. Understanding the dynamics of the inner region is of primary importance for understanding the global morphology of the system.
The gross structure of low and high mass disks are markedly different from each other. High mass disks form large, grand design spiral arms with few arms, while low mass disks form predominantly thin, filamentary multi-armed structures. In almost no case is the $m=1$ spiral pattern the fastest growing pattern in the disk. Typically a combination of $m=2-4$ patterns in high mass disks or very high order patterns ($m\gtrsim 5$) in low mass disks dominate the morphology. The transition between these behaviors comes at approximately $=0.2-0.4$. This transition corresponds to the ‘maximum solar nebula’ mass discussed in STAR, above which $m=1$ modes due to SLING are expected to grow strongly.
It is intriguing to speculate that the collapse processes seen here are responsible for the production of brown dwarf-like companions such as that seen by Nakajima (1995) and/or of planetary companions similar to those recently discovered around several nearby stars (Mayor & Queloz 1995, Marcy & Butler 1996, Gatewood 1996). However, we must emphasize that clump formation in self-gravitating circumstellar disks depends on the ability of the gas to cool efficiently. Our simulations here use a simple isothermal equation of state which favors clump formation. Additional simulations with realistic cooling functions, including radiative transfer effects, must be done in order to clarify this important issue.
We wish to thank the referee, Richard Durisen for a thorough referee report which improved this paper substantially. Bruce Fryxell provided valuable insights into PPM. Greg Laughlin provided valuable discussion on the tori we use for our comparisons between SPH and PPM. AFN wishes to thanks his collaborators for patience in seeing this work through to its completion. This work was supported under the NASA Origins of the Solar Systems program with grants NAGW-3406 and NAGW-2250. FCA is supported by an NSF Young Investigator Award, NASA Grant No. NAG 5-2869, and by fund from the Physics Department at the University of Michigan. DA is supported by NASA NAGW-2798 and NSF ASTRO 94-17346.
Adams, F.C. & Benz, W., 1992, Gravitational Instabilities in Circumstellar Disks and the Formation of Binary Companions, in Complementary Approaches to Double and Multiple Star Research, IAU Colloquium No. 135, (Provo: Publications of the Astr. Soc. of the Pac.) (AB92)
Adams, F. C., Emerson, J. P. & Fuller, G. A. 1990, , 357, 606
Adams, F. C. & Lin, D. N. C., in Protostars and Planets III, ed. Lunine, J. I. and Levy, E. H., Tucson: University of Arizona Press
Adams, F. C., Ruden, S. P. & Shu, F. H., 1989, , 347, 959 (ARS)
Adams, F. C. & Watkins, R., 1995, , 451, 314
Artymowicz, P., 1994, , 423, 581
Artymowicz, P., 1993, , 419, 166
Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S., 1994, , 421, 651
Balsara, D., 1995, J. Comp. Phys, 121, 357
Bate, M., Bonnell, I. & Price, N. M., 1996, , 277, 362
Beckwith S. V. W., Sargent, A. I., Chini, R. S. & Güsten, R. 1990 , 99, 924
Benz, W., 1990, in The Numerical Modeling of Nonlinear Stellar Pulsations p. 269, J. R. Buchler ed.
Benz, W., Bowers, R. L., Cameron, A. G. W. & Press, W. H. 1990, , 348, 647
Binney, J., & Tremaine, S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Boss, A., 1995, , 439, 224
Bonnell, I. & Bastien, P., 1992, , 401, 654
Burkert, A. & Bodenheimer, P., 1993, , 264, 798
Cassen, P. M. & Moosman A., 1981. Icarus, 48, 353
Christodoulou, D. & Narayan, R., 1992, , 388, 451
Colella P. & Woodward, P. R., 1984, J. Comp. Phys., 54, 174
Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M., , 248, 485
Foster, P. N. & Boss, A. P., 1996, , 468, 784
Fryxell, B. A., Müller, E. & Arnett W. D., 1989, Max Plank Institut für Astrophysik Report \#449
Fryxell, B. A., Müller, E. & Arnett W. D., 1991, , 367, 619
Gatewood, G., 1996, , 28, 885
Ghez, A., Neugebauer, G., & Mathews K., 1993, , 106, 2005
Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S., 1980, , 241, 425
Heemskirk, M. H. M., Papaloizou, J. C. B. & Savonjie, G. J., 1992 , 260, 161
Herant, M., & Woosley, S. E., 1994, , 425, 814
Laughlin, G. & Bodenheimer, P., 1994 , 436, 335
Laughlin, G., Korchagin, V. & Adams, F. C. 1996, , 477, 410
Laughlin, G., & Różyczka, M., 1996 , 456, 279
Leinert, Ch., Zinnecker, H., Weitzel, N., Christou, J., Ridgway, S. T., Jameson, R., Haas, M. & Lenzen, R., 1993, , 278, 129
Lynden-Bell D. & Pringle, J. E., 1974, , 168, 603 (LBP)
Marcy, G. W., & Butler, R. P., 1996, , 464, 147
Mayor, M., & Queloz, D., 1995, Nature, 378, 355
Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Halbwachs, J.-L., 1997, From Brown Dwarfs to Planets, in Astronomical and Biochemical Origins and Search for Life in the Universe, IAU Colloquium No. 161, (Bologna, Italy: Editrice Compositori).
Monaghan, J. J., 1992, , 30, 543
Murray, J., 1994, PhD thesis: Monash University
Myhill, E. A. & Kaula, W. M., 1992, , 386, 177
Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Golimowski, D. A., Matthews, K. & Durrance, S. T., 1995, Nature, 378, 463
Ostriker, E. C., Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., 1992, 399, 192
Papaloizou, J. C. B. & Lin, D. N. C., 1989 , 344, 645
Papaloizou, J. C. B. & Savonjie, G. J., 1991, , 248, 353
Pickett, B. K., Durisen, R. H., & Davis, G. A., 1996, , 458, 714
Pickett, B. K., Cassen, P., Durisen, R. H., Link, R., 1998, , preprint
Porter, D. H. & Woodward, P. R., , 93, 309
Shakura, N. J. & Sunyaev, R. A., 1973, , 24, 337
Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C. & Lizano, S., 1987 , 25, 23
Shu, F. H., Tremaine, S. Adams, F. C. & Ruden, S. P., 1990 , 358, 495 (STAR)
Simon, M., Ghez, A. M., Leinert, Ch., Cassar, L., Chen, W. P., Howell, R. R., Jameson, R. F., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G. & Richichi, A., , 443, 625
Terebey, S., Shu, F. H. & Cassen, P., 1984 , 286, 529.
Woodward, J. W., Tohline, J. E. & Hachisu, I., 1994, , 420, 247
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We measure many-body interactions in isolated quantum dot states using double-quantum multidimensional coherent spectroscopy. Few states are probed in a diffraction limited spot, which is enabled by a novel collinear scheme in which radiated four-wave-mixing signals are measured with phase resolution. Many-body interactions are enhanced by an additional prepulse tuned to the delocalized quasi-continuum states. We propose this effect as a method for controlling coupling between quantum states.'
author:
- 'Eric W. Martin'
- 'Steven T. Cundiff'
bibliography:
- 'naturalQD.bib'
title: Controlling Coherent Quantum Dot Interactions
---
Quantum dots (QDs) are often described as being non-interacting artificial atoms. Some optical spectroscopic experiments have been used to conclude that there are no measurable many-body interactions present for resonant excitation of interfacial ODs, which would support treating these QDs as non-interacting [@Bonadeo1998]. However, other optical techniques have yielded signatures of interactions between these QDs [@Langbein2011; @Fan1998; @Moody2011]. Outside of the spectroscopic differences, discrepancies exist regarding the presence of many-body effects in QD lasers [@Chow2013]. The benefits of QD lasers arise from the discrete and narrow energy levels of QDs, but they are usually pumped by the injection of delocalized carriers [@Bimberg1997]. Since many-body effects play a tremendous role in the theoretical treatment of semiconductors [@Chow1999], it is important to understand the relevant interactions for calculating QD laser properties.
Excitons and trions confined to QDs are potential candidates for qubits in quantum information [@Press2008; @Berezovsky2008; @Wu2006]. The electronic states of a QD are accessible both optically and electronically. Also, the high oscillator strengths of electronic transitions in solid state systems facilitate their measurement and manipulation. Coherent control with ultrafast Rabi rotations has been demonstrated on both single and ensemble QD systems [@Li2003; @TakeshiPRL]. However, controlled qubit interaction remains one of the most challenging requirements for a functional quantum computer with few implementations for spin states in QDs [@Kim2011; @Spatzek2011] and none for the electronic states. The localization of excitons in QDs that gives them the benefit of being difficult to decohere also makes them difficult to entangle, or couple [@Serbyn2013].
Here we observe that the excitation of delocalized states not only enhances many-body effects, in agreement with theory [@Schneider2004], but can also turn them on. The physical mechanism responsible for enhancing many-body interactions in QDs may explain discrepancies in the literature. The mechanism may also be applied for turning on electronic coupling between isolated QD states. We use ultrafast coherent spectroscopy techniques to directly probe coupling and many-body interactions in a sub-micron-sized region containing a small number of distinct epitaxially-grown GaAs interfacial QDs at a temperature of 6 K. These interfacial QDs are exciton states bound by monolayer fluctuations in a narrow 4.2 nm GaAs quantum well with Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As barriers [@Gammon1996]. The decreased transverse confinement binds the localized excitons by 10 meV, which energetically separates them from the delocalized quantum well resonances. Because of the large spatial separation (averaging 300-400 nm) between QDs, the natural coupling between them is minimal. By resonantly exciting higher energy delocalized exciton states in the quantum well we open coherent coupling channels between localized excitons. After pulsed excitation of the delocalized states, we use double-quantum spectroscopy to directly measure exciton-exciton interactions between isolated single quantum systems.
To probe the localized QD response to resonant excitation of delocalized states, we use multidimensional coherent spectroscopy (MDCS). MDCS is a transient four-wave mixing spectroscopy that has evolved from four-wave mixing techniques responsible for realizing the importance of considering Coulomb interaction effects in semiconductor quantum wells [@Kim1992; @Weiss1992]. In MDCS, the phase-resolved evolution of the nonlinear response is measured as a function of the evolution of a phase-resolved linear response. These measurements result in spectra with two or more dimensions that correlate absorption, emission, and evolution energies of sample coherences [@Cundiff2013]. There are various pulse sequences we can use to measure coherent processes. Single-quantum pulse sequences developed for MDCS are used to directly measure coupling between QD states and the intrinsic linewidth of the QD resonances. A double-quantum pulse sequence directly measures signals resulting from many-body interactions.
Most MDCS techniques rely on k-vector selection, which requires a finite spot. With few exceptions [@Tekavec2007; @Nardin2013; @Langbein2011], these techniques are thus limited to the study of spatially extended states or dense ensembles. We have developed a variant of collinear techniques [@Nardin2013; @Tekavec2007] that instead uses heterodyne detection to measure radiated MDCS signals. To distinguish the optical signal from the co-propagating excitation beams, each beam is tagged with a different radio frequency shift using acousto-optic modulators. The radiated third-order nonlinear signals are shifted by radio frequencies that depend on the excitation beams used to generate them. The interference between the radiated nonlinear signal and a separately tagged local oscillator (LO) has a beat note at the difference between their frequency tags. A lock-in amplifier measures the signal at the phase-matched modulation frequency. We accurately measure the signal phase by co-propagating all beams with a continuous-wave (CW) laser that samples all of the mechanical fluctuations that contribute to phase noise. We interfere these CW beams with each other on two detectors and use those measurements to calculate a phase-corrected reference at the signal frequency. Since the reference is affected by the same path-length fluctuations as the signal, the measured signal has a meaningful phase with respect to the excitation pulses. See the supplemental material for details about the experimental configuration [@Supplement].
The MDCS pulses are spectrally tuned and filtered to resonantly excite only the localized exciton states. In Figure \[fig:PLSI\] we compare a single-quantum nonlinear MDCS measurement to the photoluminescence spectrum from the same sample region. These spectra do not match because nonlinear emission and radiative recombination for a resonance have different dependences on each QD’s dipole moment. In this case, however, the strong localized state resonances, labeled 1-4, emit at the same center frequencies with mostly comparable strengths. Exceptions exist at higher energies, and we show that resonance 4 has an exceptionally high nonlinear response relative to the lower energy resonances. Since these higher energy states are generally more delocalized, we attribute this enhanced nonlinearity to many-body effects, which are known to be the dominant source of nonlinear optical responses in semiconductor quantum wells [@Kim1992; @Weiss1992; @Chemla2001].
![Top: Photoluminescence (PL) excited by a 633 nm laser is measured on a spectrometer with 100 eV resolution. Features below 1650 meV are attributed to localized quantum dot states that we spatially isolated with a diffraction limited 700 nm spot. The wide feature above 1650 meV are the residual two-dimensional (quantum well) states. The spectral region measured by multidimensional coherent spectroscopy (MDCS) in this paper, shaded in red, is determined by the shaped laser spectrum we use. Bottom: Single-quantum MDCS spectrum of the same region allows for comparison of the oscillator strengths of resonances and reveals that some of the weakly excited higher energy states have very high oscillator strengths.[]{data-label="fig:PLSI"}](Figure1.eps){width="34.00000%"}
Using a rephasing pulse sequence, which is typically used in ensemble MDCS measurements to separate inhomogeneous and homogeneous broadening such that homogeneous linewidths can be measured [@Siemens2010], we measure an average low temperature QD linewidth between 27 and 28 eV. This measurement is in agreement with previous low excitation density experiments [@Hess1994; @Gammon1996; @Fan1998]. At high excitation densities there has been some disagreement in linewidth measurements found in the literature. Four-wave mixing measurements of interfacial QD ensembles have observed large dephasing rates at high densities, a feature that would make these QDs resemble higher dimensional systems [@Fan1998; @Moody2011]. However, linewidth measurements of interfacial QDs with high enough spatial resolution to distinguish the QDs do not depend on excitation density [@Bonadeo1998]. Taking aspects from all these experiments to understand the source of the disagreement, we use spectrally narrowed pulsed light that only excites localized states and a small excitation spot. We measure that the low temperature linewidth is independent of excitation density and conclude that a likely source of dephasing in experiments with large spot sizes is sample heating.
{width="\textwidth"}
In order to observe a double-quantum MDCS signal, it is necessary that two interacting excited states coherently evolve simultaneously. With resonant excitation of only the QD states, these signals can result from three interactions. A double-quantum signal resulting from 1) biexcitons in non-interacting self-assembled QDs has been measured [@Kasprzak2017], but excitation of these signals requires enough bandwidth to excite both the exciton and biexciton. Our sample has been well characterized using MDCS, and it is known that the biexciton binding energy of an ensemble of these dots increases with emission energy from 3.3 to 3.8 meV, and it has a distribution about that center binding energy of less than 270 eV [@Moody2013]. The distribution of biexciton binding energies for a set of individually measured quantum dots, which has the advantage over ensemble measurements of being able to exactly correlate biexciton and exciton emissions, is just 200 eV [@Kasprzak2012]. The MDCS beams have a narrow bandwidth of 2 meV with sharp spectral edges (0.2 meV) such that we cannot doubly excite a single QD (more details in the Supplemental Material [@Supplement]). Thus, the only source of a signal from a QD resonance can be 2) interaction between two different QDs. The interactions in both measurements, however, are very weak and require that the QDs have a very close proximity. 3) If a weakly localized state is large enough for it to be doubly excited without forming a bound state, the resulting double-quantum signal would more closely resemble those measured in quantum wells [@Karaiskaj2010]. Using the phase of the double-quantum signal, we can distinguish binding and scattering many-body interactions [@Mukamel2008], so we can identify the above sources of double-quantum signals. By spatially isolating just a few quantum dots within a 700 nm focus, we can thus directly measure interactions at the single excitation level.
We use double-quantum MDCS to determine if QD states produce interaction induced signals. On-diagonal signals in a double-quantum MDCS spectrum correspond to self interaction, which we attribute to either spatially large localization sites that confine multiple degenerate excitations or spatially adjacent nearly degenerate quantum dot sites. Off-diagonal signals are due to many-body interaction between two excitations at different energies. For example interactions between two frequencies $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$, these signals can emit at either of those frequencies and will evolve at their sum: $\omega_T = \omega_1 + \omega_2$. These weak off-diagonal signals most likely result from radiative interaction between adjacent quantum dot states, which has been shown to have a long range exceeding 400 nm [@Langbein2011]. Though weak, we measure interactions between few resonantly excited QDs over the sample, and weak interactions between resolved QD states have very recently been measured in self-assembled QDs [@Kasprzak2017].
In order to measure the effect of delocalized quantum well excitations on QD interactions we excite the delocalized quantum well states with a pre-pulse that is spectrally filtered to excite only the quantum well states. The pre-pulse has a power between 10 and 80 nW (500-4000 photons per pulse), and it arrives 20 ps before the first MDCS pulse so that only the incoherent population it creates is present when the MDCS spectrum is measured. As shown by comparison of Figs. \[fig:SIII\](a) and (b) a small excitation of the delocalized states greatly enhances interaction among localized QD excitons, which results in a strongly enhanced off-diagonal peak in the double-quantum MDCS spectrum. From the evolution and emission energies it is evident that this feature corresponds to coupling between resonances 2 and 4 labeled in Fig. \[fig:PLSI\]. As the prepulse power is increased in Fig. \[fig:SIII\](c), lower energy QD states are filled due to dynamic localization of the extended states created by the prepulse, and higher energy double-quantum features are enhanced. The strong on-diagonal feature at $\omega_{t} = 1645.3$ meV does not strongly show up in single-quantum MDCS without some prepulse excitation either, shown in the supplementary material [@Supplement]. Along with the enhanced oscillator strength of the high energy features measured with single-quantum MDCS, the presence of this state on the diagonal is evidence that it is a higher dimensional state than a QD since it can be doubly excited. With a much higher prepulse excitation in Fig. \[fig:SIII\](d), all double-quantum coherences are blocked by filling of the QD states.
In Fig. \[fig:SIII\](e) we plot the real part of (b). To interpret the phase of the double-quantum MDCS signal requires a simple simulation in which we consider the phase of the linear responses to each pulse. We simulate the nonlinear response by analytically solving a perturbative expansion of the density matrix for two coupled two-level systems [@Supplement; @hamm2011concepts]. The energy level scheme consists of a ground state, a single-excited state for each QD, and double-excited state representing simultaneous excitation of both QDs. Many-body interactions break the symmetry between the transition into the singly excited and doubly excited states, which is represented by a shift or broadening of the doubly excited level. By accurately measuring the phase of the double-quantum signal, we can identify the many-body terms that give rise to those signals. In order to produce an accurate simulation of the data in Fig. \[fig:SIII\](f), we find that the coupling feature corresponding to the interaction of QDs 2 and 4 is an excitation induced red shift of the doubly excited state. A red shift of the doubly excited state is indicative of a weak binding between the two states [@Mukamel2008]. The on-diagonal feature, on the other hand, results from a combination of excitation induced dephasing and blue shift. These exciton scattering effects are typically measured in quantum wells, further supporting that this higher energy state is higher dimensional than a QD. We find similar results for QD states in other regions of the sample. The prepulse enhancement of many-body interactions between QD states is illustrated in Figure \[fig:schem\]. The delocalized carriers in the quasi-continuum states serve to mediate interactions between spatially separated QD states. The QD excitations are localized to roughly 50 nm islands, but delocalized excitons are much more extended. So while there is no wave function overlap of individual QDs, the wave function of the quantum well excitation introduces coupling of localized states. The enhanced range of interaction between QDs is still limited by the finite mobility of the delocalized excitons, roughly 15 cm$^2$/s in a thin quantum well [@Hegarty1985]. Therefore only a few of the localized excitations within a given spot will be within the range of each other to interact via the delocalized excitons.
![Schematic of pulse sequence applied to spatially isolated interfacial quantum dots. Interactions between QDs are very weak, but we can turn on coupling by creating delocalized quantum well carriers with (1) a higher energy prepulse. We probe the induced interactions with (2) two coherent pulses that create a double coherence of different excitonic transitions. (3) The interaction between the coherences is mediated by the quantum well carriers, and (4) we read out the interaction with a coherent third pulse that begins emission of a coherent four-wave-mixing signal. Though the prepulse also creates incoherent excitations of the QD states, this is negligible for low prepulse powers and only serves to degrade the overall signal.[]{data-label="fig:schem"}](Figure3.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Existing microscopic theory supports the concept that excitation induced dephasing and shift in interfacial QDs arises from interactions with quasi-continuum quantum-well states [@Schneider2004]. Schneider *et al.* discuss broadening and redshift that is dependent on density, effects they determine by calculating the renormalized electronic states. They also discuss that their calculation of density dependent dephasing in interfacial QDs is equivalently relevant to self-assembled quantum dots electronically coupled to a wetting layer.
Though we have presented a method for turning on coupling between isolated interfacial QDs, this method may be generalized to coupling any localized quantum states in physical contact with higher energy delocalized states; at least states that may be excited in a controlled way. We see immediate benefit in the ability to control coupling self-assembled QDs in contact with the higher energy wetting layer. Also, in light of recent findings of long-lived localized states in transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) [@Srivastava2015; @Koperski2015; @He2015; @Chakraborty2015; @Tonndorf2015], this work could be applied to these states which could be coupled through the highly delocalized TMDC exciton states.
Another major outlook for measuring physical systems at the nanoscale is that the coupling of individual QDs to delocalized excitons introduces a new method for studying the delocalized states. The locations of QDs can be determined with much higher accuracy than the optical resolution. Since QDs are spectrally distinct, one could thus consider using measurements of QDs separated by known distances to probe length scales and transport in the continuum states with the resolution of a QD.
In summary, we have developed a collinear MDCS technique that utilizes dynamic phase cycling to probe nonlinear responses with high sensitivity and phase resolution. We have used this technique at the diffraction limit to resolve individual QD oscillators. We demonstrated both double-quantum and single-quantum measurements, and with this technique it is actually simple to selectively measure even higher order nonlinear expansion terms. Using double-quantum MDCS, which is sensitive only to many-body effects, we measure an absence of many-body effects in interfacial quantum dots with resonant excitation. However, we find that these effects can be enhanced by excitation of the delocalized quantum-well states using a prepulse.This work helps to explain some discrepancies in the literature in which weak excitation of continuum states with broadband pulses has not been explicitly considered. From an applications standpoint, we present this prepulse technique as a way of turning on coupling between quantum states.
We thank D. Gammon and A. Bracker at the Naval Research Laboratory for the interfacial quantum dot sample, and we thank C. Smallwood for useful feedback and discussions. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Materials Research (DMR).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
By definition, the sharp packing index ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)$ of a subset $A$ of an abelian group $G$ is the smallest cardinal $\kappa$ such that for any subset $B\subset G$ of size $|B|\ge\kappa$ the family $\{b+A:b\in B\}$ is not disjoint. We prove that an infinite Abelian group $G$ contains a subset $A$ with given index ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)=\kappa$ if and only if one of the following conditions holds: (1) $2\le \kappa\le|G|^+$ and $k\notin \{3,4\}$; (2) $\kappa=3$ and $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_3$; (3) $\kappa=4$ and $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_2$ or to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus(\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2)$.
author:
- 'N. Lyaskovska'
title: Constructing subsets of a given packing index in Abelian groups
---
The famous problem of optimal sphere packing traces its history back to B.Pascal and belongs to the most difficult problems of combinatorial geometry [@CS]. In this paper we consider an analogous problem in the algebraic setting. Namely, given a subset $A$ of an Abelian group $G$ we study the cardinal number $${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=\sup\big\{|B|:\mbox{$B\subset G$ and $(B-B)\cap (A-A)=\{0\}$}\big\}$$ called the [*packing index*]{} of $A$ in $G$. Note that the equality $(B-B)\cap (A-A)=\emptyset$ holds if and only if $(b+A)\cap (b'+A)=\emptyset$ for any distinct points $b,b'\in B$. Therefore, ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)$ can be thought as the maximal number of pairwise disjoint shift copies of $A$ that can be placed in the group $G$. In this situation it is natural to ask if such a maximal number always exists. In fact, this was a question of D.Dikranjan and I.Protasov who asked in [@DP] if for each subset $A\subset{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)\ge\aleph_0$ there exists an infinite family of pairwise disjoint shifts of $A$. The answer to this problem turned out to be negative, see [@BL1], [@BL2]. So the supremum in the definition of ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)$ cannot be replaced by the maximum.
To catch the difference between $\sup$ and $\max$, let us adjust the definition of the packing index ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(X)$ and define the cardinal number $${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)=\min\{\kappa:\forall B\subset G\;\;|B|\ge\kappa\Rightarrow (B-B\cap A-A\ne\{0\})\}$$ called the [*sharp packing index*]{} of $A$ in $G$. In terms of the sharp packing index the question of D. Dikranjan and I. Protasov can be reformulated as finding a subset $A\subset {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}^\sharp_P(A)=\aleph_0$. According to [@BL2] (and [@BL1]) such a set $A$ can be found in each infinite (abelian) group $G$. Having in mind this result, I.Protasov asked in a private conversation if for any non-zero cardinal $\kappa\le|G|$ there is a set $A\subset G$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=\kappa$. In this paper we answer this question affirmatively (with three exceptions). Firstly, we treat a similar question for the sharp packing index because its value completely determines the value of ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)$: $${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=\sup\{\kappa:\kappa<{\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)\}.$$
Our principal result is
[**Main Theorem.**]{}
*An infinite Abelian group $G$ contains a subset $A\subset G$ with sharp packing index $ind_P^\sharp(A)=\kappa$ if and only if one of the following conditions holds:*
1. $2\leq \kappa \leq |G|^+$ and $\kappa\not \in \{3,4\}$.
2. $\kappa=3$ and $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_3$.
3. $\kappa=4$ and $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_2$ or to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus(\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2)$.
Using the relation between the packing and sharp packing indices, we can derive from the above theorem an analogous characterization of possible values of the packing index.
[**Corollary.**]{}
*An infinite Abelian group $G$ contains a subset $A\subset G$ with packing index $ind_P(A)=\kappa$ if and only if one of the following conditions holds:*
1. $1\leq \kappa \leq |G|$ and $\kappa\not \in \{2,3\}$.
2. $\kappa=2$ and $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_3$.
3. $\kappa=3$ and $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_2$ or to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus(\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2)$.
Preliminaries
=============
In the proof of Main Theorem we shall exploit a combinatorial lemma proved in this section. For a set $A$ by $[A]^2=\{B\subset A:|B|=2\}$ we denote the family of all two-element subsets of $A$.
We shall say that a map $f: [A]^2\mapsto [B]^2$
- is [*separately injective*]{} if for any $a\in A$ the map $f_a: x\mapsto f(\{x,a\})$ is injective;
- [*preserves intersections*]{} if for any $a_0,a_1,a_2\in A$ the intersection $f(\{a_0,a_1\})\cap f(\{a_0,a_2\})$ is not empty.
\[size\] If $|A|\ge 5$ and a map $f:[A]^2\mapsto [B]^2$ is separately injective and preserves intersections, then $|A|\leq |B|$.
Fix any point $a_0\in A$ and consider the family $\big\{f(\{a,a_0\}):a\in A\backslash \{a_0\}\big\}$. Since $f$ preserves intersections we have that $f(\{a,a_0\})\cap f(\{a^{'},a_0\})\ne \emptyset$ for any distinct $ a,a^{'}\in A$. Using the separately injective of $f$ and the inequality $|A|\ge5$ we can prove that the intersection $\bigcap_{a\in A\backslash \{a_0\}}f(\{a,a_0\})$ is not empty and hence contains some element $b_0$. Thus we obtain that $f:\{a,a_0\}\mapsto \{b,b_0\}.$ And since $f$ is separately injective we obtain an injective map from $A\backslash
\{a_0\}$ into $B\backslash \{b_0\}$ implying the desired inequality $|A|\leq|B|$.
We shall also need one structure property of Abelian groups. By ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ we denote the additive group of integer numbers and by $${{\mathbb{Z}}}(p^\infty)=\{z\in {{\mathbb{C}}}:\exists n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}\mbox{ with }z^{p^k}=1\}$$ the quasicyclic $p$-group for a prime number $p$.
\[structure\] Each infinite Abelian group $G$ contains an infinite subgroup isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$, ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(p^\infty)$ or the direct sum of finite cyclic groups.
If $G$ contains an element $g$ of infinite order, then it generates a cyclic subgroup isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Otherwise, $H$ is a torsion group and by Theorem 8.4 [@Fu] decomposes into the direct sum $G=\oplus_p A_p$ of $p$-groups $A_p$. If each group $A_p$ is finite, then $G$ contains an infinite direct product of finite cyclic group. If for some prime number $p$ the $p$-group $A_p$ is infinite, then there are two cases. Either $A_p$ contains a copy of the quasicyclic $p$-group ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(p^\infty)$ or else each element of $A_p$ has finite height. In the latter case, take any infinite countable subgroup $H\subset A_p$ and apply Theorem 17.3 of [@Fu] to conclude that $H$ is the direct sum of finite cyclic groups.
The proof of the “only if” part of Main Theorem
===============================================
The proof of the “only if” part of Main Theorem is divided into two lemmas.
If a group $G$ contains a subset $A\subset G$ with $
ind_p^\sharp(A)= 3$ (which is equivalent to ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=2$), then $G$ is not isomorphic to the direct sum $\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_3$.
On the contrary suppose that $G$ is isomorphic to the direct sum $\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_3$ and take a subset $A$ of $G$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)=3$. The latter is equivalent to ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=2$ which means that there is a subset $B_2\subset G$ of size $2$ such that the family $\{b+A: b\in B_2\}$ is disjoint. Note that for every $b^{'}\in G$ the family $\{b+A: b\in b^{'}+B_2\}$ is disjoint too. So without loss of generality we can assume that $B_2=\{0,b_1\}$. The family $\{b+A: b\in B_2\}$ is disjoint and hence $$A\cap (b_1+A)=\emptyset.$$
Adding to both sides $b_1$ and $2b_1$ we get $$(b_1+A)\cap (2b_1+A)=\emptyset;$$ $$(2b_1+A)\cap (3b_1+A)=\emptyset.$$
Since $G$ is isomorphic to the direct sum $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_3$ we get $3b_1=0$. Thus we conclude that $\big \{ b+A: b\in
\{0,b_1,2b_1\}\big\}$ is disjoint and so ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(a)>2$ and $ind_p^\sharp(A)>3$, which contradicts our assumption.
If a group $G$ contains a subset $A\subset G$ with $
ind_p^\sharp(A)= 4$ (which is equivalent to ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=3$), then $G$ can not be isomorphic neither to the direct sum $\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2$ nor to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus(\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2)$.
Conversely suppose that $G$ is isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_2$ or to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus(\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_2)$ and there exists a subset $A$ of $G$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)=4$. This is equivalent to ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)=3$ and from the definition we get that there is a three-element subset $B_3\subset
G$ such that the family $\{b+A: b\in B_3\}$ is disjoint. Note that for any $b^{'}\in G$ the family $\{b+A: b\in b^{'}+B_3\}$ is disjoint too. So, without loss of generality we can assume that $B_3=\{0,b_1,b_2\}$. Since the family $\{b+A: b\in B_3\}$ is disjoint we conclude that
\(1) $A\cap (b_1+A)=\emptyset;$
\(2) $A\cap ( b_2+A)=\emptyset;$
\(3) $ (b_1+A)\cap (b_2+A)=\emptyset.$
We consider three cases.
**Case 1.** Suppose one of the elements $b_1,b_2$ is of order $2$. Let it be $b_1$. Then $2b_1=0$ and
$(2)+b_1:$ $(b_1+A)\cap
(b_1+b_2+A)=\emptyset;$
$(3)+b_1:$ $A\cap (b_1+
b_2+A)=\emptyset.$
$(1)+b_2:$ $(b_2+ A)\cap
(b_2+b_1+A)=\emptyset.$
Thus we get that the family $\big\{b+A: b\in
\{0,b_1,b_2,b_1+b_2\}\big\}$ is disjoint and hence ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)>3$ and ${\mathrm{ind}}_p^\sharp(A)>4$, which contradicts our assumption. Thus we complete the proof of the [Case 1.]{}
Next we consider two cases where both $b_1$ and $b_2$ are of order $4$. In this case the group $G$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus
(\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2).$ Therefore there are two possibilities: $b_1=(g,x), b_2=(g,y)$ or $b_1=(g,x), b_2=(-g,y)$ where $x,y \in \oplus_{i\in I}\mathbb{Z}_2$ and $g\in
\mathbb{Z}_4$ is of order $4$.
**Case 2.** Suppose $b_1=(g,x), b_2=(g,y)$ where $x,y \in \oplus_{i\in I}\mathbb{Z}_2$ and $g\in \mathbb{Z}_4$ is of order $4$.
Recall that $B_3= \big\{(0,0), (g,x),(g,y)\big\}$ and consider the set $B_4= \big\{(0,0), (g,x),(g,y),(0,x+y)\big\}$. We claim that the family $\{b+A:b\in B_4\}$ is disjoint. Indeed, since $\{b+A:b\in B_3\}$ is disjoint we have:
$(1)$ $ A\cap ((g,x)+A)=\emptyset;$
$(2)$ $A\cap( (g,y)+A)=\emptyset;$
$(3 )$ $ ((g,x)+A)\cap
((g,y)+A)=\emptyset.$
Then
$(3)+(3g,y)$ $:$ $
((0,x+y)+A)\cap A=\emptyset;$
$(2)+ (0,x+y):$ $ ((0,x+y)+A)\cap
((g,x)+A)=\emptyset;$
$(1)+(0,x+y):$ $((0,x+y)+A)\cap
((g,y)+A)=\emptyset.$
Hence, the family $\{b+A:b\in B_4\}$ is disjoint which implies ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)\ge 3$ and ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)\ge 4$, a contradiction with the assumption.
[**Case 3.**]{} Suppose $b_1=(g,x), b_2=(-g,y)$ where $x,y
\in\oplus_{i\in I}\mathbb{Z}_2$ and $g\in \mathbb{Z}_4$ is of order $4$.
In this case $B_3= \{(0,0), (g,x),(-g,y)\}.$ Put $B_4= \{(0,0), (g,x),(-g,y),(2g,x+y)\}$. We claim that the family $\{b+A:b\in B_4\}$ is disjoint. Indeed, since $\{b+A:b\in B_3\}$ is disjoint we have:
$(1)$ $ A\cap ((g,x)+A)=\emptyset;$
$(2)$ $A\cap( (-g,y)+A)=\emptyset;$
$(3 )$ $ ((g,x)+A)\cap
((-g,y)+A)=\emptyset.$
Then
$(3)+(g,y)$ $:$ $
((2g,x+y)+A)\cap A=\emptyset;$
$(2)+ (2g,x+y):$ $ ((2g,x+y)+A)\cap
((g,x)+A)=\emptyset;$
$(1)+(2g,x+y):$ $((2g,x+y)+A)\cap
((-g,y)+A)=\emptyset.$
Hence the family $\{b+A:b\in B_4\}$ is disjoint and thus ${\mathrm{ind}}_P(A)> 3$ and ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)> 4$, which contradicts our assumption.
Thus if $G$ contains a subset $A\subset G$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^+(A)=\kappa$ then one of the condition 1)-3) holds.
The proof of the “if” part of Main Theorem
==========================================
To prove the “if” part of the Main Theorem, given a cardinal $\kappa$ satisfying one of the conditions 1)–3) we shall construct a subset $A$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A)=\kappa$. First we shall construct a subset $A_\kappa$ assuming that we have in disposal an auxiliary subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ with some properties. Next, a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ wil the desired properties will be constructed in each group.
An infinite Abelian group $G$ contains a subset $A_\kappa$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp (A_\kappa)=\kappa$ if there exists a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa=-\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ of $G$ with the following properties:
1. for every cardinal $\alpha < \kappa$ there is a subset $B_{\alpha}$ of size $|B_{\alpha}|= \alpha$ such that $B_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha} \subset \mathbb{B}_\kappa$;
2. $B_{\kappa}-B_{\kappa} \not \subset \mathbb{B}_\kappa $ for any subset $B_{\kappa} \subset G$ of size $\kappa$;
3. $F+\mathbb{B}_\kappa\ne G$ for any subset $F\subset
G$ of size $|F|<|G|$.
By $|A|$ we denote the cardinality of a set $A$.
Let $\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ=\mathbb{B}_\kappa\setminus\{0\}$. We shall construct a subset $A_\kappa\subset G$ such that $
(\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ +A_\kappa) \cap A_\kappa =\emptyset$. Moreover, the subset $A_\kappa$ will be constructed so that $
G\backslash \mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ \subset A_\kappa-A_\kappa$.
Let $\lambda=|G\backslash \mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ |$ and $G\backslash \mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ=\{ g_\alpha : \alpha <
\lambda\}$ be an enumeration of $G\backslash
\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ $ by ordinals $ \alpha<\lambda$.
We put $A_\kappa=\bigcup_{\alpha<\lambda}\{a_{\alpha},g_{\alpha}+
a_{\alpha}\}$, where a sequence $(a_\alpha)_{\alpha<\lambda}$ is to be defined later. This clearly forces that $ G\backslash
\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ \subset A_\kappa-A_\kappa$.
The task is now to find a sequence $(a_\alpha)_{\alpha<\lambda}$ such that $ (\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ +A_\kappa) \cap A_\kappa
=\emptyset$. We define this sequence by induction.
We start with $a_0=0$. Assuming that for some $\alpha$ the points $a_\beta,
\beta<\alpha$, have been constructed, put $F_{\alpha}=\{
a_\beta,g_\beta +a_\beta:\beta < \alpha \} $.
According to the property $(3_\kappa)$ of the set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ we can pick a point $a_\alpha \in G$ so that $$a_\alpha \notin F_\alpha +\mathbb{B}_\kappa\cup F_\alpha
-g_{\alpha}+\mathbb{B}_\kappa .$$
This gives $ (\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ +A_\kappa) \cap A_\kappa
=\emptyset$.
It remains to show that $A_\kappa$ satisfies the conclusion of the theorem.
According to the property $(1_\kappa)$ of the set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ for any cardinal $\alpha<\kappa$ there is $B_\alpha$ such that $B_\alpha-B_\alpha \subset
\mathbb{B}_\kappa$. From the fact that $\mathbb{B}_\kappa^\circ
+A_\kappa\cap A_\kappa=\emptyset$ we conclude that $b-b^{'}
+A_\kappa\bigcap A_\kappa=\emptyset$ for all distinct $b,b^{'}\in
B_\alpha.$ Thus for any cardinal $\alpha<\kappa$ there is $B_\alpha$ such that the family $ \{ b+A_\kappa : b\in B_\alpha
\}$ is disjoint and so ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A_\kappa)\ge \kappa $.
Let us show that ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A_\kappa)=\kappa$. According to the property $(2_\kappa)$, for any subset $B_{\kappa}\subset G$ of size $ \kappa$ there are $b,b^{'}\in
B_{\kappa}$ such that $b-b^{'}\notin \mathbb{B}_\kappa$. Therefore $b-b^{'}\in G\backslash \mathbb{B}^\circ_\kappa \subset
A_\kappa-A_\kappa.$ Hence $ b+A_\kappa\bigcap b^{'}+A_\kappa\ne
\emptyset$, which yields ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A_\kappa)\leq \kappa$. Combining the two inequalities, we get ${\mathrm{ind}}_P^\sharp(A_\kappa)= \kappa$.
The proof of the Main Theorem will be completed as soon as we construct a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ with properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$. This will be done in the following five lemmas.
Let $\kappa=3$ and $G$ be an infinite Abelian group which is not isomorphic to the direct sum $\oplus_{i\in I}
\mathbb{Z}_3$. Then $G$ contains a subset $\mathbb{B}_3$ with the properties $(1_3 )-(3_3).$
Pick any nonzero point $g\in G$ whose order is not equal to 3 and consider the set $\mathbb{B}_3=B_2-B_2=\{0,\pm g\}$ where $B_2=\{0,g\}$. It is clear that $\mathbb{B}_3$ has the properties $(1_3 )$, $(3_3)$. So it is enough to show that $\mathbb{B}_3$ satisfies the property $(2_3)$. Note that if $2g=0$ then $\mathbb{B}_3=\{0,g\}$ is a subgroup of $G$ and hence has the property $(2_3)$.
So we assume that $2g\ne 0$ which yields that $\mathbb{B}_3=\{0,g,-g\}$ contains three elements. To prove that $\mathbb{B}_3$ has property $(2_3)$ fix some subset $B_3\subset G$ of size $3$ and pick any point $b_0\in B_3$. If there is $b\in B_3$ with $$b-b_0\not \in \mathbb{B}_3=\{0,g,-g\}$$ then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise we have that $$B_3-b_0\subset \mathbb{B}_3.$$
Since $|B_3|=3$ there are $b, b^{'}\in B_3$ such that $b-b_0=g; \,
b^{'}-b_0=-g.$ Hence we get $b-b^{'}=2g$. From the choice of element $g$ we get that $2g\not \in \mathbb{B}_3$. Hence $b_2-b_3\not \in \mathbb{B}_3$ and $\mathbb{B}$ has the property $(2_3)$ which completes the proof of the lemma.
Let $\kappa=4$ and $G$ be an infinite Abelian which is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2$ or to $\mathbb{Z}_4\oplus (\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2)$. Then $G$ contains a subset $\mathbb{B}_4$ with properties $(1_4)-(3_4)$.
We consider three cases.
**Case 1.** Suppose a group $G$ contains an element $g$ with order $>5$.
Put $\mathbb{B}_4=B_3-B_3=\{0,\pm g,\pm 2g\}$ where $B_3=
\{0,g,-g\}$. It is easily to check that $\mathbb{B}_4$ has the properties $(1_4),(3_4).$ We claim that $\mathbb{B}_4$ satisfies the property $ (2_4).$
To derive a contradiction, suppose that there is a subset $B_4\subset G$ of size $|B_4|=4$ such that $B_4-B_4\subset \mathbb{B}_4=\{0,g,-g,2g,-2g\}$.
Fix some element $b_0\in B_4$. Since $B_4-b_0\subset
\mathbb{B}_4$ there are $b,b^{'}\in B_4$ such that
$b-b_0=-g;b^{'}-b_0=2g$ or $b-b_0=g;b^{'}-b_0=-2g.$
Then $b^{'}-b=3g$ or $b^{'}-b=-3g$.
Note that since the order of $g$ is greater than 5, neither $3g\in \mathbb{B}_4$ no $-3g\in \mathbb{B}_4$. Thus we get $b^{'}-b\not \in \mathbb{B}_4$, a contradiction with the assumption. Hence $\mathbb{B}_4$ satisfies the property $ (2_4)$ and we complete the proof of Case 1.
[**Case 2.**]{} Assume that $G$ contains no element of order greater than 5. Then $G$ is the direct sum of cyclic groups according to Theorem 17.2 of [@Fu]. More precisely, $G$ is isomorphic either to $(\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_2)\oplus (\oplus_{j\in
J}\mathbb{Z}_4 )$ or to $\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_3$ or to $\oplus_{i\in I} \mathbb{Z}_5$. Since $G$ is not isomorphic to $\oplus_{i\in I}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ or ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_4\oplus\oplus_{i\in I}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$, we have to consider the following two cases: $G$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_3$ and $G$ is contains a subgroup isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_i \oplus
\mathbb{Z}_j\oplus H $ for some $4\leq i,j\leq 5$.
**Case 2a.** Suppose that $G$ contains a subgroup $H$ isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_3$.
In this sace we put $\mathbb{B}_4=H$ and see that $\mathbb{B}_4$ has the properties $(1_4)-(3_4)$.
**Case 2b.** Suppose $G$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to the direct sum of $\mathbb{Z}_i\oplus\mathbb{Z}_j\oplus H$ for some $4\leq i,j\leq 5$.
We shall identify $\mathbb{Z}_i\oplus\mathbb{Z}_j$ with a subgroup of $G$ and shall find a subset $\mathbb{B}_4\subset
\mathbb{Z}_i\oplus\mathbb{Z}_j$ with the properties $(1_4)-(3_4)$. Obviously $\mathbb{B}_4$ has the same properties in the whole group $G$.
Put $\mathbb{B}_4=B_3-B_3$ where $B_3= \{(0,0),(g_1,0),(0,g_2)\}$. It is clear that $\mathbb{B}_4$ has the properties $(1_4),(3_4)$. We claim that $\mathbb{B}_4$ has property $(2_4).$ Indeed, assuming the converse, we would find a subset $B_4\subset G$ of size $|B_4|=4$ with $B_4-B_4 \subset B_3-B_3$.
Fix any point $b_0\in B_4$. Then $$B_4-b_0\subset \mathbb{B}_4=\{(0,0),(g_1,0),(0,g_2),
(-g_1,0),(0,-g_2),(g_1,-g_2),(-g_1,g_2)\}.$$
Let us show that $(g_1,0)\not\in B_4-b_0$. Since the elements $g_1$ and $g_2$ have order $\ge 4$, $$\begin{aligned}
(g_1,0)-(-g_1,0)&\not \in \mathbb{B}_4;\\
(g_1,0)-(-g_1,g_2)&\not \in \mathbb{B}_4;\\
(g_1,0)-(0,-g_2)&\not \in \mathbb{B}_4.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus if there is $b\in
B_4$ with $b-b_0=(g_1,0)$ then $$B_4-b_0\subset \mathbb{B}_4=\{(0,0),(g_1,0),(0,g_2),
(g_1,-g_2)\}.$$
From the above and the fact that $|B_4|=4$ we get that there are $b_1,b_2\in B_4$ such that $b_1-b_0=(0,g_2)$ and $b_2-b_0=(g_1,-g_2)$. Hence $b_2-b_1=(g_1,-2g_2)\not \in \mathbb{B}_4$, a contradiction with the assumption that $B_4-B_4\subset \mathbb{B}_4$. So, we conclude that $(g_1,0)\not\in B_4-b_0$.
In the same manner we can show that none of the elements $
(0,g_2),(-g_1,0),(0,-g_2)$ belong to $B_4-b_0$, which contradicts the fact that $B_4-B_4 \subset \mathbb{B}_4$. This completes the proof of Lemma.
If $\kappa >4$ is a finite cardinal, then each infinite Abelian group $G$contains a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ with the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$.
It is easy to check that each subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ with the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$ in a subgroup $H\subset G$ has these properties in the whole group $G$. This observation combined with Proposition \[structure\] reduces the problem to constructing a set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ in the groups ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$, ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(p^{\infty})$ or the direct sum of finite cyclic groups. This will be done separately in the following three cases.
**Case 1.** We construct a subset $\mathbb B_k$ in the group ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
In this case put $\mathbb{B}_\kappa=B_{\kappa -1}-B_{\kappa -1}$ where $B_{\kappa
-1}=\{i : 1\leq i\leq \kappa-1\}$. It is easy to check that $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ has property $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$ in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
**Case 2.** We construct a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ in the quasicyclic $p$-group ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(p^\infty)$.
Choose $n$ such that $z^{p^n}\in \{e^{i\phi} :\frac{2\pi
}{\kappa}<\phi<\frac{2\pi }{\kappa-1}\}$. Then put $\mathbb{B}_\kappa=B_{\kappa -1}-B_{\kappa -1}$ where $$B_{\kappa -1}=\{e^{i\phi} : \phi =\frac{2\pi l}{p^n},\; 1\leq l\leq
\kappa-1\}.$$ It is easy to check that $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ has the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$ in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(p^\infty)$.
**Case 3.** We construct a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ in the direct sum of cyclic groups $\oplus_{i\in \omega} \langle g_i \rangle$.
Put $\mathbb{B}_\kappa=B_{\kappa -1}-B_{\kappa -1}$ where $B_{\kappa -1}=\{g_i : 1\leq i\leq \kappa-1\}$. Obviously $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ has properties $(1_\kappa),(3_\kappa)$. We claim that $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ has property $(2_\kappa).$ To obtain a contradiction assume that there exists a subset $B_\kappa
\subset G$ with size $|B_\kappa|=\kappa$ such that $$B_\kappa-B_\kappa \subset
B_{\kappa-1}- B_{\kappa-1}.$$
Consider the sets $S=\{i: 1\leq i\leq \kappa-1\}$ and $F=\{i:
1\leq i\leq \kappa\}$. We can enumerate the sets $B_{\kappa -1}$ and $B_\kappa$ as $B_{\kappa-1}=\{g_i : i\in S\}$ and $B_\kappa=\{b_i : i\in F\}$.
Since $B_\kappa-B_\kappa \subset B_{\kappa-1}- B_{\kappa-1}$ we can define a map $f: [F]^2\mapsto [S]^2$ assigning to each pair $\{i,j\}\in [F]^2$ a unique pair $\{k,l\}\in [S]^2$ such that $b_i-b_j=\pm(g_k-g_l)$. A desired contradiction will follow from Lemma \[size\] as soon as we check that $f$ is separately injective and preserves intersections.
**Claim 1.** The map $f$ preserves intersections.
To derive a contradiction, suppose that there are distinct $i,i^{'}\in F$ and $j\in F$ such that $$f(\{i,j\})\cap f(\{i^{'},j\})=\emptyset.$$ Then $$b_i-b_j=g_k-g_l\mbox{ and }b_{i^{'}}-b_j=g_n-g_m$$ where $k,l,n,m$ are pairwise distinct.
Hence $ b_{i^{'}}-b_i=g_n-g_m-g_k+g_l \not \in
B_{\kappa-1}-B_{\kappa-1}$, which contradicts the assumption that $B_\kappa-B_\kappa
\subset B_{\kappa-1}- B_{\kappa-1}.$
**Claim 2.** The map $f$ is separately injective.
To derive a contradiction, suppose that there are distinct $i,i^{'}\in F$ and $j\in F$ such that $$f(\{i,j\})= f(\{i^{'},j\})=\{k,l\}.$$
Since $b_i,b_{i^{'}}$ are distinct we get $$b_i-b_j=g_k-g_l\mbox{ and }b_{i^{'}}-b_j=g_l-g_k$$and thus $b_{i^{'}}-b_i=2(g_l-g_k)\ne 0$. Note that $2(g_l-g_k)\in
B_{\kappa-1}- B_{\kappa-1}$ iff $2(g_l-g_k)=g_k-g_l.$ Thus we get that $3g_k=0$ and $3g_l=0.$
Since $|F|=\kappa>4$ we can chose $r\in F\backslash\{i,i^{'},j\}$. The map $f$ preserves intersections so $f(\{r,j\})\cap \{k,l\}\ne
\emptyset .$ Also note that $f(\{r,j\})\cap \{k,l\}\ne \{k,l\}$ otherwise $b_r=b_i$ or $b_r=b_{i^{'}}.$ So without loss of generality we can assume that $f(\{r,j\})\cap \{k,l\}=\{k\} .$
Hence $b_r-b_j=g_s-g_k$ or $b_r-b_j=g_k-g_s$ for some $s$.
Consequently, $b_r-b_i=g_s-2g_k+g_l$ or $b_r-b_{i^{'}}=2g_k-g_s-g_l.$
Note that $2g_k\ne 0$ since $3g_k=0$.
So we get $b_r-b_i=g_s-2g_k+g_l\not \in B_{\kappa-1}-B_{\kappa-1}$ or $b_r-b_{i^{'}}=2g_k-g_s-g_l\not \in B_{\kappa-1}-B_{\kappa-1}.$
This contradicts the assumption that $B_\kappa-B_\kappa \subset B_{\kappa-1}-
B_{\kappa-1}.$
Let $\kappa$ be an infinite not limit cardinal with $\kappa \leq |G|$ where $G$ is an infinite Abelian group. Then there exists a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ with the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$.
Since $\kappa$ is infinite not limit cardinal there exists cardinal $\alpha$ such that $\kappa=\alpha^+$. Put $\mathbb{B}_\kappa=B_\alpha-B_\alpha$ where $B_\alpha$ is any subset of $G$ with size $|B_\alpha|=\alpha$. Obviously $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ satisfies property $(1_\kappa).$
Since $|\mathbb{B}_\kappa|=\alpha$ and $|B_\kappa-B_\kappa|=\kappa=\alpha^+$ for any subset $B_\kappa\subset G$ of size $\kappa$ we get $B_\kappa-B_\kappa\not
\subset \mathbb{B}_\kappa.$ Therefore $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ has property $(2_\kappa)$.
The last property $(3_\kappa)$ follows from the fact $|F|+|\mathbb B_\kappa|\le |F|\cdot |\mathbb B_\kappa|<|G|$.
Let $\kappa$ be a limit cardinal and $G$ be an infinite Abelian group with $\kappa\leq |G|$. Then there exists a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa\subset G$ with the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$.
Note that it is enough to show that each group $G$ of size $\kappa$ contains a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ with properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$. When $|G|>\kappa$ then we can take any subgroup $H\subset G$ of size $|H|=\kappa$ and find a subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ of $H$ with properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$ in $H$. Then the subset $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ will have the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$ in the whole group.
So it remains to prove that such a set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ exists in each group $G$ of size $\kappa$.
First we describe a sequence of symmetric subsets $F_\alpha\subset G$ of size $\alpha$ such that $G=\bigcup_{\alpha < \kappa }F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\alpha} \supset
\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}F_{\beta}$. Enumerate the group $G$ so that $G=\{g_\alpha : \alpha< \kappa \}$ and $g_0=e$. Then put $F_\alpha =\{g_\beta,-g_\beta : \beta< \alpha\}$ for all $\alpha<\kappa$.
We put $$\mathbb{B}_\kappa=\bigcup_{ \alpha<\kappa } B_\alpha- B_\alpha$$ where a set $B_\alpha = \{b_\alpha^\beta:\beta<\alpha \}\subset G $ of size $\alpha$ will be chosen later.
To simplify notation we write $
\mathbb{B}_{< \alpha}$ instead of $\bigcup_{ \beta<\alpha}
(B_\beta-B_\beta)$ and $
\mathbb{B}_{> \alpha}$ instead of $\bigcup_{
\alpha\le\beta<\kappa}(B_\beta-B_\beta)$. By $B_\alpha^{<\beta}$ we shall denote the initial interval $\{b_\alpha^\gamma : \gamma<\beta \}$ of $B_\alpha$.
Now we are in a position to define a sequence of sets $B_\alpha $ forcing the set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ to satisfy the properties $(2_\kappa)$ and $(3_\kappa)$. To ensure property $(3_\kappa)$ we will also construct a transfinite sequence of points $(h_\alpha)_{ \alpha<\kappa}$ of $G$ such that $h_\alpha \notin
F_\alpha + \mathbb{B}_\kappa.$
We start putting $B_0= \{e\}$ and taking any non-zero point $h_0\in G$. Assume that for some ordinal $\alpha<\kappa$ the sets $B_\beta$ and the points $h_\beta$, $\beta<\alpha$, have been constructed. Then pick any point $h_\alpha\in G$ with $$h_\alpha \notin F_\alpha +
\mathbb{B}_{<\alpha}.$$ Such a point exists because the size of the set $F_\alpha +\mathbb{B}_{<\alpha }$ is equals $\alpha<\kappa=|G|$. Let $$H_\alpha=\{h_\beta,-h_\beta : \beta\le \alpha \}.$$
Next we define inductively elements of $B_\alpha=\{b_\alpha^\beta
: \beta<\alpha \}.$
We pick any $b_\alpha ^0$ with $b_\alpha^0\in G\backslash
\mathbb{B}_{<\alpha}$. Next, we chose $b_\alpha^\beta$ with
1. $b_\alpha^\beta \notin
B_\alpha^{<\beta}+F_\alpha+\mathbb{B}_{<\alpha}$ ;
2. $b_\alpha^\beta \notin B_\alpha^{<\beta}
-B_\alpha^{<\beta}+ B_\alpha^{<\beta}+ F_\alpha $;
3. $ b_\alpha^\beta \notin B_\alpha^{<\beta}+ F_\alpha
+H_\alpha
$.
To ensure properties (a),(b),(c) we have to avoid the sets of size $\alpha$, which is possible because $|G|=\kappa$.
Now let us prove that the constructed set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ satisfies the properties $(1_\kappa)-(3_\kappa)$. In fact, the property $(1_\kappa)$ is evident while $(3_\kappa)$ follows immediately from (c). It remains to prove
**Claim.** [*The set $\mathbb{B}_\kappa$ has property $(2_\kappa).$*]{}
Let $B_\kappa$ be a subset of $ G$ of size $|B_\kappa|=\kappa$. Fix any pairwise distinct points $c_1,c_2,c_3\in B_\kappa$.
If $B_\kappa-B_\kappa\subset \mathbb{B}_\kappa$ then $B_\kappa\subset \bigcap_{i=1}^3 (c_i+\mathbb{B}_\kappa)$ and $\kappa=|B_\kappa|\leq | \bigcap_{i=1}^3 (c_i+\mathbb{B}_\kappa)|$.
So to prove our claim it is enough to show that $ |\bigcap_{i=1}^3
(c_i+\mathbb{B}_\kappa )|<\kappa.$ Find an ordinal $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $c_p-c_q\in F_\alpha$ for any $1 \leq p,q \leq 3$. Assuming that $ |\bigcap_{i=1}^3 (c_i+\mathbb{B}_\kappa) |=\kappa$ we may find a point $b\in \bigcap_{i=1}^3
(c_i+\mathbb{B}_{>\alpha})\backslash \{c_i\} $. A contradiction will be reached in three steps.
**Step 1.** [*First show that there is $ \beta
>\alpha$ with $b\in \bigcap_{i=1}^3(c_i+B_\beta).$*]{}
Otherwise, $b-c_p\in B_\gamma-B_\gamma$ and $b-c_q\in B_\beta - B_\beta$ for some $\gamma > \beta
>\alpha $ and some $p\ne q $. Find $i,j<\gamma$ with $b-c_p
=b_\gamma^i-b_\gamma^j.$ The inequality $b\ne c_p$ implies $i\ne
j$.
If $i < j$ then $b_\gamma^j= b_\gamma^i-b+c_p =b_\gamma^i-b+c_q-c_q+c_p\subset
b_\gamma^i-B_\beta+B_\beta+F_\gamma
\subset B_\gamma^{<j} +\mathbb{B}_{<\gamma}+ F_\gamma,$ which contradicts (a).
If $i > j$ then $b_\gamma^i= b_\gamma^j+b-c_p = b_\gamma^j+B_\beta-B_\beta
+c_q-c_p \subset B_\gamma^{<i} +\mathbb{B}_{<\gamma}+ F_\gamma,$ which again contradicts (a).
**Step 2.** [*We claim that if $b-c_p=b_\beta^i-b_\beta^j$ and $b-c_q=b_\beta^s-b_\beta^t$ then $\max \{i,j\}= \max
\{s,t\}.$*]{}
It follows from the hypothesis that $c_q-c_p
=b_\beta^i-b_\beta^j+b_\beta^t-b_\beta^s.$ To obtain a contradiction assume that $\max \{i,j\}> \max
\{s,t\}.$
If $j < i$ then $b_\beta^i=c_q-c_p+b_\beta^j-b_\beta^t+b_\beta^s\in F_\beta +
B_\beta^{<i} -B_\beta^{<i}+B_\beta^{<i},$ which contradicts (b).
If $i < j$ then $b_\beta^j=c_p-c_q+b_\beta^i+b_\beta^t-b_\beta^s\in F_\beta +
B_\beta^{<j} +B_\beta^{<j}-B_\beta^{<j},$ again a contradiction with (b).
**Step 3.** According to the previous step there exists $
\beta>\alpha $ and $l$ such that
$b-c_1= b_\beta^i-b_\beta^j$ where $\max\{i,j\}$ is equal to $l$;
$b-c_2= b_\beta^s-b_\beta^t$ where $\max\{s,t\}$ is equal to $l$;
$b-c_3= b_\beta^q-b_\beta^r$ where $\max\{q,r\}$ is equal to $l$.
In this case we obtain a dichotomy: either among three numbers $i,s,q$ two are equal to $l$ or among $j,t,r$ two are equal to $l$. In the fist case we lose no generality assuming that $i=s=l;$ in the second, that $j=t=l$.
In the first case we get $ F_\alpha \ni c_2-c_1= b_\beta^t-b_\beta^j,$ which contradicts (a). In the second case we get $ F_\alpha \ni c_2-c_1= b_\beta^i-b_\beta^s,$ which contradicts (a) again.
Therefore, there is no $b\in \bigcap_{i=1}^3
(c_i+\mathbb{B}_{>\alpha})\backslash \{c_i\} $ and hence $|
\bigcap_{i=1}^3 (c_i+\mathbb{B}_{>\alpha})|<\kappa. $
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} The author expresses her sincere thanks to Taras Banakh and Igor Protasov for valuable and stimulating discussions on the subject of the paper.
T. Banakh, N. Lyaskovska, [*Weakly P-small not P-small subsets in Abelian groups*]{}, Algebra and Discrete Mathematics, N.3 (2006), 29-34.
T. Banakh, N. Lyaskovska, [*Weakly P-small not P-small subsets in groups*]{}, Intern. J. of Algebra and Computations, [**18**]{}:1 (2008), 1-6.
J. Convey, N. Sloane, [*Sphere packings, lattices, and groups,*]{} Springer, 1993.
D. Dikranjan, I. Protasov, [*Every infinite group can be generated by a P-small subset*]{}, General Applied Topology, [**7**]{}:2 (2006), 265-268.
L.Fuchs, [*Infinite abelian groups*]{}, Academic Press, NY, 1970.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present two analyses dedicated to measure the ratio of branching ratios of the top quark, $R=B(t \rightarrow W b )/(t \rightarrow W q )$ ( where $q=d,s,b$), using ttbar events with either one or two prompt isolated leptons (e or mu) in the final state. Furthermore the framework of the dileptonic analysis was used also for a feasibility study of the measurement of b-tagging efficiency, by assuming the $R$ value to be the Standard Model one. Data-driven techniques to control the background in the selected events are discussed and the expected simulation results are presented.'
author:
- Roberta Volpe on the behalf of CMS collaboration
title: 'Probing the Heavy Flavor Content in $\boldmath t \bar{t}$ Events and Using $t \bar{t}$ Events as a Calibration Tool at CMS'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Top quarks decay mostly to $Wb$, while the final states $Wd$ and $Ws$ are suppressed by the square of the CKM matrix elements $|V_{td}|$ and $|V_{ts}|$. Besides single top studies, $|V_{tb}|$ can be obtained also through top pairs production, by measuring $R =B(t \rightarrow W b )/(t \rightarrow W q) $, with $q=d,s,b$, and assuming that exactly 3 generations of quarks exist, as the Standard Model (SM) predicts; indeed, by imposing the unitarity of the $3 \times 3$ CKM matrix, such ratio is $R = |V_{tb}|^2/(|V_{td}|^2+|V_{ts}|^2+|V_{tb}|^2) =|V_{tb}|^2 $. Without any assumption on the number of generations of quarks, an $R$ measurement is still useful to put constraints on $V_{tb}$ and, more importantly, it can give a clue on the existence of a fourth generation; indeed in such scenario, $R$ is appreciably less than the SM value [@Alwall:2006bx]. The most recent $R$ measurement obtained by CDF with $\sim$ 162 pb$^{-1}$ is $R>0.61$ at 95 $\%$ C.L. [@Acosta:2005hr]; DØ measured $R$ simultaneously with the $t \bar{t}$ cross section and obtained the value $R=0.97_{-0.-08}^{+0.09}$ and a limit $R>0.79$ at 95 $\%$ C.L. with $\sim$ 900 pb$^{-1}$ [@Abazov:2008yn]. The direct measurement of the CKM element $|V_{tb}|$ (predicted by the SM as $|V_{tb}|=0.999133_{-0.000043}^{+0.000044}$) [@Amsler:2008zzb]) is possible only by means of the study of single top production and currently the only available measurements are from DØ [@Abazov:2009ii] and CDF [@Aaltonen:2009jj] experiments. In the CMS experiment [@cms], two feasibility studies of the $R$ measurement have been carried on, one using selected semileptonic $t \bar{t}$ events [@PASsemil] and described in Sec. \[sec:semilep\], the other using selected dileptonic $t \bar{t}$ events [@PASdilep] as described in Sec. \[sec:dilep\]. Both the analysis use data-driven methods in order to estimate the irreducible background contribution and consider the number of b-tagged jets as the physical observable, therefore the b-tagging efficiency must be fixed to a value obtained from an independent measurement. Furthermore, the framework of the analysis can be used also to the aim to perform a measurement of b-tagging efficiency by assuming the $R$ value to be the SM one; such study was performed for the dilepton channel and is described in Sec. \[subsub:effbmeasurement\].\
General Method {#sec:method}
==============
The parameter $R = B(t\rightarrow Wb)/B(t \rightarrow Wq)$ is measured by counting the number of jets originating from $b$-quark ($b$-jets) in $t \bar t$ events. The number of $b$-tagged jets depends, beyond the $R$ value itself, on the $b$-tagging efficiency ($\epsilon_{b}$) and the mis-tagging probability ($\epsilon_{q}$). Therefore, the probability to have a given number $i$ of $b$-tagged jets is a function of $R$, $\epsilon_{b}$ and $\epsilon_{q}$. It is called $\varepsilon_i(R;\epsilon_{b},\epsilon_{q})$ and can be expressed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_i(R;\epsilon_{b},\epsilon_{q}) = R^2 P_i(t \bar{t}\rightarrow bWbW) \nonumber \\
+ 2R(1-R) P_i(t \bar{t}\rightarrow bWqW)\nonumber \\
+ (1-R)^2 P_i(t \bar{t}\rightarrow qWqW)
\label{eq:epsilon}\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ can represent an $s$ or $d$ quark and each $P_i$ (probability for a definite $t\bar{t}$ decay of having $i$ $b$-tagged jets in the final state) depends on $\epsilon_{b}$ and $\epsilon_{q}$. This function is used to fit the distribution of the number of $b$-tagged jets ($n_{btag}$) to measure the value of the $R$ parameter. In order to identify the flavor of the jets, specific algorithms are used. For this study, the [*Track Counting*]{} (TC) and [*Jet Probability*]{} (JP) [@PTDRVOL1] algorithms are used to tag the b-jets. The efficiency of the TC and JP algorithms can be measured in QCD events with reconstructed jets containing muons. The $p_{Trel}$ method [@BTV_07_001] exploits the distribution of the relative transverse momentum of the muon with respect to the jet to estimate the number of $b$ jets present in data.
Semi-leptonic $\boldmath t \bar{t}$ analysis {#sec:semilep}
============================================
The final state of the semi-leptonic $t \bar{t}$ decay channel (one $W \rightarrow q \bar{q}^{\prime} $ and the other $W \rightarrow l \nu_l $ ) is characterized by two quarks coming from the direct decay of top quarks, two quarks coming from the decay of one $W$ and a lepton and a neutrino from the other $W$ decay. Therefore the final experimental signature is four or more jets, a single lepton (electron or muon) and missing transverse energy. The generation of Monte Carlo signal and background samples is described in [@PASsemil]. The following results refer to an integrated luminosity of 1 fb$^{-1}$.
Selection and Event Reconstruction {#subsec:selesemil}
----------------------------------
The selection starts with the High Level Trigger (HLT) requests: a lepton with enough large $p_{\rm{T}}$ ($p_{\rm{T}}>15$ GeV for muons or $p_{\rm{T}}>18$ GeV for electrons). The details of the physics objects reconstruction are in [@PASsemil] and references therein. Offline electron reconstruction and identification is performed by using tracker and electromagnetic calorimeter information and the muon reconstruction uses both tracker and muon chambers sub-detectors information. An isolation variable for the leptons is defined as the ratio between the sum of $p_{\rm{T}}$ of the tracks and energies of calorimetric deposits around the candidate and the $p_{\rm{T}}$ of the lepton candidate itself. The lepton candidate must have such isolation variable less than 0.1 and $p_{\rm{T}}>30$ GeV/c. If more than one lepton is selected, the event is rejected. The jet reconstruction algorithm uses the calorimetric energy deposits with a seed threshold of $E=1$ GeV and performs an iterative cone procedure with radius $\Delta R = \sqrt{\Delta \phi^2 + \Delta \eta^2}=0.5$. The jet candidates are selected by requiring $E_{\rm{T}}>40$ GeV and $|\eta|<2.4$; in order to reject fake jets, they are required to have the fraction of electromagnetic energy to the total energy less than one and to be far enough from the lepton candidate ($lep$) by imposing $\Delta R(jet,lep) > 0.5$. The missing transverse energy ($\displaystyle{\not}{E}_{T}$) used in this analysis is computed by performing the vectorial sum of the energy deposits in the calorimeters. The reconstruction of neutrino momentum is needed to compute the leptonic top quark mass; the transverse component comes from the $\displaystyle{\not}{E}_{T}$ value while the longitudinal component is determined from the four-momentum conservation of the $W$ boson decay. A useful kinematic variable to reduce the background contamination is Centrality. It represents the fraction of the hard scattering going in the transverse plane and it is defined as: $$\label{centr}
\rm{Centrality} = \frac{\sum E_{\rm{T}}} {\sqrt{\Big(\sum E\Big)^2-\Big(\sum p_z\Big)^2}}$$ It is required to be larger than 0.35. The final step of the event reconstruction is the computation of the invariant masses using the selected reconstructed objects. Among the selected jets, the four with largest $E_{\rm{T}}$ are considered as coming from the decays of the two top quarks and of the hadronic $W$. While the selected lepton and the missing energy are known to come from a $W$ decay, the assignment of the four chosen jets to the partons has to be determined. In order to choose the right combination, a two step association is used. Beforehand the masses and the widths of the hadronic $W$ boson and the tops are obtained from simulation. The distributions of the three invariant masses of the reconstructed objects well matched to the generated particles are used to obtain the parameters $m_{Whad}$, $m_{tHad}$, $m_{tLep}$, $\sigma(m_{Whad})$, $\sigma(m_{tHad})$ and $\sigma(m_{tLep})$. First the hadronic $W$ boson is reconstructed by computing the invariant mass of every pairs of jets among the four. The pair with the nearest invariant mass to the $W$ one, namely $ij$, is chosen. The following cut, is applied: $$|m_{ij}-m_{Whad}|< \sigma(m_{Whad})$$ The second step is the association of the two remaining jets ($k$ and $p$) to the partons coming from the direct decay of top quarks. To this end a $\chi^2$ based on the two top quarks masses is defined: $$\label{eq:chi2}
\chi^2 = \Bigg( \frac{m_{ijk}-m_{tHad}}{\sigma(m_{tHad})} \Bigg)^2
+ \Bigg( \frac{m_{l \nu p}-m_{tLep}}{\sigma(m_{tLep})} \Bigg)^2$$ where $i$ and $j$ are the 2 jets chosen as coming from the $W$ boson decay. Now the only combinatorial ambiguity lies in the choice of which one of the two remaining jets is associated to which of the two top quark. The association that minimizes the $\chi^2$ is assumed to be the correct one. We consider the events with a large $\chi^2_{min}$ as events which are wrongly reconstructed, so the cut $\chi^2_{min}< 4$ is applied.\
After the whole selection, the expected event number with an integrated luminosity of 1 fb$^{-1}$ is 2650 for semileptonic $t \bar{t}$, while the main background processes are: 109 for other $t \bar{t}$, 260 for $W+jets$, 52 for $Z+jets$, 52 for $tW$ and 56 for QCD di-jet. The $b$-tagging algorithm adopted in this analysis is the $Jet Probability$ [@PTDRVOL1] and the chosen working point is such that $\epsilon_{b}=(79 \pm 1)$% and $\epsilon_{q}=(13 \pm 1)$%.
Background Subtraction {#subsec:bkgSubSemil}
----------------------
The $\chi_{min}^2$ defined in Eq. \[eq:chi2\], and referred to as $\chi^2_{normal}$ in the following, has a peak at low values of $\chi^2$ for correctly reconstructed semileptonic $t \bar{t}$ events, called $signal$ in the following. Background and incorrectly reconstructed $t \bar{t}$ events ($Background$ in the following) lead to low values of $\chi^2_{normal}$ only due to random combinatorics. Therefore if the direction of one of the selected jets is artificially changed, the mass $\chi^2$ distribution should remain the same for background events, while we expect the distribution for $signal$ events will appreciably change. We can define a $\chi^2_{random}$ just like the $\chi^2_{normal}$, but computed by assigning a random direction to one of the two jets considered as coming directly from the tops. We decided to change the direction of the one with highest transverse energy. Uniform distributions for $\phi$ and $\eta$ have been generated, allowing for $\phi$ in the range $(-\pi, \pi)$ and $\eta$ in the range $(-2.4, 2.4)$, as for the selected true jets. Then the $\chi^2$ procedure was repeated leading up to the new combination that gives the minimum $\chi^2$, called $\chi^2_{random}$. Fig. \[fig:chi2\_sigback\] shows the distribution of the $\chi^2_{min}$ variable separately for $signal$ and background events.
![Up: $\chi^2_{min}$ distribution of the $signal$ sample (as defined in the text). Down: $\chi^2_{min}$ distribution of the complete background sample. Both the figures show the $\chi^2_{normal}$ (solid) and the $\chi^2_{random}$ (dashed) distributions.[]{data-label="fig:chi2_sigback"}](figure1a.pdf "fig:"){width="90mm"}\
![Up: $\chi^2_{min}$ distribution of the $signal$ sample (as defined in the text). Down: $\chi^2_{min}$ distribution of the complete background sample. Both the figures show the $\chi^2_{normal}$ (solid) and the $\chi^2_{random}$ (dashed) distributions.[]{data-label="fig:chi2_sigback"}](figure1b.pdf "fig:"){width="90mm"}
The $n_{btag}$ distribution of the events selected after the cut $\chi^2_{normal}<4$ will be referred as $n_{btag}^{normal}$ while the events selected after the cut $\chi^2_{random}<4$ will be referred as $n_{btag}^{random}$; Fig.\[fig:btagsub\] (Upper panel) shows the result of the $n_{btag}^{normal}$-$n_{btag}^{random}$ subtraction for the $signal$ sample (solid) and for the background sample (dashed), the latter is compatible with a flat zero distribution. Therefore, it is clear that if one considers the whole data sample, containing signal and background events, and computes bin-by-bin the difference of the $Normal$ and $Random$ distributions, the resulting $n_{btag}$ distribution will be proportional to the distribution of the $signal$ only, as Fig. \[fig:btagsub\] (down) shows.
![ Up: $n_{btag}^{normal}$-$n_{btag}^{random}$ distribution for $signal$ (solid) and $background$ (dashed) events normalized to $L=1$ fb$^{-1}$ . Down: $n_{btag}^{normal}$-$n_{btag}^{random}$ distribution for the whole data sample (solid) and $n_{btag}^{normal}$ distribution of the only $signal$ (dashed) normalized to unity. []{data-label="fig:btagsub"}](figure2a.pdf "fig:"){width="90mm"}\
![ Up: $n_{btag}^{normal}$-$n_{btag}^{random}$ distribution for $signal$ (solid) and $background$ (dashed) events normalized to $L=1$ fb$^{-1}$ . Down: $n_{btag}^{normal}$-$n_{btag}^{random}$ distribution for the whole data sample (solid) and $n_{btag}^{normal}$ distribution of the only $signal$ (dashed) normalized to unity. []{data-label="fig:btagsub"}](figure2b.pdf "fig:"){width="90mm"}
Fit Results {#subsec:fitSemil}
-----------
The distribution resulting from the bin-by-bin subtraction of the whole data sample, after normalization, is to be fitted with Eq. \[eq:epsilon\]. In order to check the effectiveness of the method the fit was repeated assuming several $R$ values. Different values of $R$ ($R_{gen}$) were generated in the range \[0.9, 1\] by properly weighting three samples where the decay of $t \bar t$ was forced: $t \bar t \rightarrow WbWb$, $t \bar t \rightarrow WbWq$, $t \bar t \rightarrow WqWq$. The statistical uncertainty remains steady in all the range and it is $\sigma_{R}(stat)=0.12$. The measured values of $R$ agree within the statistical uncertainty with $R_{gen}$ in the range $R_{gen}=[0.9,1]$.
Systematic Uncertainties {#subsec:errSemil}
------------------------
The various uncertainties were estimated based on the anticipated knowledge of the CMS experiment after 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity [@PASsemil]. All systematic contributions were assumed to be uncorrelated, therefore the total systematic uncertainty has been computed by square summing. In order to check the impact of $\epsilon_b$ on $R$ measurement, its value was varied by 4%. Since the number of $b$-tagged jets from Eq. \[eq:epsilon\] does not take into account the presence of $b$-jets from radiation, while the value of $\epsilon_b$ measured in real data [@NotaCMS_B] does, a contribution due to such bias is considered. The systematic uncertainty associated to the jet energy scale is estimated by shifting the calibrated transverse energy for each jet used in the analysis by a relative 5%. The effect of the difference in the selection efficiency between $t \bar t \rightarrow WbWb$ ($\varepsilon_{bb}$) and $t \bar t \rightarrow WqWq$ ($\varepsilon_{qq}$) was estimated by varying $\epsilon_{bb}$ by $\varepsilon_{bb}-\varepsilon_{qq}$ (=0.04%). The $\chi^2$ cut was varied by $\pm 0.5$. The systematics study results for each source are summarized in Table \[tab:systerr\] together with the total value.
**systematics** **$\sigma_{sys}$**
--------------------------- --------------------
b tagging efficiency 0.04
b tagging efficiency bias 0.04
Jet Energy Scale 0.09
$\chi^2$ cut 0.02
Selection efficiency 0.006
total 0.11
: Contributions to systematic uncertainty.
\[tab:systerr\]
Dileptonic $ \boldmath t \bar{t}$ analysis {#sec:dilep}
==========================================
This study considers $t \bar{t}$ events were both the $W$ decay to leptons, the final state with an electron and a muon was chosen, as it is the channel with the largest cross section and smallest background. The generation of Monte Carlo signal and background samples is described in [@PASdilep]. All the results refer to an integrated luminosity of 250pb$^{-1}$.
Event Selection {#subsec:seleDilep}
---------------
The event selection is tuned to identify leptonic final states with two prompt, isolated leptons with high transverse momenta in the CMS detector. The selection is detailed in [@PASdilep]. Data samples are triggered by requiring a non-isolated single muon ($p_T>9$ GeV/c) or a single electron ($E_{T}>15$ GeV). Lepton candidates are reconstructed with $p_{T}\geq 20$ GeV/c in the fiducial region $\vert\eta\vert\leq2.4$ of the detector and must satisfy identification and isolation requirements. The leptons are required to be separated by $\Delta R>0.1$. In the case of multiple selected leptons, the ambiguity is resolved by selecting $e\mu$ candidates with opposite electric charge and highest transverse momenta. Jets are reconstructed using the seedless infrared-safe cone algorithm and are required to have at least two calorimeter towers with a minimum $E_T$ sum of 2 GeV. Jets are required to have at least one assigned track so that the $b$-tagging algorithms can be applied. These cuts define the “taggability” requirements. The energy of the jets is corrected for the $\eta$-dependence and absolute $E_T$ using MC based corrections for generator level jets. Taggable jets are selected with $E_T$(corrected)$\geq$ 30 GeV/c and $\vert\eta\vert\leq2.4$. Jet candidates are further required to be separated from the selected leptons by $\Delta R({\rm jet,lepton})\geq 0.3$ and to have an electromagnetic fraction EMF$<$0.98. The total missing transverse energy, $\displaystyle{\not}{E}_{T}$, is corrected for the energy deposited by muons and it is required to be above $30$ GeV. With 250 pb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, after the described selection, the expected event number is 787 for dileptonic $t \bar{t}$, and the main background contributions are due to other $t \bar{t}$ (14 events),single top (29 events), Di-boson (10.5 events), $W/Z +jets$ (26 events). Therefore after the selection a signal to backround ratio of approximately 10 is expected.
The jet misassignment estimate {#subsec:jetMisass}
------------------------------
Despite small contributions from other background processes there is a non-negligible probability that at least one jet from a $t \bar{t}$ decay is either missed because it was not reconstructed or because it did not pass the jet selection criteria, and another jet is chosen instead (such as, for example, jets from ISR/FSR). This will be referred to as “jet misassignment” and an estimate of the jet misassignment level has to be made from data. The estimate is done in terms of probability weights $\alpha_{i}$, where $i=0,1,2$ is the number of jets from top decays correctly reconstructed and selected. The selected events are a combination of three different categories:
- events with no jet selected from the top decays, weighted by $\alpha_{0}$ (background-dominated);
- events with only one jet correctly assigned to the top decay, weighted by $\alpha_{1}$ (combination of signal and background);
- events with two jets correctly assigned to the top decays, weighted $\alpha_{2}$ (signal-dominated) .
In first approximation the weights $\alpha_i$ can be parameterized in terms of a binomial combination of $\alpha$, the probability of correctly assigning individual jets. The value of $\alpha$ can be estimated using the kinematic properties of the events directly from data. A correlation can be sought in the lepton-jet pairs originating from the same top quark decay [@RKELLIS] and it is possible to show that no pair with $M_{l,b}>M_{l,b}^{max}\equiv\sqrt{m_t^2-m_W^2}$ = 156 GeV/c$^2$ should be observed (spectrum endpoint). Two methods are proposed to emulate the invariant mass distribution of the misassigned jets: “swapping” the jet in the assigned lepton-jet pair, with a jet from a different event, or “randomly rotating” the momentum vector of the selected leptons. As the “random rotation” and “swap” methods yield similar results, the average value is used to model the invariant mass distribution of the background jets. The distribution of the “swapped” and “randomly rotated” pairs, normalized to fit the high-end part of the distribution, is superimposed. The two background models provide a good estimate of the fraction of misassigned pairs with $M_{lepton,jet}>$ 190 GeV/c$^2$ (Fig. \[fig:Mlj\_recodata\]). The normalization factor applied to the distribution of the swapped (randomly rotated) pairs is related to the misassignment fraction, $1-\alpha$ [@PASdilep].
![Invariant mass of the lepton-jet pairs for the whole data sample.[]{data-label="fig:Mlj_recodata"}](figure3.png){height="80mm"}
Measurements by fitting the $n_{btag}$ distribution {#subsec:fitDilep}
---------------------------------------------------
The following subsections describe the measurement of $R$ and of the b-tagging efficiency respectively; for both the measurements a fit of the $n_{btag}$ distribution is performed with the function in Eq.\[eq:epsilon\] as in the semi-leptonic analysis, but here it depends also on $\alpha$ (besides $R$, $\epsilon_b$, $\epsilon_q$). In both the studies the $\alpha_2=\alpha^2$ parameter is fixed to the value obtained by data as explained above, $\alpha_0$ is a free parameter and $\alpha_1$ is obtained from the normalization ($\alpha_1$=1-$\alpha_0$-$\alpha_2$). The value obtained for $\alpha_2$ is $\alpha_2=0.67 \pm 0.07$ (stat)$\pm 0.03$ (syst), while the one obtained by using the MC truth is $0.63 \pm 0.02$. $\epsilon_q$ is fixed to the value obtained by other data driven methods [@BTV_07_002] and the other parameters are fixed or free depending on the study.
### Measurement of $\boldmath R$ {#subsub:rmeasurement}
In order to measure $R$, $\epsilon_b$ was fixed; the results for $R_{gen}=1$, for the two b-tagging algorithms ($JP$ and $TC$), each for three working points, are shown in Tab.\[tab:RFitTable\]
----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
$b$-tagging algorithm
loose medium tight
Jet Probability 1.01 $\pm$ 0.02 1.00 $\pm$ 0.02 0.97 $\pm$ 0.03
Track Counting 1.00 $\pm$ 0.02 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02 1.04 $\pm$ 0.03
----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
: $R$ fit results for an integrated luminosity of ${\mit L}$ = 250 pb$^{-1}$. Statistical uncertainties from the fit and from MC truth are included.[]{data-label="tab:RFitTable"}
Figure \[fig:Rfit\] shows the results obtained by fitting $R$ and $\alpha_0$ using jets tagged with the JP loose point.
![ Fit to $R$ and $\alpha_0$, only statistical uncertainties are shown.[]{data-label="fig:Rfit"}](figure4.png){height="80mm"}
Different subsamples with forced decays, are weighted similarly to the semi-leptonic study (Sec.\[subsec:fitSemil\]) in order to give different $R_{gen}$ values. All backgrounds are included. The b-tag multiplicity distributions obtained this way are sampled according to the expected number of events and fit to determine $R$. The statistical uncertainty of each fit result is then determined from the width of the distribution of $R_{generated}-R_{measured}$. The systematic uncertainties are dominated by the uncertainty on the $b$-tagging efficiency. The total uncertainty is $\sigma_{R}(stat+sys)=0.09$ with 250 pb$^{-1}$.
### Measurement of $\boldmath b$-tagging efficiency {#subsub:effbmeasurement}
Here $R=1$ is fixed and the $b$-tagging efficiency, $\varepsilon_b$ is measured. The constraint $0\leq \varepsilon_b\leq 1$ is used in the fit. The results are shown in Tab. \[tab:BtagEffFitTable\].
algorithm working point $\varepsilon_{b}$ (MC truth) $\varepsilon_{b}$
----------------- --------------- ------------------------------ -------------------
loose $0.82 \pm 0.01 $ $0.81 \pm 0.02$
Jet Probability medium $0.63 \pm 0.01 $ $0.63 \pm 0.02$
tight $0.41 \pm 0.01 $ $0.41 \pm 0.02$
loose $0.80 \pm 0.01 $ $0.82 \pm 0.02$
Track Counting medium $0.65 \pm 0.01 $ $0.65 \pm 0.02$
tight $0.40 \pm 0.01 $ $0.41 \pm 0.02$
: Fit to $b$-tagging. $R=1$ fixed and $\alpha$ is fixed to the value estimated with the swap method. Statistical uncertainties from the fit and from MC truth are included.[]{data-label="tab:BtagEffFitTable"}
A simultaneous fit to the $b$-tagging efficiency and $\alpha_0$ yields the 2-dimensional distribution shown in Figure \[fig:BtagFit\].
![Contour plot of the fit to $b$-tagging efficiency and $\alpha_0$. $R=1$ fixed and $\alpha$ is fixed to the value estimated with the swap method.[]{data-label="fig:BtagFit"}](figure5.png){height="80mm"}
The total systematic uncertainty is $4\%$ and is due to the uncertainty on $\alpha$. The uncertainty is estimated by repeating the fit procedure after displacing each parameter by positive/negative values from a Gaussian distribution centered at zero with a width given by the corresponding uncertainty of the parameter. The sensitivity of the $\varepsilon_b$ measurement is about $\pm 0.02$ when $R$ is varied by $5\%$. The fitting model is derived for $t \bar{t}$ events and the bias is estimated to be small, given that the background events are only $~10\%$ of the total sample. The good agreement (within uncertainties) of the fit results with the MC truth values justifies this assumption. The uncertainty due to different ISR/FSR content in the final sample is expected to be small ($<1\%$).
Conclusions
===========
Two studies of feasibility of the $R$ measurement was presented, one by using selected semi-leptonic $t \bar{t}$ events and the other by using selected di-leptonic $t \bar{t}$ events in the $e \mu$ channel. The expected uncertainties, for the semi-leptonic channel with $L=1$ fb$^{-1}$, are $\sigma_R(stat) = 0.12$ and $\sigma_R(sys) = 0.11$. For the di-leptonic channel, with $L=250$ pb$^{-1}$, the expected uncertainty is $\sigma_R(stat+sys) = 0.09$. Furthermore, in the dileponic channel a study on the $\epsilon_b$ measurement, fixing $R$ to the SM value, has been performed. The expected uncertainties are: $\sigma_{\epsilon_b}(stat)=0.02$ $\sigma_{\epsilon_b}(sys) \sim 0.04$. Both the studies use data driven methods to subtract the background contribution.
[99]{} J. Awall et al [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} C49 791-801(2007).
D. Acosta et al., CDF Collaboration, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 95 102002(2005)\[hep-ex/0505091\].
V. M. Abazov et al., D0 Collaboration, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 100,192003(2008).
C. Amsler et al., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B667,1(2008).
V. M. Abazov et al. \[The D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:0903.0850\[hep-ex\].
T. Aaltonen et al. \[The CDF collaboration\], arXiv:0903.0885 \[hep-ex\]. CMS Collaboration, [*The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC*]{} JINST 3:S08004,2008. CMS Physics Analysis Summary TOP-09-007 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1194522?ln=en CMS Physics Analysis Summary TOP-09-001 http://cdsweb.cern.ch ,CERN/LHCC 2006-001.
CMS PAS BTV-07-001.
CERN-CMS-NOTE-2006-019.
Ellis, R.K. et al., Cambridge Monographs on Part. Phys., Nucl. Phys. and Cosmology.
CMS PAS BTV-07-002.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This work is a discussion on the concept of information. We define here information as an abstraction that is able to be copied. We consider the connection between the process of copying information in quantum systems and the emergence of the so-called classical realism. The problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics in this context is discussed as well.'
author:
- 'Marcin Ostrowski[^1]'
title: Information and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
---
Introduction
============
What is information? In the literature, there is a multiplicity of definitions and approaches, such as statistical-syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. The first of these examines statistical properties of messages, the second one attempts to explore the meaning of the content contained in messages, while the third one determines their value in decision-making process.
Milestone for the development of classical information theory was the work of C. Shannon from the 1940s’ [@lit3]. Due to its practical importance in technology (e.g. telecommunications), Shannon’s theory is widely presented in literature and is described extensively in many textbooks (e.g. [@lit2; @lit2a; @lit2b]).
Let us recall the main features of Shannon’s information, which we are going to rely on in further sections:
- [Shannon entropy $H$ is a probability measure. It describes the statistical characteristics of the processes such as telecommunication signal without going into the meaning contained in the transmission. It is a measure of uncertainty which is generated during the implementation of the process. In other words, it is the a priori uncertainty as to the form that the implementation takes before we get to know it.]{}
- [In Shannon’s theory, there is a distinction between entropy $H$ (selfinformation) and information $I$ (transinformation). This distinction is made by introducing the idea of the telecommunications channel. Message (process $X$) generated by the sender distorted by noise (process $Z$) gets to the recipient (process $Y$). Transinformtion $I(X,Y)$ is part of ignorance about the process $X$ which is removed when we know the process $Y$.]{}
Interest in the notion of information is particularly vivid among physicists. For example, it is worth to mention the decades of discussion on the relationship between information and thermodynamic entropy [@lit_termo; @lit_term2].
In recent times, range of applicability of the concept of information was extended to quantum systems. In quantum information theory there is a distinction between classical information (as available locally ability to perform work) and quantum information (as nonlocal correlation which can be used to perform tasks such as teleportation)[@lit_horodecki; @lit_preskill]. Despite all the modifications basic features of quantum information and Shannon’s information are still the same. Both are probabilistic measures of correlation between processes (or states of physical systems).
The relationship between the concept of information and the problem of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is also studied in the literature [@lit_horod2]. Despite significant progress in recent years, some questions still seem to be open. Some words have not been spoken directly. What really is the information? What is the relationship between the concept of information and the concept of the state of a physical system? Does the concept of information can be useful for us in the discussions on the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics? This work is another attempt to find answers to these questions.
Information as an abstraction
=============================
But what exactly is information? What are its main properties? If we were to answer that question in “our own words” we would probably say that it is an abstract content contained in the transmission (of a message) or (looking more broadly) in a physical system. It is something “immaterial” included in the matter. It is best to discuss this with an example. Consider the information that is normally stored in computer’s memory (it can be a data file or a program). If the computer stores it in RAM, then it is represented by electric charges stored in microscopic capacities (presence of the charge means the logic state “1”, absence of the charge means logic state “0”). Does this mean that the information can be identified with the electric charge or its distribution? The answer is “no”. We can move the data from RAM to another medium. For example, we can save them to a magnetic disc (where information is stored in the distribution of magnetic domains), send them using a network wire (where information is encoded as a modulated electromagnetic signal), or print them on a punched card. As a matter of fact, these data need not be represented by a binary system (i.e., by a string of ones and zeros). For example, if they represent a text, then on a paper printout we will have graphic marks representing the letters instead of zero-one sequence of bits. What we mean by the concept of information is not a specific physical realization (e.g. record in the RAM) but rather a collection of many different realizations on different types of physical media, and encoded in different ways. Abstractness of information means that we can not identify it specifically with any of them. Information must therefore be transferred between different media.
This situation reminds us of the definition of a rational number known from school. A colloquial knowledge of these numbers simply says that they are fractions, such as 3/4. They are pairs of integers. One integer (i.e. 3) represents the counter, and the other (i.e. 4) - the denominator. If we constructed the definition of a rational number in this way, the fractions 3/4, 6/8 or 75/100 would represent different numbers. So, the definition of a rational number states that it is a class of abstraction. Within this class, all forms are equal and represent the same abstract number. In the case of information, the situation is the same. We can move it from one medium to another, and change its form of encoding. However, the abstract content that is transferred is still the same.
Is the ability of information to be transferred from one medium to another all we need? How can we be sure that after a few transfers between various media the content of a message remained unchanged? The best method of checking this is by comparing the content of a new medium with the one stored in the old. If they are both the same, then we can be sure that there were no errors. Then, both copies can be considered as identical to each other and representing the same abstract information. This means that in addition to transfer operation, information must be subject to the operation of comparison.[^2]
However, the operation of comparison makes sense if, in some circumstances it gives a positive, while in other circumstances, a negative result. If there is only one copy of the message (without any possibility of duplication) comparing it with another message yield always a negative result. This means that instead of a transfer operation (during which the content is removed from the old medium and appears on the new one) information must undergo a copy operation[^3] (during which the content appears in the new medium, while retaining the old).[^4] We can therefore say that:
> [*Information is an abstraction contained in the physical system which is able to being copied [^5]* ]{}
“Copyability”[^6] of information seems to be such an important feature that it should not be regarded as one of the many (additional) properties but as an essential feature. Everything that in the broad sense is defined as information has the ability to reproduce (copy). In many cases, the number of copies may be enormous, making that information become a kind of “public good”. Copying takes place not only when a user explicitly copies a file in the computer from one drive to another using the “copy” button. It often occurs when we are not aware of it. Our whole life is based on the content which is subject to multiple copying. This applies to knowledge of historical facts, the insignificant events of our lives, and the prices of goods in stores, to name but a few.
“Copyability” makes information able to be shared. If we know a fact we can keep it in our memory and simultaneously share it with others. If the information was subject only to the transfer, instead of copying, then it would be impossible. In this case, either we could only remember the fact (without being able to share it with others), or we could pass it to someone else (although it could be just one person!) but then we would have to forget about it ourselves. Thanks to the “copyability” information about a fact is propagated among more and more people. [^7] [^8]
Subjective Probability
----------------------
Therefore, one can ask a question: What is the relationship between what is written above (about information as an abstraction undergoing copying) and information treated as a probabilistic measure? In order to resolve this issue, a closer look at the concept of probability is needed.
What is probability? What it really means (how to understand the statement) that the probability of a certain event is, say, 1/2? Generally, there are two approaches. The first of them (objective approach) gives a clear interpretation which states that if a random experience is repeated many times then in 50% of cases we should obtain the desired result. But there is also the subjective approach, according to which the probability may not mean the objective frequency of occurrence of results but may specify a subjective opinion (knowledge) on a topic depending on the currently available data [@pstwo1; @pstwo2]. Let us illustrate this with a simple example:
[**Example.**]{}
Consider the transmission of a text file in English between computers. The text is displayed on the screen of the recipient’s computer and then read by the recipient. Suppose that this file contains the text of a well-known literary work. If it has been read, say, $n$ the first signs of this work, what is the probability that as the $n+1$ sign there appears, for example, letter “a”?
Imagine two different recipients of that work. Let us assume that the first recipient has read the work many times before and knows it so well that he/she is able to recite it from memory. From the point of view of such a recipient, the appearance of the letter “a” is a certain event (if at $n+1$ position there actually is letter “a”) or an impossible event (with any other letter in the position of $n+1$). For such a recipient, this process is therefore completely deterministic in nature, and the entropy of each next symbol will be equal to zero.
Imagine a different receiver (number two) which, unlike the first one, did not know the content of this work but knew that the text was in English. Then, he/she assigns the probability of the letter “a” according to the statistics of the English language. From his/her point of view, it is a stochastic process.[^9]
The approach presented here sometimes arouses controversy. However, many scientists accept a subjective approach. We also stand for this interpretation. We assume that the probability depends on the observer and it is a measure of the observer’s assumptions based on previous experience.
> [*In our work we assume that the probability of an event does not have an objective character but may be associated with a priori knowledge of which an observer (receiver) has about its reasons or effects.*]{}[^10]
Note that the assessment of probabilities in the example made by the recipient number 1 and number 2 stem from the fact that both (directly or indirectly) previously encountered with the realization of the same process. For the first recipient, it was exactly the same work. For the second recipient, they were different texts written in the same language.[^11] In both cases we deal with copying of realization. Very often we encounter such situations in real world. Multiple copies of the same realization reach the observer at different moments of time. Earlier copies (not always faithful) become a knowledge base which is used to assess the probability of copies coming later. So we find here the relationship between the (subjective) probability and information as an abstraction that undergoes copying.
> [*The assigning of the realization of the process specified value of subjective probability is associated with an earlier copying of information about this realization.*]{} [^12]
In Shannon’s theory, information is defined on the basis of the concept of probability. Hence, it can be regarded as a concept secondary in relation to probability. In this work, in some sense, we propose to reverse the order. We consider information as a primary concept, defined as an abstract content which undergoes copying. The probability of an event is a secondary concept associated with information (with one of its copies) which an observer has about this event.
In Shannon’s theory, information (transinformation) is the relation between two processes or subsystems. The copying process is therefore a process of establishing this relation.
Copyability in Quantum Theory
=============================
Quantum Copier
--------------
In Shannon’s theory, we speak about information in the context of its transport through the telecommunication channel. The process $X$ is defined as the sent message, and the process $Y$ , as a received message. However, keeping all the mathematical properties of these processes, we can look at the issue differently. If, instead the telecommunication channel, we consider a copying machine (copier) then the process $X$ can be seen as the original, and in the process $Y$, as the obtained copy. $I(X,Y)$ is then a measure of fidelity of copying process.
In this section, the copying of information is looked upon in the context of quantum mechanics. As is well known, there is no possibility of copying arbitrary quantum states (no-cloning theorem). However, it is possible to faithfully copy the information encoded in orthogonal states of the quantum system. Let us look at an operation of information copying between two quantum subsystems now. This operation will be called a quantum copier.
Let us consider a physical (quantum) system that stores one bit of information. Let logic state “0” correspond to the quantum state $\vert0\rangle$ and logic state “1” correspond to the quantum state $\vert1\rangle$. States $\vert0\rangle$ and $\vert1\rangle$ are orthogonal to each other, normalized and form the basis of a quantum system. Assignment of logical values for selected physical states can be identified with the establishment of a “communication protocol”.
Consider two such systems which will be called, $A$ and $B$, respectively. Let us construct a quantum operation that copies the states “0” and “1” from the system $A$ to system $B$ according to the following scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_kop1}
\vert0\rangle_A\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_B\rightarrow\vert0\rangle_A\vert0\rangle_B\\
\label{eq_kop2}
\vert1\rangle_A\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_B\rightarrow\vert1\rangle_A\vert1\rangle_B\\
\label{eq_kop3}
\vert0\rangle_A\vert\textrm{um}\rangle_B\rightarrow\vert0\rangle_A\vert1\rangle_B\\
\label{eq_kop4}
\vert1\rangle_A\vert\textrm{um}\rangle_B\rightarrow\vert1\rangle_A\vert0\rangle_B\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[eq\_kop1\])-(\[eq\_kop4\]) fully define the operation of the copier as a unitary operation acting over $H_A\otimes H_B$. States $\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_B$ and $\vert\textrm{um}\rangle_B$ are orthogonal each other. Results of copying are correct if system $B$ (medium) is initially in state $\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_B$ (pure medium). Otherwise, when system $B$ is in state $\vert\textrm{um}\rangle_B$ (unprepared medium), an error occur. Such way of copier’s functioning is dictated by the requirement of unitarity of (\[eq\_kop1\])-(\[eq\_kop4\]) operation.[^13][^14]
Measurement as a copying of information
---------------------------------------
### Von Neumann measurement
Let us recall briefly the idea of von Neumann measurement [@lit_pom]. For this purpose, let us consider a quantum system initially being in a state $\vert\Psi\rangle$. This state can be presented as superposition of eigenstates $\vert s\rangle$ of some observable $\hat{A}$ in the form: $\vert\Psi\rangle=\sum_s c_s\vert s\rangle$. The Von Neumann model introduces the concept of a measuring apparatus (which is also a quantum system) being initially in the state $\vert A_0\rangle$. The effect of measurement is the transition of the state of the measured system and the measuring system, according to the scheme: $$\label{vonNeumann}
\vert A_0\rangle\otimes\vert\Psi\rangle
\rightarrow
\sum_s c_s\vert A_s\rangle\otimes\vert s\rangle$$ We can see an analogy between the operation of the copier (\[eq\_kop1\])-(\[eq\_kop4\]) with the von Neumann measurement (\[vonNeumann\]). If we associate system $A$ (storing the original message) with the measured system and system $B$ with the measuring apparatus, then states $\vert s\rangle$ correspond to the states $\vert i\rangle_A$, states of the apparatus $\vert A_s \rangle$ correspond to the states $\vert i\rangle_B$, and initial state of apparatus $\vert A_0\rangle$ can be identified with the state $\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_B$.
Indeed, during the measurement it comes to the process of copying information from object $A$ to the measurement system (observer) $B$. After measuring, the information about the state of $A$ is contained both in the system $A$ and in the observer $B$. Thus, there is the same information in two subsystems and this is exactly the sense of information copying. If sombody (system $C$) wants to obtain knowledge about which of the states $\vert i\rangle$ has obtained $B$, then he/she have two options: “asking $B$” about their result or perform independently of $B$ the next measurement on $A$ (the same observable), as a result of which they he/she certainly get the same result as $B$.
### The problem of uniqueness of the measurement
It turns out that decomposition of the non-separable state obtained after measuring (right side of Eq. (\[vonNeumann\])) is not unambiguous [@lit_pom2; @lit_pom3]. Other decompositions are possible (using other bases): $$\sum_s c_s\vert A_s\rangle\otimes\vert s\rangle=\sum_r d_r\vert A_r\rangle\otimes\vert r\rangle$$ This has been interpreted as an ambiguity of the von Neumann measurement. It is not known whether the measurement (projection) was made on the states $\vert s\rangle$ or $\vert r\rangle$. Does this mean that the operation of our copier is also ambiguous? The answer is “no”. If useful information was recorded in the states $\vert0\rangle_A$, $\vert1\rangle_A$ (in the second notation there are states $\vert s\rangle$) then after copying it is stored in the system $B$ in the states $\vert0\rangle_B$, $\vert1\rangle_B$ (in the second notation $\vert A_s\rangle$). Measurement using a base $\vert A_r\rangle$ corresponds to the attempt to read information stored in the $B$ by using states ($\vert\tilde0\rangle_B$, $\vert\tilde1\rangle_B$) other than the correct “states-symbols” ($\vert0\rangle_B$, $\vert1\rangle_B$). It is easy to check that this would lead to a loss of information copied earlier to $B$. The condition for the correct operation of the copier is that the initial state of $A$ is one of the states $\vert i\rangle_A$ and further reading of the information copied to $B$ is made using the states $\vert i\rangle_B$. It is a question whether, during copying, the predetermined “communication protocol” is respected. We will return to this issue in the next sections.
Information and interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
===================================================
Copying to multiple subsystems
------------------------------
In this section we examine a situation where the initial state of $A$ is a superposition of states-symbols in the form: $$\label{eq_kot}
\vert\Psi\rangle_A=\alpha\vert0\rangle_A+\beta\vert1\rangle_A$$ We will successive copy information from the system $A$ (according to the scheme described by equations (\[eq\_kop1\])-(\[eq\_kop4\])) to many systems $B_1$, $B_2$, …, $B_n$ initially being in the states $\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_{B_i}$. For each copying process the states $\vert0\rangle_A$ and $\vert1\rangle_A$ will be the states-symbols. States-copies will be denoted by $\vert0\rangle_{B_i}$, $\vert1\rangle_{B_i}$.
After making the first copy, from system $A$ to $B_1$, the state of system $A\,B_1$ takes the form: $$\label{eq_jeden_bis}
\vert\Psi_{AB_1}\rangle=\alpha\vert0\rangle\vert0\rangle+\beta\vert1\rangle\vert1\rangle.$$
If, in the same way, other observers ($B_i$) perform the copy (from $A$ or any of the previous $B_i$) the final state of system will be: $$\label{eq_wielu}
\vert\Psi_{AB_1\dots B_n}\rangle=\alpha\vert0\rangle\vert0\rangle\dots\vert0\rangle+\beta\vert1\rangle\vert1\rangle\dots\vert1\rangle$$ This type of copying of information to many observers, using exactly the same states-symbols will be called multi-copying.[^15] State (\[eq\_wielu\]) has an interesting property, namely, if we make the measurement (reduction of state) on $A$ or any of the $B_i$ in base $\vert0\rangle$, $\vert1\rangle$[^16] then with probability $\vert\alpha\vert^2$ we obtain state of the whole system in the form $\vert0\rangle\vert0\rangle\dots\vert0\rangle$ or with probability $\vert\beta\vert^2$ we obtain state of the whole system in the form $\vert1\rangle\vert1\rangle\dots\vert1\rangle$. Moreover, if some systems $B_i$ are measured by another observers and each of them performs measurement using base $\vert0\rangle$, $\vert1\rangle$ then either everyone obtain $\vert0\rangle$ or all obtain $\vert1\rangle$. Despite the initial superposition of the $A$ everyone receive the same version of reality.
> [*When all subsystems performing copying of information between themselves use the same set of states-symbols, then they always share the same version of reality (even if the initial state is a superposition of states-symbols).* ]{}
When multi-copying occurs in nature - examples
----------------------------------------------
An example of the multi-copying of information can be a well-known interference experiment with electron and two slits. Let $\vert 0\rangle$ mean that the electron passed through the left slit when $\vert 1\rangle$ means that it passed through the right slit. We choose the initial state of the electron in the form of Eq. (\[eq\_kot\]) which means that the slit through which the electron moved to the other side of the shield is not specified. However, what we are interested in is which slit the electron actually passed through. To test it, we put a light source near slits in such a way that observing the scattered photons it is possible to determine near which slit the scattering has occurred. Let us denote the photon scattering states: $\vert 0_f\rangle$ - photon scattered in the left slit, $\vert 1_f\rangle$ - photon scattered in the right slit.
Let us suppose that the beam of light which illuminates the area near the slits is so strong that very many photons can be scattered with the electron when it is close to one of the slits. Then each of the large number $n$ of scattered photons is carrying conclusive information through which slit the electron transition occurs. The state of the system electron plus $n$ photons can be written as: $$\label{eq_vizja}
\vert\Psi_{e,f_1,\dots,f_N}\rangle=\alpha\vert 0\rangle\vert 0_{f_1}\rangle\dots\vert 0_{f_N}\rangle+
\beta\vert 1\rangle\vert 1_{f_1}\rangle\dots\vert 1_{f_N}\rangle,$$ which is an analogy with the Eq. (\[eq\_wielu\]).
In this experiment, information about the way chosen by an electron (system $A$) is multicopied to photon states (systems $B_i$). All copies have been made using the same states-symbols. The result is that all the photons share the knowledge about the slit which was chosen by the electron. Since the initial state of the electron was a superposition of states-symbols, the whole system finally reaches a state of (\[eq\_vizja\]) describing the mutual entanglement of all particles (subsystems).
When does it come to reduction of state?
----------------------------------------
Let us continue discusion about the experiment with two slits. Suppose that in the experiment we have a photon detector recording the scattered photons and able to observe through which slit the electron passed. This detector changes its quantum state as follows: it reaches the state $\vert 0_d\rangle$ if it registers a photon scattered at the left slit or it reaches state $\vert 1_d\rangle$ if the scattered photon is observed at the right slit. Then the state of a system consisting of an electron, $n$ photons and the detector can be presented in the form: $$\label{najsplot}
\vert\Psi_{e,f_1,\dots,f_N,d}\rangle=\alpha\vert 0\rangle\vert 0_{f_1}\rangle\dots\vert 0_{f_N}\rangle\vert 0_d\rangle+
\beta\vert 1\rangle\vert 1_{f_1}\rangle\dots\vert 1_{f_N}\rangle\vert 1_d\rangle$$
This type of analysis can be carried further by introducing other quantum subsystems (for example a person recording the behavior of the detector, etc.). Each of the subsystems can be assigned two quantum states describing two alternative courses of experience and the whole system can be assigned state of type (\[najsplot\]). So where is the reduction of state? If we continue our discussion further, will we always be doomed to a superposition of two alternative versions of reality?
This question involves the widely discussed for decades problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics. During this time many competing concepts were created, trying to deal with this problem. As a reminder let us mention the most common: Copenhagen, many worlds [@lit_pom3; @lit_manyworlds], Bohmian [@lit_Bohm], Consistent Histories [@lit_hist1; @lit_hist2; @lit_hist3], modyfied dynamics (as for example GRW model [@lit_GRW]). Each of them has group of supporters and opponents (discussion of this issue can be found in review articles [@lit_przegladowe]).
Multi-copying: arbitrariness in setting the border
--------------------------------------------------
As is well known, many physicists have skeptical attitude to the Copenhagen interpretation, resulting in many competing interpretations. In our work we also reject it. We also assume that
> [*all systems in nature are quantum systems.* ]{}
It may seem quite a natural assumption, since all physical objects are composed of microscopic particles governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. This means that not only the microscopic systems, but also their macroscopic observers are quantum systems. But then we meet the basic and widely discussed problem: when does it really come to reduction of state? In the remainder of the work, we will focus on a discussion of this issue.
Recall that in the second section we opted for the subjective interpretation of probability. If so, the state of a quantum system, usually interpreted statistically (probability amplitude), should also have a subjective character. It could be a measure of knowledge about the system possessed by a specific observer. In our work, we accept this interpretation:
> [*We assume that the state of a quantum system is a measure of subjective knowledge of the observer about the system.[^17]* ]{}
Different observers can assign the same system to different states (one of them pure, the other mixed) depending on the extent of knowledge they possess about the system. In that case, the process of reduction of state is subjective too. One observer may conclude that reduction occurred, while from another observer’s point of view no reduction took place. We assume that
> [*reduction of the wave function of the object takes place from the perspective of an observer who is gaining new information about the object.* ]{}
The system evolves unitarily if it does not exchange information with environment or with the observer. We could say that unitary evolution describes the change of “representation” of the same knowledge of the system over time. If this knowledge is altered as a result of inflow of new data to the observer then brand new “representation” is needed, which we describe by the process of reduction of state.
Let us return to the analysis presented in Section 4.1. In our understanding state described by Eq. (\[eq\_jeden\_bis\]) should be interpreted as follows: $$\label{eq_interpret}
\vert\Psi_{AB_1}\rangle=\sum_i\alpha_i\vert\textrm{\scriptsize $A$ is in state i}\rangle
\vert\textrm{\scriptsize $B_1$ knows, that $A$ is in state i}\rangle.$$
From the point of view of $B_1$, measurement was carried out, i.e. the state $A$ has undergone irreversible reduction to the resulting state $\vert i\rangle$. From the perspective of another (external) observer (which for convenience will be called system $C$), the situation is completely different. There has been no reduction. State (\[eq\_interpret\]) of system $AB_1$ still corresponds to the superposition of all possible scenarios (results). This is due to the fact that from the point of view of system $C$, the transition from state (\[eq\_kot\]) to state (\[eq\_jeden\_bis\]) does not involve the acquisition of any new information about the system $AB_1$ (there is no interaction between $C$ and $AB_1$). This transition is solely the result of knowledge possessed by $C$ about the initial state (\[eq\_kot\]) and the known a priori evolution of the system $AB_1$ (unitary copy operation).
Where the reduction of state takes place, depends on where we put the borderline between what belongs to the observer and what belongs to the observed system. In the reasoning leading to Eq. (\[najsplot\]) all systems (i.e. electron, photons and detector) were considered as part of the observed system. However, if we consider the detector as an integral part of the observer, then we can assume that, after it is reached by any of the photons, reduction of state occurs, and thus, description of the situation by means of Eq. (\[najsplot\]) simply has not a raison d’etre. We can do this if we are sure that the communication between us and the detector is reliable, which means that the observation made by the detector is equivalent to the observation made by ourselves. However, if the communication between the detector and us is distorted (e.g. as a result of interactions with the environment) then errors occur and our assumption is not correct.
Analogously, the first photon scattered by electrons can be included in the measurement system. Here, the reduction of state occurs when the photon and the electron interact with each other and, thus, state (\[eq\_vizja\]) has no raison d’etre. In textbook descriptions of this experiment, it is often assumed that the interaction between the electron and the photon is equivalent to the (approximate) measurement of the position of the electron that destroys the original superposition. It is assumed tacitly that the photon will certainly fall to the detector, and that its state will still include information about where the scattering takes place (i.e. there will be no scattering with other particles) and that the detector will perform the proper measurement of photon observable (which will not destroy the encoded information on the location of the electron).
> [*It does not matter where the border between the observer and the observed system is placed [if]{} information obtained by the observer (as a result of the reduction occurring on this border) is in every situation exactly the same.* ]{}
It does not matter where we put the borderline, as long as we obtain descriptions of reality that are not in contradiction to each other.[^18] However, it is necessary that all systems use during copying the same set of states-symbols (multi-copying). This is possible only if, for quantum systems found in nature, such a distinguished set of states-symbols really exists.
The existence of the distinguished quantum states have been considered in the works of other authors [@lit_zurek; @lit_zurek2; @lit_zurek3], where the notion of [*preferred pointer states*]{} was introduced i.e. quantum states very willingly monitored by the environment. This permits unambiguous measurement ([*preferred observable*]{}) and leads to the [*environment-induced superselection rules*]{}. Our view is similar but not identical. We discuss this matter in the next section.
Physical space and copying of information
=========================================
Consider a quantum system composed of a number of subsystems. Treating quantum mechanics as a formal mathematical theory, the Hamiltonian describing the interaction between these subsystems can be chosen from a variety of operators.[^19] In general, the interactions described by such an operator do not lead to the processes of copying information. Moreover, even if copying of information occurs, states-symbols may be different each time.
We may ask how often it comes in nature to the situation (described in previous) which for each sub-system there is a universal set of states-symbols used during copying of information to other subsystems? Do the Hamiltonians that describe the systems occurring in nature favor any specific set of state-symbols? Is there any “communication protocol” preferred by the nature?
There is also another question. For processes of copying information occurring in nature, how do we know which states are states-symbols? In practice, nature has established a “communication protocol”, so from the observer point of view, it may be unknown a priori. Then, how does the observer know which states carry information?
Looking at the example mentioned in previous section, note that states-symbols are always associated with a fixed location of subsystems (particles) in physical space. It seems reasonable to argue that:
> [*For all subsystems (particles) occurring in nature, there is a universal set of states-symbols. The elements of this set are spatially localized states.* ]{}
When it comes to information copying between the particles then states-symbols are related to their specific locations. So we can informally identify a physical space with a universal set of states-symbols common to all physical particles. This does not mean that we identify states-symbols with the eigenstates of position operator $\hat{x}$, i.e. with the the Dirac delta states. We do not treat the position as a distinguished observable. Interactions between particles are never point type interactions (exchange of intermediate bosons). Moreover, when we use photons for localization of objects, we are doomed to resolution of the wavelength of light.[^20] Therefore, speaking of the spatially localized states, we mean states whose position is determined with an accuracy of the wavelength used for the location of the particles. In experiments carried out at the macro level (e.g., in “everyday life” scale) using visible light ($\lambda<1\mu m$) such a statement is correct. Of course in other cases, where the wavelength $\lambda$ is comparable to the size of the experimental area, this term is not correct. However, to simplify the language, such a states we can call briefly the “spatially localized states”.
Multi-copying and decoherence
-----------------------------
Processes of information copying are ubiquitous in nature. A copy of the information is often placed in a system which is a part of the external environment $E$. It is easy to check that, if the system $A$ (carrying the original information) initially was in the state (\[eq\_kot\]) then after copying $A\rightarrow E$, its state (from the perspective of the experimenter $C$) becomes a mixed state[^21] in the form: $$\label{eq_a_miesz}
\rho_{A}=\vert\alpha\vert^2\vert0\rangle_{A\,A}\langle0\vert+\vert\beta\vert^2\vert1\rangle_{A\,A}\langle1\vert.$$
Let us return to the quantum copier and the problem of unambiguity of its work (section 3.2) Let us focus for a while on the source of information which has been denoted as a system $A$. Useful information (undergoing copying) was encoded in a binary form in the states $\vert0\rangle_A$ and $\vert1\rangle_A$. As we have said, this can be identified with the establishment of a “communication protocol” which requires encoding of information only in these two states, rejecting other as meaningless. This raises several questions. First, what is the degree of arbitrariness of such a “protocol” (the choice of states-symbols)? Second, what would it mean if a state of the system $A$ arose as a superposition of states-symbols? In order to answer these questions, imagine for example that the system $A$ is a sealed container which holds a coin and an apparatus (or person) for coin-tossing. If the coin comes up heads, we have “0”, if the coin comes up tails, we have “1”. Imagine also that in the wall of the container is a hole protected by a flap. When the flap is closed, the information never leaves the container (a unitary evolution takes place). When we open the flap, we can look inside and observe if it the outcome is “0” or “1”. Thus, this system in an automatic way respects the established “protocol”, because there are only two possible results of the coin-tossing: either heads or tails.
Let us now consider whether $A$ may be in the quantum state (\[eq\_kot\]), i.e. a superposition of possible outcomes, and what it means. If we assume an objective interpretation of the state, then it can only mean a “protocol” error (e.g. the device is working improperly). However, we have accepted a subjective interpretation. Then, the state (\[eq\_kot\]) may mean that the tossing went well but the information about its result did not escape outside. That means neither we nor anyone else (e.g. environment) knows the result. The state (\[eq\_kot\]) is therefore the result of a purely theoretical prediction: we know the state before the tossing and we know how its (unitary) evolution was proceed.
The “protocol” can be interpreted as a principle, which states that “when we throw a coin, it can come up either 0 or 1”. But what do we really understand by the word “come up”? So it is better if the “protocol” states that “when we look inside after the tossing, we should see the coin in a state 0 or 1, never in any other”. In such situation state (\[eq\_kot\]) is not inconsistent with the “protocol”, since it means that we have not looked inside yet.
It is now time to put the fundamental question: what distinguishes states $\vert0\rangle_A$ and $\vert1\rangle_A$ from other states (their superpositions) i.e. what determines the form of the “protocol”? Sometimes it is suggested that it is the environment that selects those states by monitoring the measurement apparatus or directly the measured system (with the coin). However, it seems that this is not the cause. States $\vert0\rangle_A$ and $\vert1\rangle_A$ are distinguished by the fact that they are stable and they differ from each other by the [**location in space**]{} of the object with large mass and size, which is the coin. In practice, both we (the observers) and environment, wanting to “look into” the container with a coin, may use particles like photons and electrons. As a result, we are forced to choose states-symbols in the form of states with a fixed spatial location. It does not matter who performs the measurement first (opens the flap, lets photons from the outside in and looks inside), we or the environment. Of course, in practice, the environment does it much faster, making the copies of information (“0” or “1”) propagate outwards in a large number of copies, which results in the transition of a pure state (\[eq\_kot\]) into a mixed state (\[eq\_a\_miesz\]). But it is not the environment that chooses the base. If we do this first by using “what nature has given” we are also forced to choose base “0” and “1” as a natural “protocol”.
Local irreversibility
=====================
The copying of information (such as operation (\[eq\_kop1\])-(\[eq\_kop4\])) is a reversible operation, i.e. there is an operation $U^{-1}$ reverse to it. This means that any process of information copying can be revoked.[^22] So what guarantees that all the events described (such as the choice by the electron of a specific slit) actually took place if we can not exclude the possibility that, as a result of future evolution of the system, the operation $U^{-1}$ will take place, resulting in the revocation of all the copies? Even if information about the state of the system is copied, say 1000 times (up to 1000 subsystems $B_i$), it still does not become a part of physical reality. If (for example) a properly prepared experimenter who has access to all systems $B_i$ applies to them operation $U^{-1}$, then all copies will be deleted. This type of experiments are described in the literature as the so-called “quantum eraser”[@lit1; @lit1b].
However, in practice, such cases do not happen (with the exception of experiments prepared in the laboratory). It is unlikely that all the particles that hold copies of information re-enter into mutual interaction, which would result in the removing of all copies (operation $U^{-1}$). But as long as these particles are “close together” in principle, this can not be ruled out.
The case is different when photons take part in the experiment (process).[^23]. Their fundamental property is the ability to move in a vacuum with a maximum speed attainable in nature, that is, the speed of light. So if a photon escapes into the open space then nothing will be able to catch it and force it to return to the experiment area.
What does it mean from our point of view? If one of the systems $B_i$ to which the information is copied is a photon escaping in the free space, we will not be able to reverse the copying. Of course, this irreversibility is relevant locally, so this property should be called the “local irreversibility”. We can not be sure that we are not part of a larger experiment conducted on a cosmological scale crafted so that the photons finally come back to the area of the experiment and reversing of copying is realized. But it is a matter of the cosmological nature and it will not be considered here.
However, one thing is certain. A property of “local irreversibility” guarantees that neither we nor anyone else in our nearest environment will be able to reverse copying that has taken place. We can only to hope that no one else (in the cosmological scale) will do it either.
Let us summarize our discussion:
> [*If the state of a quantum system is copied to multiple subsystems, and some of these copies can not be (locally) removed, then it becomes an element of physical reality. This state is equated with the event.* ]{}
The event is a quantum state which “was copied” so many times and in such forms that we can not reverse it. What counts here is not the number of copies, but the impossibility of removal them all. However, if we delete all copies of the information about a fact (for example, about the way chosen by a particle), then this fact ceases to be an element of physical reality.
What is most important in our approach is the statement that the event occurs when information about it is propagated in the environment. In our understanding, freely moving photon in the empty space is not considered as an event (or a set of events). In contrast, photon’s emission from the atom, absorption by another atom or reflection from a mirror may be events. In such situations, states of both systems are changed and process of type (\[eq\_kop1\])-(\[eq\_kop4\]) can take place.
The view presented here concerning the irreversibility, is perhaps a little naive. However, if we do not want to change the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics (introducing non-unitary mechanisms such as in the GRW model) then we are condemned to such explanations. Maybe a future quantum gravity will bring something more concrete to the case. Wider discussion of this issue, in the context of the existence of the arrow of time, can be found in [@lit_moj2].
Summary
=======
In the approach presented in this paper, we consider information as the most fundamental concept in nature. It is true that when we describe the quantum systems, the concept of quantum state is used. But a quantum state is simply a mathematical way of expressing information we have about the system. Information gained by an observer as a result of copying (either by direct measurement or by classical communication with another observer).
The most important postulate in quantum mechanics is the principle of superposition. It says that if $\vert0\rangle$ and $\vert1\rangle$ are two states that the system can take, then their superpositions $\vert\tilde0\rangle=\alpha\vert0\rangle+\beta\vert1\rangle$ and $\vert\tilde1\rangle=\gamma\vert0\rangle+\delta\vert1\rangle$ are also correct physical states. We do not deny in the slightest this postulate. However, it seems that due to the Hamiltonians found in nature, certain states are distinguished as states-symbols in the process of information copying.
> [*According to the postulates of quantum mechanics, all states are “equal”, but because of the interactions occurring in nature, some of them are “more equal than others”* ]{}
Distinguishing the states-symbols does not matter for a free particle. The case is different in the case of interacting particles. The interaction identifies states-symbols with the places in space where it takes place with the accuracy of wavelength $\lambda$. For example, the work of organs such as eyes is registration of photons, or, to be more specific, the measurement of directions from which the photons come. This measurement is most often destructive (a photon is absorbed). So we can ask why we need the knowledge about the direction of a photon which no longer exists? Usefulness of such a measurement follows from the fact that previously the information has been copied. The direction of the photon possesses encoded information about the location (state-symbol) of the object that previously emitted or reflected this photon. It seems that distinguished role of “physical space” in the perception of reality stems from the fact that localized states (“points of space”) correspond to states-symbols in the process of copying information. In our work, we wanted to show that the world we live in, which in the daily observation appears to us as a classical, is in fact ruled at all levels by the laws of quantum mechanics. Only a few additional features such as the existence of distinguished states-symbols and the ability of information to create multiple copies leaking into the environment makes that world appears to us as classical. It seems that the classical world is described by quantum mechanics plus several additional mechanisms related to the flow of information between systems.
[99]{}
C. E. Shannon, [*A Mathematical Theory of Communication*]{}, Bell System Tech. J., vol. 27 (1948);
F. M. Reza “An Introduction To Information Theory”, McGraw-Hill, (1961);
W. W. Mitiugow “Physical foundations of information theory”, Moscow (1976);
L. Brillouin “Science and Information Theory”, Academic Press Inc., New York-London (1962);
L. Szilard, Z f Physik, [**53**]{}, 840, (1929);
C. H. Bennett, Int. J. Theor. Phys., [**21**]{}, 905, (1982);
J. Oppenheim, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, [*A new type of complementarity between quantum and classical information*]{}, http://arXiv:quant.ph/0207025;
J. Preskill, http://www.theory.caltech.edu/ preskill/ph229;
R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, [*Quantum information isomorphizm: beyond the dillemma of Scylla of ontology and Charybdis of instrumentalism*]{}, http://arXiv:quant-ph/0305024;
M. Mazur, “Jakosciowa teoria informacji”, WNT, Warszawa 1970;
E. Borel “Probabilite et certitude”, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1961);
B. V. Gnedenko, “The Theory of Probability”, MIR Publishers, Moscow (1982);
M. Ostrowski, [*Minimum energy required to copy one bit of information*]{}, http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4732;
J. Von Neumann, “Mathematische Grundlagen der Quanten Mechanik”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1932). English translation by R. T. Beyer. “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1955);
W. H. Zurek, [*Pointer Basis of Quantum Aparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse?*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**24**]{}, 1516, (1981);
H. Everet, [*Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 454 (1957);
J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 463, (1973);
D. Bohm, “A suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Mechanics”, Cambridge University Press, (1987);
R. B. Griffiths, [*Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics*]{}, J. Stat. Phys. [**36**]{}, 219, (1984);
R. B. Griffiths, “Consistent Quantum Theory”, Cambridge University Press (2008);
R. Omnes, “The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Princeton Univ. Press (1992);
G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, [**34**]{}, 470 (1986);
M. Tegmark, [*The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds on Many Words?*]{}, Fortschr. Phys. [**46**]{}, 855, (1998);\
J. J. Slawianowski, “Przyczynowosc w mechanice kwantowej”, Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa (1969);
N. Bohr, Nature 121, 580-590 (1928);
W. H. Zurek, [*Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical-Revisited*]{};
W. H. Zurek, [*Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical*]{}, http://eprints.lanl.gov.quant-ph/0105127;
W. H. Zurek, [*Environment-induced superselection rules*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{}, 1862, (1982);
R. Landauer, IBM J. res. Develop., [**5**]{}, 183, (1961),
P. G. Kwait, A. M. Steinberg, and R. Y. Chiao, [*Observation of a “Quantum Eraser”: a Revival of Coherence in a Two-Photon Interference Experiment*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, [**45**]{}, 7729, (1992);
X. Y. Zhou, L. Mandel, [*Induced Coherence and Indistinguishability in Optical Interference*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**67**]{}, 318, (1991);
M. Ostrowski, [*Information and the arrow of time*]{},\
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3070;
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
[^2]: For rational numbers we have bringing to a common denominator procedure. It allows to assess whether the two fractions ($a/b$ and $c/d$) represent the same value.
[^3]: If after comparison of two unrelated messages, it appears that they are accidentally identical then, in fact, this is equivalent to copying them - there are two identical messages instead of one. Thus, we see that comparability is basically a concept close to “copyability”.
[^4]: In analogy to computer terminology where file-copy operation (“copy” - “paste” options) means that we get two copies of the file but after the file-moving operation (“cut” - “paste” options) we still have only one copy of the file in a new location.
[^5]: In the literature available to the author, the definition similar to this was not found. Discussion on “what is information?” can be found in many works (for example: [@lit_podobne])
[^6]: Copyability - ability to be copied
[^7]: Sometimes we also have to deal with objects that are “transferable” but not “copyable”. For example, the quantum state. Its transfer from one object to another (sometimes called teleportation) is possible while the copying is impossible (nocloning theorem).
[^8]: It should be stressed that when we talk about copying of information we mean replication of abstract contents without duplication of the form (medium). The medium can be different each time, as described previously.
[^9]: For example, such a receiver can be a device carrying out the compression of text before sending it to the network, optimized for data compression in the English language.
[^10]: It does not mean that we postulate the existence of observers as a different class of entities (other than physical systems subject to observation). For us, the observer is just another physical system. We argue that the concept of information makes sense only if we consider it as a correlation between the two sub-systems. Which one is called “observer” and which one is called “observed system” in fact is not important.
[^11]: In this case the “process” means a specific language.
[^12]: Perhaps it would be better if we used here the concept of conditional probability rather than the concept of subjective probability. The main postulate of this section is the following: in the nature only conditional probabilities have sens. In practice, the probability of an event $A$ (labeled as $P(A)$) is always conditional probability. This means that for each event $A$, we always have $P(A)=P(A/X)$ where $X$ are some conditions which occurrence can be detected only by observation (that is, in fact, by copying information). For example for coin toss ($A$=HEAD, $B$=TAILS, $P(A/X)=P(B/X)=1/2$) $X$ means: that coin was fair (e.g. it has no property of badminton shuttlecock failing always one side) and that toss was fair (e.g. coin has not been dropped freely from a 5cm height, in a horizontal position). To conclude that conditions $X$ took place an observation (and de facto copying of information) is required. Who wants to play in a casino where the roulette wheel is invisible to the players?
[^13]: Analysis of the copier work in the context of energetic properties of the process of information copying was carried out in [@moj1].
[^14]: The scheme presented above can be generalized to copying more states: $$\vert i\rangle_A\otimes\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle_B\rightarrow\vert i'\rangle_A\otimes\vert i\rangle_B$$ where $i, i'=0, 1, \dots n$. Note that in our generalized scheme, the state of the system $A$ is changing during the copying from $\vert i\rangle_A$ to $\vert i'\rangle_A$. This type of change is admissible if states $\vert i'\rangle_A$ are mutually orthogonal. The essence of information copying is to be able to determine what the initial state of $A$ was, knowing the final state of $A$ or final state of $B$. What quantum states we use to encode logical states is completely arbitrary, provided that the potential recipient knows the convention that we use. As previously mentioned, it is a question of establishing a kind of communication protocol intelligible to the interested. At this point, is also worth noting that using the same letter $i$ for mark states-symbols in $A$ (i.e. $\vert i\rangle_A$) and states-copies in $B$ (i.e. $\vert i\rangle_B$) does not mean that these states must have the same physical nature (for example, the projection of spins on the same axis). This is just to emphasize the fact that they encode the same logical values. Generally, those states “live” in different subspaces and their physical nature may be entirely different. What is important is that both sets of states are mutually orthogonal, i.e. the copy operation must be a mapping of the orthogonal states of $A$ to the orthogonal states of $B$.
[^15]: States of this type are called von Neumann chains [@lit_pom]. However, this concept is not used in the context of copying of information.
[^16]: This is of course a simplified notation denoting $\vert0\rangle_A$, $\vert1\rangle_A$ in the case of system $A$ and $\vert0\rangle_{B_i}$, $\vert1\rangle_{B_i}$ in the case of the one of the systems $B_i$
[^17]: epistemological status vs. ontological status of quantum state
[^18]: The problem: “where to put the border between the observer and the physical system” was discussed since the dawn of Quantum Mechanics. The thesis that the border should be moveable was presented in [@lit_granica].
[^19]: Of course, such an operator should meet a number of formal requirements such as: self-adjointness, limiting the spectrum from the bottom, etc.
[^20]: In the case of massive particles, it is resolution of de Broglie wavelength.
[^21]: Pure state can be identified with the situation when the observer knows the actual copy of the information about the system. Mixed state of the system means that probably unknown for observer copies of the information about the system exist in the external environment. It means that system $A$ is better correlated with $E$ than with observer $C$.
[^22]: So the state $\vert0\rangle\vert0\rangle$ will go back into the state $\vert0\rangle\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle$ the state $\vert1\rangle\vert1\rangle$ will go into state $\vert1\rangle\vert\textrm{pm}\rangle$. We call it a revocation of copying instead of erasing, to not confuse it with erasure by the emission of heat [@landauer]
[^23]: Since most processes in nature (including most of the processes important in biology) have an electromagnetic character, the participation of photons is widespread (even if they are only photons of infrared radiation associated with heat emission).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report two-dimensional simulations of strongly vibrated granular materials without gravity. The coefficient of restitution depends on the impact velocity between particles by taking into account both the viscoelastic and plastic deformations of particles, occurring at low and high velocities respectively. Use of this model of restitution coefficient leads to new unexpected behaviors. When the number of particles $N$ is large, a loose cluster appears near the fixed wall, opposite the vibrating wall. The pressure exerted on the walls becomes independent of $N$, and linear in the vibration velocity $V$, quite as the granular temperature. The collision frequency at the vibrating wall becomes independent of both $N$ and $V$, whereas at the fixed wall, it is linear in both $N$ and $V$. These behaviors arise because the velocity-dependent restitution coefficient introduces a new time scale related to the collision velocity near the cross over from viscoelastic to plastic deformation.'
address:
- 'Institut für Computerphysik, Universität Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany'
- 'Matière et Systèmes Complexes, Université Paris Diderot–Paris 7, CNRS, 75 013 Paris, France'
author:
- Sean McNamara
- Eric Falcon
bibliography:
- 'McNFal.bib'
title: 'Simulations of dense granular gases without gravity with impact-velocity-dependent restitution coefficient'
---
,
Granular gas ,Cluster ,Velocity-dependent restitution coefficient 05.45.Jn ,05.20.Dd ,45.70.-n
Introduction
============
A granular material is called a “granular gas” when the individual grains do not stay in contact with one another but rather always move separately through space, interacting only through dissipative collisions. The absence of enduring contacts between the particles allows granular gases to be treated by special numerical and theoretical methods, such as event driven simulations and kinetic theory. These methods have given rise to a large body of knowledge about dissipative granular gases [@GranularGases01; @GranularGas03].
The experimental realization of granular gases is however more difficult, because the grains must be continuously supplied with energy. This is usually done with a vibrating plate [@Falcon:99]. These experiments, however, often result in situations quite unlike those considered theoretically. Some experiments have then been carried out in microgravity [@Falcon:99bis; @Falcon:06] to limit the number of parameters in the problem in order to make easier the comparison with kinetic theory of dissipative granular gases. However, the interaction between experiments and theory has remained sporadic.
In our past work [@McNamara:05], we have been able to compare simulations with experiments by studying a granular gas generated by placing grains in a box and then vibrating one of the walls to supply energy. We have found that a velocity-dependent restitution coefficient is necessary to bring simulation and experiment into agreement. In this paper, we investigate a further consequence of this model that should be observable in vibrated granular gases in zero gravity.
To see why the velocity-dependent restitution coefficient has a radical effect in microgravity, one must enumerate the parameters describing the system. The parameters are the following: the number of particles $N$, the diameter of the particles $d$, there mass $m$, the volume of the container, the restitution coefficient $r$, the vibration amplitude $A$, and vibration frequency $f$. Note that only one of these quantities – the inverse of the vibration frequency, $1/f$ – has the dimensions of time. All other quantities are either dimensionless or involve length or mass. Thus dimensional analysis can be used to determine the dependence of every quantity on $f$. For example, both the average kinetic energy of the particles and the pressure vary as $f^2$. However, this scaling is not in agreement with the one observed during microgravity experiments [@Falcon:99bis].
There are two ways to disrupt this role of $f$. First, one could introduce gravity, bringing in a second time scale. The second is to introduce a velocity dependent restitution coefficient. As we show in this paper, this is sufficient to radically alter the behavior of the system. Specifically, the coefficient is assumed to change its character at a specific value of the impact velocity $v_0$. For velocities lower than $v_0$, collisions dissipate little energy, but above $v_0$, much energy is dissipated. This leads to several unusual features that could be observed experimentally.
Parameters of the simulations
=============================
The variable coefficient of restitution
---------------------------------------
The most important parameter in our simulations is the coefficient of restitution. The restitution coefficient $r$ is the ratio between the relative normal velocities before and after impact. In contrast to most previous numerical studies of vibrated granular media [@Luding:94a; @Luding:94b; @McNamara:98], we let it depend on impact velocity. In most simulations of strongly vibrated granular media, the coefficient of restitution is considered to be constant and lower than 1.
Dissipation during collisions of metallic particles can occur by two different mechanisms. When the impact velocity $v$ is large ($v \gtrsim 5$ m/s [@Johnson:85]), the colliding particles deform fully plastically and $r \propto v^{-1/4}$, as reported experimentally [@Raman:1918; @Tabor:48; @Goldsmith:60; @Labous:97] and theoretically [@Johnson:85; @Tabor:48; @Andrews:30; @Thornton:97]. When $v\lesssim 0.1$ m/s [@Johnson:85], the deformations are elastic with mainly viscoelastic dissipation, and $1-r \propto v^{1/5}$, as reported experimentally [@Labous:97; @Kuwabara:87; @Falcon:98] and theoretically [@Kuwabara:87; @Hertzsch:95]. Such velocity-dependent restitution coefficient models have recently shown to be important in numerical [@Brilliantov:00; @Saluena:99; @Bizon:98; @Poschel:01; @Goldman:98; @Salo:88; @Arsenovic:06] and experimental [@Falcon:98; @Bridges:84] studies. Applications include: granular gases [@McNamara:05], granular fluid-like properties (convection [@Saluena:99], surface waves [@Bizon:98]), collective collisional processes [@Falcon:98; @Poschel:01; @Goldman:98], granular compaction [@Arsenovic:06], and planetary rings [@Salo:88; @Bridges:84].
![The restitution coefficient $r$ as a function of impact velocity $v$, as given in Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:rvimp\]) (solid line). The dashed lines show $v_0=0.3$ m/s and $r_0=0.95$. Experimental points ($\bullet$) for steel spheres were extracted from Fig.1 of Ref. [@Lifshitz:64][]{data-label="McNFal:fig:rvimp"}](fig01.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
In this paper, we use a velocity dependent restitution coefficient $r(v)$ and join the two regimes of dissipation (viscoelastic and plastic) together as simply as possible, assuming that $$r(v) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1-(1-r_0) \left(\frac{v}{v_0} \right)^{1/5}, & v \le v_0, \cr
r_0
\left( \frac{v}{v_0} \right)^{-1/4}, & v \ge v_0 ,\end{array}\right.
\label{McNFal:eq:rvimp}$$ where $v_0 = 0.3$ m/s is chosen, throughout the paper, to be the yielding velocity for stainless steel particles [@Johnson:85; @Lifshitz:64] for which $r_0$ is close to 0.95 [@Lifshitz:64]. Note that $v_0 \sim 1/\sqrt{\rho}$ where $\rho$ is the density of the particle [@Johnson:85]. We display in Fig. \[McNFal:fig:rvimp\] the velocity dependent restitution coefficient of Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:rvimp\]), with $r_0=0.95$ and $v_0 = 0.3$ m/s, that agrees well with experimental results on steel spheres from Ref. [@Lifshitz:64]. As also already noted by Ref. [@Johnson:85], the impact velocity to cause yield in metal surfaces is indeed relatively small. For metal, it mainly comes from the low yield stress value ($Y \sim 10^9$ N/m$^2$) with respect to the elastic Young modulus ($E \sim 10^{11}$ N/m$^2$). Most impacts between metallic bodies thus involve some plastic deformation. For more informations on restitution coefficient measurements, see Ref. [@Raman:1918; @Tabor:48; @Goldsmith:60; @Labous:97; @Kuwabara:87; @Falcon:98; @Bridges:84; @Lifshitz:64; @Foerster94].
Note that other laws for the velocity dependent restitution coefficient have been studied in the context of rapid granular shear flows [@Turner:90]. It was shown that such a coefficient changes the scaling relation between the imposed shear rate and the shear stress. Specifically, when the restitution coefficient strongly decreases at high impact velocities, the pressure scales with the shear rate frequency with an exponent less than two. This finding anticipates our results, but a detailed comparison is not possible because Ref. [@Turner:90] does not use Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:rvimp\]).
The other simulation parameters {#sec:otherparams}
-------------------------------
The numerical simulation consists of an ensemble of identical hard disks of mass $m \approx 3 \times 10^{-5}$ kg excited vertically by a piston in a two-dimensional box, in the absence of gravity (see Fig. \[fig:AR\]). We use the standard event-driven simulation method, where collisions are assumed instantaneous and thus only binary collisions occur. To avoid inelastic collapse – an unbounded number of collisions in finite time [@McNamara:92] – collisions are made energy-conserving whenever very tight clusters of three particles are detected. Furthermore, note that using the restitution coefficient given in Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:rvimp\]) prevents inelastic collapse [@Goldman:98]. For simplicity, we neglect the rotational degree of freedom. Collisions with the walls are treated in the same way as collisions between particles, except the walls have infinite mass. The simulation parameters are chosen close to the usual ones used in the experiments (see for instance Ref. [@Falcon:99]). The particles are disks $d = 2$ mm in diameter with stainless steel collision properties through $v_0$ and $r_0$ (see Fig. \[McNFal:fig:rvimp\]). The vibrating piston at the bottom of the box has amplitude $A=2.5$ cm, and frequencies 8 $\le f \le 30$ Hz. The piston is nearly sinusoidally vibrated with a waveform made by joining two parabolas together [@McNamara:05], leading to a maximum piston velocity given by $V=4Af$ in the range $0.8 \leq V \leq 3$ m/s. For the parameters used in this paper, quantities such as the pressure are sensitive to $V$, but not to the maximum piston acceleration [@McNamara:05], so $V$ will be used to characterize the vibration.
![Typical aspect ratio of the container for $n=5$ layers of particles (2 mm in diameter) leading to a height of the bed of particles at rest, $h_0=1$ cm. The container height is $h=2.5$ cm, its length $L=20$ cm, and the peak-peak vibrational amplitude $A=2.5$ cm (see text for details).[]{data-label="fig:AR"}](fig02.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}\
The box has width $L=20$ cm and horizontal periodic boundary conditions. The number of layers of particles is $n=Nd/L$. Note that when $n<1$, it is also the fraction of the surface covered by particles, so it could also be considered as an average surface fraction. A layer of particles, $n=1$, corresponds to $100$ particles. We checked that $n$ is an appropriate way to measure the number of particles by also running simulations at $L=10$ cm and $L=40$ cm. None of this paper’s results depend significantly on $L$. The height $h$ of the box depends on the number of particles in order to have a constant difference $h-h_0=1.5$ cm, where $h_0$ is the height of the bed of particles at rest, $h$ being defined from the piston at its highest position (see Fig. \[fig:AR\]). $h-h_0$ is keep constant during most of the simulations (except when notified). All the simulations performed here are without gravity (except when notified).
Results of simulations
======================
Snapshots
---------
![Snapshots of various numbers of layers $n$: top $n=1$, middle: $n=5$, bottom: $n=10$. All snapshots taken when the vibrating wall (bottom) reaches its lowest point.[]{data-label="fig:snapshots"}](fig03a.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}\
![Snapshots of various numbers of layers $n$: top $n=1$, middle: $n=5$, bottom: $n=10$. All snapshots taken when the vibrating wall (bottom) reaches its lowest point.[]{data-label="fig:snapshots"}](fig03b.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}\
![Snapshots of various numbers of layers $n$: top $n=1$, middle: $n=5$, bottom: $n=10$. All snapshots taken when the vibrating wall (bottom) reaches its lowest point.[]{data-label="fig:snapshots"}](fig03c.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
The simplest way to display the results of the simulation is simply to show the positions of the particles. This is done in Fig. \[fig:snapshots\] for three simulations at different particle numbers. In all three panels, the wall shown at the top is fixed, and the bottom, vibrating, wall is is shown at its lowest position. The periodic boundary conditions are shown by dotted lines at the sides of each picture. Note that through out the paper we will use words such as “upper”, “lower”, “horizontal”, and “vertical” as suggested by the orientation of these figures, although there is no gravity.
In the upper panel ($n=1$), the system merits the name of “granular gas”: the particles are well separated. For the middle ($n=5$) and lower ($n=10$) panels, the situation has changed. A dense cluster forms against the stationary wall. As more particles are added, this cluster simply becomes thicker. Since the distance between the vibrating and stationary walls grows with the number of particles, this process can continue indefinitely.
The pressure {#pressure}
------------
![Time averaged pressure $P$ on the top of the cell as a function of particle layer, $n$, for various vibration velocities: $V=0.8$ to 3 m/s with steps of 0.2 m/s (from lowest to uppermost curve). Inset: $P$ as a function of $V$ for $n=10$.[]{data-label="fig:Pn"}](fig04.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}\
Next we concentrate on the pressure on the upper wall (opposite the vibrating piston) since this is the quantity most accessible to experiments. Here, the pressure is defined as the force per unit length that the particles exert on this wall, or alternatively the flux of momentum, per unit time and length, through this wall. Since the collisions are instantaneously, a precise temporal resolution would yield a series of delta-function peaks. We average the pressure over many ($6400$) cycles to obtain a stable average.
We present in Fig. \[fig:Pn\] the dependence of $P$ on the piston velocity, $V$, and on the number of layers $n$. This figure can be divided into two parts. The dominant feature is the pressure peak observed near $n\approx1$. A similar peak appears in the presence of gravity [@McNamara:05]. It is related to the increase of pressure with $n$ up to $n<1$ since interparticle collisions are rare and most of the particles are in vertical ballistic motion between the piston and the lid [@McNamara:05]. On the other hand, for $n>3$, the pressure is approximately independent of the number of particles (see Fig. \[fig:Pn\]), and proportional to the piston velocity as shown by the inset of Fig. \[fig:Pn\]. The reason for this is discussed below. Under gravity, the situation is quite different [@McNamara:05]. Adding particles causes more frequent interparticle collision, and the energy dissipation to increase and thus the pressure to decrease [@McNamara:05]. At large values of $n$, resonances also appear under gravity.
![Pressure as a function of $n$, for various heights of the cell: 0.5$\le h-h_0 \le
5$ cm with steps of 0.5 cm (from lowest to uppermost curve). Inset: $P$ as a function of $(h-h_0)^{-1}$ for $n=10$.[]{data-label="fig:Phh0"}](fig05.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:Phh0\], we examine how changing $h-h_0$ affects the pressure. First, we note that the independence of the pressure on $n$ is not confined to a special value of $h-h_0$, but holds for all values, except the smallest ($h-h_0=0.5$ cm). The pressure decreases as the height increases. Examining the dependence of the pressure on $h-h_0$ shows that $P
\propto (h-h_0)^{-1}$ as displayed in the inset in Fig. \[fig:Phh0\].
Scaling relations for global quantities {#scalings}
---------------------------------------
We would now like to present the information presented in the previous sections in a more compact way, and also consider other global quantities. In addition to the pressure, we will examine the granular temperature $T$, or mean kinetic energy per particle, and the collision frequency $C_\mathrm{up}$ of particles with the upper wall. From these quantities, one can deduce the average impulse $\Delta I$ of a particle-wall collision, $\Delta I_\mathrm{up} = P/C_\mathrm{up}$.
The relation between the global quantities and the vibration velocity $V$ is reasonably well described by power-laws $$\left.
\begin{array}{c}
T\\ C_\mathrm{up}\\ P
\end{array}
\right\}
\propto V^{\theta(n)}
\label{eq:powerlaws}$$ where the exponents $\theta(n)$ depend on the number of layers [@McNamara:05]. These exponents are shown in Fig. \[fig:exponents\]a for a constant restitution coefficient, and in Fig. \[fig:exponents\]b for a velocity-dependent restitution coefficient.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**(a) $r=0.95$, $g=0$**]{}
![Exponents $\theta$ as a function of $n$ for simulations with [**(a)**]{} $r=0.95$ or [**(b)**]{} $r=r(v)$. The granular temperature, $T$ ($\Diamond$), collision frequency, $C_{\rm{up}}$ ($\ast$), and pressure, $P$ ($\circ$), scale like $V^{\theta(n)}$.[]{data-label="fig:exponents"}](fig06a.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
[**(b) $r=r(v)$, $g=0$**]{}
![Exponents $\theta$ as a function of $n$ for simulations with [**(a)**]{} $r=0.95$ or [**(b)**]{} $r=r(v)$. The granular temperature, $T$ ($\Diamond$), collision frequency, $C_{\rm{up}}$ ($\ast$), and pressure, $P$ ($\circ$), scale like $V^{\theta(n)}$.[]{data-label="fig:exponents"}](fig06b.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each point in these figures was obtained by fixing $n$ and performing eleven simulations, varying $V$ from 1 to 3 m/s. The amplitude $A$ is kept constant, and thus the vibration frequency is proportional to $V$, as explained in Sec. \[sec:otherparams\]. Then $\log X$ (where $X$ is the quantity being considered) is plotted against $\log V$. The resulting curve is always nearly a straight line. (Specifically $\left| \log X_\mathrm{observed}- \log X_\mathrm{fitted}\right|<0.1$ for all points). The slope of this line gives the power-law exponent $\theta$.
For the case of constant coefficient of restitution, $r=0.95$ (see Fig. \[fig:exponents\]a), the scaling exponents are independent of the number of particles: $C_\mathrm{up}\sim V^1$, $P$ and $T\sim V^2$. As said above, this is precisely what is to be expected from dimensional analysis, since the vibration fixes the only time scale in the problem. On the other hand, when $r=r(v)$, a more complicated behavior is observed (see Fig. \[fig:exponents\]b). When $n$ is small, the exponents approach those of the previous case. However, when the number of particles becomes large, all exponents approach unity. The reason for this is discussed below.
Anomalous scalings in the dense regime {#McNFal:sec:g0clusters}
======================================
In Sects. \[pressure\] and \[scalings\], we have shown that, with a velocity dependent restitution coefficient, the pressure of a dense granular gas without gravity obeys the simple non-extensive relation $$P \propto \frac{N^0 V^1}{h-h_0} \ {\rm .}
\label{McNFal:eq:Pscale}$$ Let us now try to explain below this scaling.
Collision frequencies at the walls
----------------------------------
In Figs. \[fig:snapshots\]b-c, we observe that the majority of particles remain in a loose cluster pushed against the stationary wall, opposite the piston. Only those particles that “evaporate” from the cluster are struck by the piston. The flux of evaporating particles can be estimated from the rate $C_{\rm{low}}$ of collisions between the piston and the particles. This collision rate has a very curious behavior, as observed in Fig. \[McNFal:fig:Cdn\]. $C_{\rm{low}}$ is roughly independent of $n$ when $n>3$ (see Fig. \[McNFal:fig:Cdn\]a). This behavior holds for other values of $h-h_0$ (see Fig. \[McNFal:fig:Cdn\]b). The inset of Fig. \[McNFal:fig:Cdn\]b shows that $C_{\rm{low}} \propto (h-h_0)^{-1}$. Moreover, the inset of Fig. \[McNFal:fig:Cdn\]a shows that $C_{\rm{low}}$ does not significantly depend on $V$ (see the scale on the $y$-axes), and can be approximately considered as being independent of $V$. Thus, at high enough density, the collision frequency on the vibrating wall is found to be $$C_{\rm{low}} \propto \frac{N^0 V^0}{h-h_0} \ {\rm .}
\label{McNFal:eq:Cscale}$$
The rate $C_{\rm{up}}$ of collisions between the particles and the fixed wall is displayed in Fig. \[fig:Cup\]. It has a quite different behavior from $C_{\rm{low}}$. In the dilute limit ($n<2$), $C_{\rm{up}}$ increases more slowly than $n$ as already observed in microgravity experiments [@Falcon:06] and simulations [@Aumaitre:06]. In the dense regime, when $n>3$, $C_{\rm{up}}$ is proportional to both the number of layers $n$ (see Fig. \[fig:Cup\]), and the piston velocity $V$ (see inset of Fig. \[fig:Cup\]). Thus, at high enough density, the collision frequency on the fixed wall is found to be $$C_{\rm{up}} \propto N^1V^1 \ {\rm .}
\label{McNFal:eq:Cup}$$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**(a)**]{} $h-h_0=1.5$ cm
![The particle-piston collision rate $C_{\rm{low}}$ as a function of particle layer, $n$. [**(a)**]{} At fixed $h-h_0$, for various vibration velocities $V=1$ to 3 m/s with steps of 0.2 m/s (from lowest to uppermost curve). Inset: $C_{\rm{low}}$ vs. $V$ for $n=10$. [**(b)**]{} At fixed $V$, for various heights $h-h_0=1$ to 5 cm with steps of $0.5$ cm (from lowest to uppermost curve). Inset: $C_{\rm{low}}$ vs. $(h-h_0)^{-1}$ for $n=10$.[]{data-label="McNFal:fig:Cdn"}](fig07a.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
[**(b)**]{} $V=2$ m/s
![The particle-piston collision rate $C_{\rm{low}}$ as a function of particle layer, $n$. [**(a)**]{} At fixed $h-h_0$, for various vibration velocities $V=1$ to 3 m/s with steps of 0.2 m/s (from lowest to uppermost curve). Inset: $C_{\rm{low}}$ vs. $V$ for $n=10$. [**(b)**]{} At fixed $V$, for various heights $h-h_0=1$ to 5 cm with steps of $0.5$ cm (from lowest to uppermost curve). Inset: $C_{\rm{low}}$ vs. $(h-h_0)^{-1}$ for $n=10$.[]{data-label="McNFal:fig:Cdn"}](fig07b.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![$C_\mathrm{up}$ the collision frequency of particles with the upper wall as a function of $n$ for for vibration velocities $V=0.8\,\mathrm{m/s}$ (lower curve) to $3\,\mathrm{m/s}$ (upper curve) with steps of $0.2\,\mathrm{m/s}$. Inset: $C_\mathrm{up}$ vs $V$ for $n=10$.[]{data-label="fig:Cup"}](fig08.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
Explanation of the pressure scaling
-----------------------------------
The time averaged pressure on a wall is the time averaged momentum flux divided by the area of a wall, that is $$P_{\rm low} \propto C_{\rm low}\langle v_{\rm low}\rangle \ \ {\rm and}\ \ P_{\rm up} \propto C_{\rm up}\langle v_{\rm up}\rangle$$ where $\langle v_{\rm low}\rangle$ and $\langle v_{\rm up}\rangle$ are, respectively, the mean particle velocities close to the piston and close to the stationary wall. Since momentum is conserved, the flux of momentum entering the system at the piston, $C_{\rm low}\langle v_{\rm low}\rangle$, must have the same value that the one leaving the system through the stationary wall, $C_{\rm up}\langle v_{\rm up}\rangle$. Therefore, the pressure on both sides is equal and is denoted $P$.
Figure \[fig:snapshots\]c shows that few particles are evaporated from the cluster, and are close to the piston. The evaporated particles from the cluster have the typical velocity of the particles within the cluster, that is $v_0$ (see below), and thus does not depend on the piston velocity. Moreover, there is no reason that the number of evaporated particles depends on $N$. Therefore, one can expected that $C_{\rm{low}} \propto N^0V^0$ which is in agreement with our numerical results of Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:Cscale\]).
The scaling $C_{\rm{low}} \propto (h-h_0)^{-1}$ probably occurs because a particle that evaporates from the cluster must travel a certain distance before it encounters the piston. This distance increases with $h-h_0$ and thus the particle’s travel time also increases. During its voyage, the evaporated particle could be struck by another particle that has just encountered the piston. If this happens, both particles are scattered back into the cluster. Thus the evaporated particle never reaches the piston. If we assume that the probability of an evaporated particle being scattered back into the cluster is independent of time, the number of particles reaching the piston is inversely proportional to $h-h_0$.
When these evaporated grains collide with the piston, they acquire an upwards velocity proportional to $V$. Thus, the mean particle velocity close to the piston is $\langle v_{\rm low}\rangle \propto V$. Therefore, using these two above results, one have $P_{\rm low} \propto C_{\rm low}\langle v_{\rm low}\rangle \propto N^0 V^1/(h-h_0)$ in agreement with our numerical results of Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:Pscale\]).
Similarly, the particles close to the fixed wall are within a cluster (see Fig. \[fig:snapshots\]c). Due to their numerous dissipative collisions within the cluster, these particles move little, even less that there are many particles within the cluster. Their mean velocity $\langle v_{\rm up}\rangle$ is thus fixed by the dissipation within the cluster (thus by $r(v)$ via $v_0$), and by the number of particles within the cluster (that is by $N$). Thus, close to the upper wall, one expect $\langle v_{\rm up}\rangle \propto v_0/N$. When the cluster is pushed against the upper wall, each layer contributes a fixed number of collisions. Thus the number of collisions per cycle is proportional to $N$. The collision rate is also proportional to $V$, because the number of cycles per unit time grows linearly with $V$. Thus, one have $C_{\rm{up}} \propto N^1V^1$ which is in agreement with our numerical results of Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:Cup\]). Therefore, using these two above results, one expect $P_{\rm up} \propto C_{\rm up}\langle v_{\rm up} \rangle \propto N^0 V^1$ in agreement with our numerical results of Eq. (\[McNFal:eq:Pscale\]).
Is the granular temperature relevant for dense granular gases?
==============================================================
In this section, we verified that the notion of granular temperature (mean kinetic energy per particle) is relevant in our dense system. Generally, for an homogeneous dilute granular gas, the pressure is proportional to the temperature. We wonder if the pressure scaling with the piston velocity, $P \propto V$, can be extended to the granular temperature for our dense system: $T \propto V$? Although our system is not spatially homogeneous and not stationary during a vibration cycle, we will see that the linear dependence of the granular temperature on $V$ is however meaningful as described below.
Temporal distribution of energy
-------------------------------
![Total kinetic energy of the particles as a function of vibration phase $\phi$ for three different velocities $V=1$, 2 and 3 m/s (from lower to upper) at constant number of particles $n=5$. The wall is at its lowest at $\phi=0$ and $\phi=1$, and reaches its highest point at $\phi=0.5$. Data from $100$ cycles were averaged to obtain these curves. Inset: Total kinetic energy rescaled by $V$ as a function of $\phi$.[]{data-label="fig:KE_time"}](fig09.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
We now examine the behavior of the simulations more closely, focusing on the variation of kinetic energy within one vibration cycle. We define the “phase” of the vibration to be a number between $0$ and $1$ that gives the position of the vibrating wall. When the wall is at its lowest position, $\phi=0$ or $\phi=1$. When it has reached its highest position, $\phi=1/2$. When it is halfway between its highest and lowest position, $\phi=1/4$ if it is ascending, $\phi=3/4$ if it is descending.
Fig. \[fig:KE\_time\] shows the total kinetic energy of the particles as a function of the phase $\phi$, for three different piston velocities, all with the velocity dependent restitution coefficient. Note that the kinetic energy varies varies by a factor of about six for each $V$. The maximum occurs around $\phi\approx0.3$, just after the vibrating wall has attained its maximum velocity. Considering the strong variations of kinetic energy during one cycle, one might question whether the granular temperature $T$ of the system were well-defined, or whether the law $T\propto P\propto V$ (see Eq. \[McNFal:eq:Pscale\]) is meaningful.
The law is meaningful, because the curves of Fig. \[fig:KE\_time\] lie on one another if rescaled with $V$ as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:KE\_time\]. Thus, the granular temperature as a function of phase has the form $T(\phi) = g(\phi) V^1$, where $g$ is a function describing the shape of the curves in Fig. \[fig:KE\_time\]. If one measures $T$ at constant $\phi$ the same scaling law will be observed, independent of $\phi$. Note that to obtain the scaling exponents in Fig. \[fig:exponents\], the granular temperature was measured $20$ times per cycle, and then averaged.
Spatial distribution of energy
------------------------------
![Kinetic energy as a function of altitude $y$ at 3 different phases $\phi$ of the vibrating cycle. Each panel contains three curves corresponding to the three different $V$ in Fig. \[fig:KE\_time\]. Data shown are for $V=1\,\mathrm{m/s}$ (lower curve), $V=2\,\mathrm{m/s}$ (middle curve), and $V=3\,\mathrm{m/s}$ (upper curve), at constant number of layers $n=5$.[]{data-label="fig:KE"}](fig10.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
Under gravity, the altitude dependence of the density is usually measured (in order to extract the granular temperature). Far enough from the piston, the density decreases exponentially with altitude. A dense upper region supported on a fluidized low-density region near the vibrating piston is also reported experimentally [@Falcon:99], numerically [@Lan:95] and predicted theoretically [@Kurtze:98].
Without gravity, the spatial-dependence of the energy is examined in Fig. \[fig:KE\]. These graphs were obtained by dividing the simulation domain into strips of height $2\,\textrm{mm}$, and then calculating the kinetic energy present in each strip. Since the particles also have a diameter of $2\,\textrm{mm}$, each one will overlap two different strips. A fraction of the particle’s kinetic energy is assigned to these two strips, in proportion to the area of the particle located in each strip. This procedure is carried out for all particles at fixed values of the phase $\phi$, and the results averaged over $100$ cycles.
The top panel shows the energy when the wall is at its lowest point ($\phi=0$). At this phase, the energy is very low (note that the scales on the $y$-axes of the three panels are all different), and its distribution resembles that of the density. In the second panel, the wall is now just past its maximum velocity. There is a peak near $y\approx22$ mm, due to the kinetic energy just injected by the wall. This kinetic energy is ten times larger than the kinetic energy found in the cluster, in spite of the small density. In the last panel, the wall has begun to move downward. Note that in all panels, the kinetic energy at any point is roughly proportional to $V$. Thus if one measures the kinetic energy density at fixed $\phi$ and $y$ while varying $V$, one will observe a linear dependence on $V$.
Figs. \[fig:KE\_time\] and \[fig:KE\] present a fairly complete description of how energy flows through the system. Energy is injected for $0.2 \le \phi \le 0.4$, as the vibrating wall moves upward, colliding with some particles that have escaped from the cluster found near the upper wall. These particles collide with this cluster at $\phi\approx0.5$, exciting this cluster. Then the energy decays, so that by the time the wall begins moving upward again, most of the energy has been dissipated.
Hydrodynamic and thermal kinetic energy
---------------------------------------
![Division of kinetic energy into mean motion ( “hydrodynamic”) and disorganized parts ( “thermal”) as a function of altitude at 3 different phases $\phi$ of the vibrating cycle. ($\cdots$) Thermal kinetic energy (data for $V=3$ from Fig. \[fig:KE\]). ($-$) Hydrodynamic kinetic energy, obtained by averaging the velocities of all particles found in each strip.[]{data-label="fig:KE_organized"}](fig11.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
In this section we consider the ratio of hydrodynamic to total kinetic energy. Here, we use the word “hydrodynamic” as in the context of granular kinetic theory. It does not refer to any fluid moving among the grains, but concerns the decomposition of each grain’s velocity into an average “hydrodynamic” and a remaining “thermal” component. The hydrodynamic velocity of a grain is found by averaging the velocities of all nearby grains. See Refs. [@Haff:83; @Jenkins:85] for a discussion on the distinction between these two energies in a granular medium.
The fraction of energy contained in the hydrodynamic velocities measures the organization of the flow. If it is close to one, then all the grains have nearly the same velocity. If it is small, the granular medium is in a gas-like state, where the randomized motions of the particles dominate. The use of the terms “granular gas” and “granular temperature” imply that the granular medium is in a state like that of a usual gas: that the “thermal” velocities of the grains are much larger than the hydrodynamic ones. But is this really the case? One could easily imagine a situation where a cluster of particles bounces back and forth between the two walls, without much relative motion between neighboring grains.
To see what situation applies to our simulations, we return to the data used to produce Fig. \[fig:KE\]. The average velocity of the particles in each strip can be calculated, and the kinetic energy related to this motion can be compared to the total. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:KE\_organized\]. The results show that near the piston, most of the energy is in the mean motion of the particles, even when the piston is descending ($\phi=2/3$). Thus the motion of the piston is supersonic. Near the fixed wall, where most of the particles are located, however, most of the energy is thermal. One can therefore conclude that in the cluster near the wall, gas-like conditions do prevail, i.e., most of the motion is thermal. Obviously, our dense granular gas differs from an usual gas in many other respects, such as the formation of cluster near the wall, and to the anomalous scalings reported here.
Conclusions
===========
We report simulations of two-dimensional dense granular gas without gravity vibrated by a piston. The restitution coefficient used here depends on the relative velocity of particles. This allows to simulate a dissipative granular gas in a much more realistic way than using a constant restitution coefficient. This model of velocity dependent restitution coefficient is indeed in good agreement with experiments [@Raman:1918; @Tabor:48; @Goldsmith:60; @Labous:97; @Kuwabara:87; @Falcon:98; @Bridges:84; @Lifshitz:64]. At high enough density, we observe a loose cluster near the wall opposite to the vibrating one. This leads to unexpected scalings: the pressure, $P$, and the granular temperature, $T$, scale linearly with the piston velocity $V$. The collision frequency at the fixed wall and at the vibrating one scales respectively, as $N^1V^1$ and $N^0V^0$, where $N$ is the number of particles. We emphasize that these scalings can only be reproduced with this velocity dependent restitution coefficient. If one uses a constant restitution coefficient (as in most of previous simulations of granular gases), one obtains $P \propto T \propto V^2$ without gravity, no matter the constant value of the restitution coefficient. However, this $V^2$ scaling is not in agreement with the one reported during microgravity experiments in a dilute regime [@Falcon:99bis]. Simulations of a dilute granular gas with velocity dependent restitution coefficient yield a scaling in agreement with this experimental one [@McNamara:05].
One difference between our simulations and the microgravity experiments on granular gases is that it is common to shake the whole container filled with particles in the experiments [@Falcon:99bis]. One experiment has been recently performed by agitating dilute particles with a piston in low gravity [@Falcon:06]. The anomalous scalings, reported here numerically in a dense regime, may thus be observable in such microgravity experiments with many more particles.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigated the vibrational properties of graphene nanoribbons by means of first-principles calculations on the basis of density functional theory. We confirm that the phonon modes of graphene nanoribbons with armchair and zigzag type edges can be interpreted as fundamental oscillations and their overtones. These show a characteristic dependence on the nanoribbon width. Furthermore, we demonstrate that a mapping of the calculated $\Gamma$-point phonon frequencies of nanoribbons onto the phonon dispersion of graphene corresponds to an “unfolding” of nanoribbons’ Brillouin zone onto that of graphene. We consider the influence of spin states with respect to the phonon spectra of zigzag nanoribbons and provide comparisons of our results with past studies.'
author:
- Roland Gillen
- Marcel Mohr
- Janina Maultzsch
- Christian Thomsen
title: 'Vibrational properties of graphene nanoribbons by first-principles calculations'
---
Introduction
============
The outstanding properties of graphene and graphene-related structures of nanosize gave rise to extensive theoretical and experimental research during the last two decades. Along with the heavily studied carbon nanotubes (CNT) another quasi 1D-nanostructure aroused special interest: Terminated stripes of graphene, so called graphene nanoribbons (GNR). Recent progress in preparation of single layered graphene sheets[@novoselov04; @zhang05; @berger06; @novoselov07] allows the fabrication of GNRs through lithographic techniques[@han206805; @Li08] and possibly the verification of theoretical predictions regarding electronic and optical properties. In the course of such investigations interesting magnetic properties[@fujita96; @wakabayashi98; @wakabayashi8271; @kusakabe092406; @yamashiro193410; @sonmetall; @lee174431], quasi-relativistic behavior of electrons and the possibility of bandgap engineering[@han206805; @ezawa045432; @barone606; @son216803] by varying ribbon widths were shown. These results make GNRs seem promising for future developments in nanotechnology and nanoelectronics.
The propagation of valence electrons in graphene structures is accompanied by exceptionally strong electron-phonon coupling[@pisanibornoppen]. The investigation of the vibrational spectum in these materials is thus of fundamental importance for the electron transport in electronic devices and of great general interest.
In this paper, we present our studies of the $\Gamma$-point phonons of different armchair and zig-zag nanoribbons, obtained through *ab-initio* density functional theory calculations. We found that it is possible to classify the $\Gamma$-point phonon modes of hydrogen passivated GNRs into fundamental oscillations, overtones and C-H vibrational modes. Fundamental oscillations and overtones can be mapped onto the graphene phonon dispersion by unfolding the GNR Brillouin zone onto that of graphene. Furthermore, we discuss the dependence of GNR phonon frequencies on the nanoribbon width.
![\[fig:structure\] (color online) Structure of (a) a $N$-AGNR and (b) a $N$-ZGNR. In each case one dimer is emphasized in light grey (red). We found a lattice constant of $a_0=2.4656$ Åfor a relaxed sheet of graphene. The ideal lattice constants of the nanoribbons are then $c_{\mbox{\tiny AGNR}}=\sqrt{3}a_0=4.27$ Åand $c_{\mbox{\tiny ZGNR}}=a_0=2.4656$ Å. The corresponding ribbon widths, i.e. the distance between C atoms at opposing edges, are $w_{\mbox{$\mbox{\tiny AGNR}$}}=\frac{1}{2}(N-1)a_0$ and $w_{\mbox{$\mbox{\tiny ZGNR}$}}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(N-1)a_0$. The relaxation results in nanoribbon widths slightly below (for AGNRs) or above (for ZGNRs) the values calculated with these equations (see Tables \[tab:table1\] and \[tab:table2\]). The deviations however decrease with increasing ribbon width.](structured){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
Calculations
============
Graphene nanoribbons can, at least in some cases, be understood as cut and unrolled carbon nanotubes. These geometric similarities suggest that the phonon spectra of comparable CNTs and GNRs may be similar. On the other hand, unlike CNTs, nanoribbons possess edges, which have a lower coordination number, and technically, they require special treatment. A widespread method to take care of the carbon atoms at the edges in calculations is to passivate the edges with atoms or molecules, mainly hydrogen. Because the diversity in the possibilities to cut out GNRs of a graphene sheet is larger than to “roll” it into a seamless cylinder, i.e carbon nanotubes, the number of edge types is very large. This leads to the need for a classification of those graphene nanoribbons. Some approaches use a $(p,q)$[@ezawa045432] type classification with two characteristic integers, similar to the common classification of CNTs, or a classification that is based on the number of honeycombs along the ribbon width[@yamada08].
For the purpose of this paper entirely sufficient is the approach of Son et al. [@sonmetall], where GNR are classified by their edge type into armchair graphene nanoribbons (AGNR) and zig-zag nanoribbons (ZGNR), and giving the number of dimers $N$ in the unit cell (see Fig. \[fig:structure\]). The unit cell with $N$ dimers is extended periodically along the $z$-direction, resulting in an infinitely long strip of graphene.
We define the width of a graphene nanoribbon as the distance between the central points of the outmost dimers (refer to Fig. \[fig:structure\]). The ideal ribbon width, i.e. the width of an unrelaxed nanoribbon, is dependent on $N$ and given by $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\mbox{\tiny AGNR}}&=&\frac{1}{2}(N-1)a_0\label{G4}\\
\text{and}\nonumber\\
w_{\mbox{\tiny ZGNR}}&=&\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(N-1)a_0\label{G5}\end{aligned}$$ with the graphene lattice constant $a_0$. In our calculations, the relaxed lattice constant is $a_0 = 2.4656$Å. The width of $N$-ZGNRs with odd $N$ is equivalent to the circumference of an $(\frac{N-1}{2},\frac{N-1}{2})$-CNT. Thus, these nanoribbons could be rolled into armchair nanotubes. For $N$-ZGNR with even $N$, however, there are no corresponding nanotubes. Similarly, the width of $N$-AGNRs with odd $N$ is equivalent to the chiral vector of a $(\frac{N-1}{2},0)$-CNT, whereas AGNRs with even $N$ do not correspond to any nanotubes.\
We used density functional theory in the local approximation form [@perdew81] to calculate $N$-AGNRs and $M$-ZGNRs with the number of dimers per unit cell $N$=7..15 and $M$=4..14 respectively. Pseudopotentials were generated with the Troullier-Martins scheme[@troullier91] for the following valence-state configurations: C $2s^2(1.49), 2p^2(1.50)$; H $1s^1(1.25)$, where the value in parenthesis indicates the pseudopotential core radii in bohr. The valence electrons were described by a double-$\zeta$ basis set plus an additional polarizing orbital. The localization of the basis followed the standard split scheme and was controlled by an internal [SIESTA]{}[@siesta1; @siesta2] parameter, the energy shift, for which a value of 50meV was used. This resulted in basis functions with a maximal extension of 3.31Å(C) and 3.2Å(H). As [SIESTA]{} works with periodic boundary conditions, the lattice vectors in direction perpendicular to the nanoribbon axis were scaled in such a way that the space between periodic images of the nanoribbons was at least 20Åin order to prevent interaction between them. Real space integrations were performed on a grid with a fineness of 0.08Å, which can represent plane waves up to an energy of 270Ry.
$N$ $c$ (Å) $\Delta$[^1] $w$ (Å) $w_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}$ (Å)[^2]
----- ---------- -------------- --------- ----------------------------------
2 2.461877 -0.15% 2.141 2.135
3 2.461083 -0.18% 4.286 4.27
4 2.461787 -0.15% 6.427 6.406
5 2.462023 -0.14% 8.566 8.541
6 2.46277 -0.11% 10.702 10.676
7 2.465000 -0.02% 12.838 12.811
8 2.46414 -0.06% 14.975 14.947
9 2.464095 -0.06% 17.113 17.082
10 2.464095 -0.06% 19.249 19.217
12 2.464195 -0.06% 23.523 23.488
14 2.464649 -0.04% 27.794 27.758
16 2.464730 -0.04% 32.067 32.029
: \[tab:table1\]: Lattice constants $c$ and widths $w$ of various relaxed zigzag-edged graphene nanoribbons. $\Delta=\frac{c-c_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}}{c_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}}$ is the relative deviation of the calculated lattice constant from the ideal lattice constant.
$N$ $c$ (Å) $\Delta$ [^3] $w$ (Å) $w_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}$ (Å)[^4]
----- --------- --------------- --------- ----------------------------------
4 4.318 1.1% 3.653 3.698
5 4.309 0.9% 4.885 4.931
6 4.308 0.9% 6.107 6.164
7 4.296 0.6% 7.353 7.3968
8 4.293 0.5% 8.587 8.629
9 4.294 0.5% 9.809 9.862
10 4.289 0.4% 11.056 11.095
11 4.288 0.4% 12.185 12.328
12 4.288 0.4% 13.511 13.561
13 4.287 0.4% 14.753 14.794
14 4.284 0.3% 15.988 16.026
15 4.284 0.3% 17.212 17.259
16 4.284 0.3% 18.454 18.492
17 4.284 0.3% 19.689 19.725
20 4.28 0.2% 23.381 23.423
21 4.28 0.2% 24.609 24.656
22 4.28 0.2% 25.846 25.889
: \[tab:table2\]: Lattice constants $c$ and widths $w$ of various relaxed armchair-edged graphene nanoribbons.$\Delta=\frac{c-c_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}}{c_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}}$.
A minimum of 30 $k$-points equally spaced along the 1D Brillouin zone was used. The phonon calculations were performed with the method of finite differences[@Yin82]. We fully relaxed the atomic positions of both AGNRs and ZGNRs until the atomic forces of each atom were less than 0.01 eV/Åand minimized the total energy as function of lattice constant (refer to Tables \[tab:table1\] and \[tab:table2\]). We used a supercell approach with a $9\times9\times0$ supercell and the above paramaters to calculate the phonon dispersion of graphene. These calculations resulted in a $\Gamma$-point frequency for the $E_{2g}$ modes of 1622 cm$^{-1}$. This is slightly higher than the experimentally obtained graphene $E_{2g}$ frequency of about 1580 cm$^{-1}$. All calculated frequencies are therefore scaled by a constant $C$=0.974 to achieve better comparability with experimental results.
Results and discussion
======================
Graphene nanoribbons have a large length to width ratio, which results in a quasi-1D crystal-like behavior and is expected to lead to confinement effects for the $\pi$ orbital electrons perpendicular to the ribbon axis. It is therefore justified to regard the nanoribbons as infinitely long in our phonon calculations. Thus, the phonon wave vector in direction of the ribbon axis, $\bold
k_{\parallel}$, is quasi-continuous. The ribbon edges however only allow standing waves perpendicular to the ribbon axis, and thus induce the boundary condition $$\bold k_{\perp,n}\cdot w_{\mbox{\tiny ribbon}} = n\cdot \pi\\$$ on the phonon wave $f(r,t)=A\cdot e^{\bold k\cdot \bold r-\omega t}$, leading to a quantized wave vector $$\bold k_{\perp,n}=\frac{\pi}{w_{\mbox{\tiny ribbon}}}\cdot n\label{G2}\\$$ with the order of vibration $n=0..N-1$.
We expect therefore a vibrational behavior similar to that of an elastic sheet or a chain of $N$ atoms with fixed or free ends, i.e., the appearance of fundamental vibrations and overtones. The phonon spectrum of an $N$-AGNR or $N$-ZGNR should comprise of six fundamental modes and 3$\cdot$2$N$-6 = 6($N$-1) overtones. Therefore, in a given phonon spectrum, we should be able to assign $N$-1 overtone modes to each fundamental mode.\
Armchair Nanoribbons
--------------------
Our calculations yield for each AGNR a $\Gamma$-point phonon spectrum consisting of 3$m$ modes, with $m$ = number of atoms per unit cell. The atomic displacements of these $\Gamma$-point modes can be classified into pure longitudinal (L), transverse (T) or out-of-plane (Z) modes. Each $\Gamma$-point phonon mode can be associated with one of three types which will be discussed separately: (1) C-H modes resulting from the passivation with hydrogen, (2) fundamental modes, or (3) overtones.
### C-H modes
The four hydrogen atoms in the unit cell of AGNRs give twelve vibrational modes. These modes show large amplitudes of the hydrogen atoms in contrast to the almost negligibly small displacements of the carbon atoms. They can be grouped into 6 pairs of degenerate modes. We find C-H modes of different polarisations at frequencies of 750 cm$^{-1}$, 850-900 cm$^{-1}$, 1100-1200 cm$^{-1}$ and 3100 cm$^{-1}$, which are independent of the ribbon width for all of our studied nanoribbons.
### Fundamental modes
In any nanoribbon, a group of six modes can be found that are equivalent to the six $\Gamma$-point phonon modes of graphene with respect to the phonon eigenvectors. The two in-plane optical modes, in contrast to the graphene optical modes, are not found to be degenerate: the in-plane transverse optical mode (TO) has a higher frequency than the inplane longitudinal optical mode (LO) for each of our studied AGNRs.
The frequencies of these modes are displayed in Fig. \[fig:FM\], together with the frequency of the experimental $E_{2g}$ mode in graphene. According to Son *et al.*[@son216803], the nanoribbons can be classified into families $N=3p$, $N=3p+1$ and $N=3p+2$, with $p$ a positive integer. The LO-TO-splitting found for ribbons of the $N=3p$ family is about 29 cm$^{-1}$ for the the smallest investigated nanoribbon and about 14 cm$^{-1}$ for the largest one. For the $N=3p+1$ family, we found a splitting of 12-14 cm$^{-1}$ for all investigated nanoribbons. The $N=3p+2$ family displays a larger splitting. It is about 46 cm$^{-1}$ for the 8-AGNR and decreases with increasing ribbon width to a value of about 27 cm$^{-1}$ for a 20-AGNR. All these LO-TO-splittings should be experimentally measureable. For the LO-modes with $N=3p$ and $N=3p+1$ and the TO-modes an increase of the frequency compared to graphene is found. As can be seen, the LO frequencies of the ($3p+2$)-nanoribbons are softened. This can be attributed to the small band gap in the quasi-metallic $(3p+2)$ nanoribbons, which is smaller than 0.294eV for $p>3$. This is similar to the LO phonon softening in metallic carbon nanotubes[@Dubay02][@piscanec07]. We assume that the same effect of strong electron-phonon coupling related to a Kohn anomaly takes place in quasi-metallic GNR[@piscanec04]. All modes converge towards the graphene frequency with increasing width.
![\[fig:FM\] LO and TO fundamental mode frequencies of armchair nanoribbons. Our calculated phonon frequencies were scaled by a constant factor $C$=0.975 to achieve a better compatibility of calculations and experimental values. The dashed line indicates the experimental $E_{2g}$ frequency of graphene.](FM){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
### Overtones
For each fundamental oscillation, we find $(N-1)$ overtones, where the fundamental displacement pattern is modified by an envelope forming a standing wave with $x=1..N$ nodes. The vibrational behavior of these modes shows similarities to elastic sheets with free ends. The atomic displacement can be described by an enveloping cosine function $$f_n = A_n\cos k_{\perp,n}x = A_n\cos \frac{\pi}{\lambda_{\perp,n}}x,$$ where $n$ is the order of vibration, $k_{\perp,n}$, $\lambda_{\perp,n}$ and $A_n$ refer to the wavenumber, the wavelength and the amplitude of the $n$th order vibration. For the wavenumbers hold the following relations. $$\begin{aligned}
k_{\perp,0} &=& 0\nonumber\\
k_{\perp,n} &=& \frac{2\pi}{\lambda_{\perp,n}}\label{G1}\\
&=& \frac{n \pi}{w_{\mbox{\tiny AGNR}}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{2n\pi}{\left(N-1\right)a_0}\label{G3}\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:LORMTORM\] (a) longitudinal-optical (LO) and (b) transversal-optical (TO) fundamental and overtone modes at the $\Gamma$ point of a 7-AGNR. The arrows display the displacements of the atoms in the unit cell. The displacement strength is normalized to emphasize the node positions. For the $n$-L/TO, the eigenvectors of the atoms reverse $n$-times 0-L/TO across the ribbon width. This is further clarified by the envelope curves. The wavelength of the vibrations is $\lambda=\frac{2}{n} w_{\mbox{\tiny AGNR}}$.](LORMTORM){width="\columnwidth"}
The nodes do not have to coincide with carbon atom positions in the unit cell. Figure \[fig:LORMTORM\] shows the displacement patterns of a 7-AGNR. We characterize the phonon modes by their direction of vibration (transverse, longitudinal, out-of-plane) and their nature (acoustic, optical) as $n$-L/T/ZA and $n$-L/T/ZO, with $n$ = number of nodes.
![\[fig:brillouin\] (color online) Brillouin zones of graphene, armchair (10-AGNR) and zig-zag (10-ZGNR) nanoribbons. $\vec a_1$ and $\vec a_2$ are the lattice vectors of graphene, $\vec b_1$ and $\vec b_2$ are the reciprocal lattice vectors. Note that the Brillouin zone of ZGNRs ist idelaized; in actual nanoribbons it reaches the $K$-$M$-$K'$ line only in the limit of large nanoribbons, see discussion in sect. III C.](brillouin){width="\columnwidth"}
AGNR modes in relation to graphene
----------------------------------
Figure \[fig:brillouin\] shows the Brillouin zones of graphene, armchair nanoribbons and zig-zag nanoribbons. The hexagonal structure with high symmetry points $K$ and $M$ represents the Brillouin zone of graphene with the distances $\overline{\Gamma K}$=${4\pi}/{3a_0}$ and $\overline{\Gamma M}$=${2\pi}/{\sqrt{3}a_0}$. As already discussed, the phonon vectors in nanoribbons are restricted by an edge-induced boundary condition, resulting in $N$ quantized wave numbers $k_{\perp,n}$ along the ribbon width (Eq. \[G3\]). The component in axial direction however is unrestricted and not quantized. We find that the Brillouin zone of graphene nanoribbons consists of $N$ equally spaced discrete lines, similar to the Brillouin zone of carbon nanotubes[@reich04buch]. The line spacing for armchair nanoribbons is, from Eq. \[G3\], $\Delta k_{\perp,n}=\frac{2\pi}{\left(N-1\right)a_0}$. The translation vector of an armchair nanoribbon is given by $\vec a_{\mbox{\tiny AGNR}}=\vec a_1 + \vec a_2$, i.e. the axial direction of armchair nanoribbons corresponds to the $\Gamma$M-direction in graphene. The direction perpendicular to the ribbon axis corresponds to the $\Gamma$KM-direction. The AGNR $\Gamma$-point overtone vibrations therefore correspond to vibrations in $\Gamma KM$ direction. It should be possible to “unfold” the Brillouin zone of a nanoribbon onto that of a graphene sheet, where the $\Gamma$-point frequencies of fundamental and overtone modes reproduce discrete graphene modes along the $\Gamma KM$ direction. For the overtone of the highest order, i.e. $n=N-1$, we find from Eq. \[G3\] $$\begin{aligned}
k_{\perp,N-1} &=& \frac{2(N-1)\pi}{(N-1)a_0}\\
&=& \frac{2\pi}{a_0}\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:brillouin\], $|\overline{\Gamma KM}|={2\pi}/{a_0}$, thus it should be possible to reproduce the whole $\Gamma KM$-dispersion of graphene by nanoribbon $\Gamma$-point overtones. Figure \[fig:baender\] shows a mapping of the resulting pairs ($k_{\perp,n}$,$\omega_{n}$) of AGNR $\Gamma$-point phonon modes onto the phonon dispersion of graphene. Our calculated dispersion is in very good agreement with experimentally obtained results[@mohr07gr][@maultzsch04]. As we defined the longitudinal and transverse direction with respect to the ribbon axis, the $n$th overtone of a longitudinal ribbon mode corresponds to a transverse phonon at wavevector $k_{\perp,n}$ in graphene and vice versa.
 (a) Mapping of TO (filled squares), LO (circles), ZO (filled diamonds), TA (open triangles), LA (filled triangles), ZA (pluses) fundamental and overtone frequencies of an 15-AGNR onto our calculated phonon dispersion of graphene (solid lines). Longitudinal ribbon modes correspond to transverse graphene modes. (b) Eigenvectors of selected ribbon TO and LO frequencies in $\Gamma KM$ direction. The corresponding modes are indicated in (a). ](baender){width="\columnwidth"}
The overtones of one respective ribbon fundamental mode reproduce different phonon branches of graphene in $\Gamma K$- and $KM$-direction. For example, the ribbon TO frequencies reproduce the graphene LO branch in $\Gamma K$-direction, but then switch to the graphene TA-branch beyond the $K$-point. The reason for this lies in the strict mode classification applied to the nanoribbons. We can also understand the branch switching from the Brillouin zone of graphene (see Fig. \[fig:brillouin\]): going along $\overline{\Gamma K}$ and then along $\overline{KM}$, the direction of the wave vector changes by 120$^{\circ}$, if one continues to stay in the 1$^{st}$ Brillouin zone of graphene. Moreover, it is well-known that close to the K-point the phonon modes loose their purely longitudinal or transverse character. Figure \[fig:baender\] (b) shows the phonon eigenvectors of different overtones of the nanoribbon modes. It is clearly seen that the overtones near the graphene $K$-point have a mixed character with displacements in different directions \[see panels 3 and 4 in Fig. \[fig:baender\] (b)\]. In total, only small deviations between the calculated graphene dispersion and the zonefolded nanoribbon frequencies are found. It is expected that ribbon frequencies converge towards the graphene dispersion with increasing ribbon width, a result which we find confirmed. The root mean square deviation between graphene LO branch and their corresponding ribbon modes decreases from $59$ cm$^{-1}$ (7-AGNR) to $31.5$ cm$^{-1}$ (14-AGNR).
 (a) $n$-LO and (b) $n$-TO overtones of $N$-AGNRs with $N=5-15$ and $n=1$ (filled circles), $n=3$ (empty squares), $n=5$ (filled diamonds), $n=8$ (empty triangles) and $n=11$ (crosses). Solid black lines are the calculated graphene modes as in Fig. \[fig:baender\].](LOTO){width="\columnwidth"}
In general, the overtones reproduce the graphene phonon dispersion fairly well. However, they cannot mimic the special circumstances near the $K$-point. There, the TO-mode of graphene displays a noticeable drop in frequency due the a Kohn anomaly[@pisanibornoppen; @piscanec04; @maultzsch04], i.e. a strong electron-phonon coupling. As visible in Fig. \[fig:LOTO\] (a), the nanoribbon overtones show a poorer reproduction of this drop of frequency in the surrounding of the graphene $K$-point. This is understandable because of the semiconducting nature of the investigated nanoribbons, which would prevent the formation of Kohn anomalies. In this case, armchair nanoribbons with smaller band gaps should reproduce the graphene dispersion near the $K$-point better than AGNRs with larger gaps. Indeed, our calculations suggest that the quasi-metallic AGNRs of the $N=3p+2$-family, which have very small band gaps, give slightly better results than the ribbons of the other families. As mentioned above, the nanoribbon modes change their character from longitudinal to transverse direction and vice versa when crossing the $K$-point. In particular, the displacement vectors of the ribbon LO between $K$ and $M$ show strong similarities with the LA branch in graphene. Correspondingly, the frequencies agree well with the LA branch (Fig. \[fig:LOTO\]a). Similarly, the nanoribbon TO modes switch in characteristics to TA eigenvectors when crossing the $K$-point in $M$-direction (Fig. \[fig:LOTO\]b). We find thus that the overtones of the nanoribbons can be well mapped onto the graphene dispersion when including the character of their eigenvectors. In graphene, the overtones correspond to different branches in the $\Gamma$-$K$ and $K$-$M$ parts of the Brillouin zone. Overall we encountered difficulties in characterizing modes close to the graphene $K$-point. The characteristic overbending of the graphene LO-mode due to a Kohn anomaly at $\Gamma$-point is found by zone-folding of the ribbon modes, too, for nanoribbons of sufficient width ($N>8$). However, the observed overbending is considerably smaller than the one in the calculated graphene dispersion.
Zigzag nanoribbons
------------------
Recent studies show that the ground state of zigzag nanoribbons displays antiferromagnetically ordered spin states[@fujita96; @sonmetall; @PhysRevLett.87.146803]. Calculations using spin-polarization predict the opening of a band gap for the otherwise metallic ZGNRs and half-metallic behavior when an electric field is applied due to the opposite behavior of different spin directions in electric fields[@sonmetall]. We analyzed the phonon spectra of ZGNRs for effects due to the bandgap opening by generating a pseudo potential including spin polarization with using exactly the same cutoff radii as the pseudo potentials we used for calculations neglecting spin-polarization. We find excellent agreement with the results of Son *et al.*[@sonmetall] regarding the band gap. While the spin-polarization effects are vital for the electronic properties, we observe only small effects on the vibrational frequencies. Our calculated $\Gamma$-point frequencies differ by just up to $8$ cm$^{-1}$ from calculations neglecting spin polarization. For this reason, we did not include spin-polarization in the following phonon calculations.
![\[fig:ZGNRdisp\] (color online) Mapping of ribbon LO (filled squares), TO (circles), ZO (filled diamonds), TA (down triangles), LA (filled up triangles), ZA (crosses) fundamental and overtone frequencies of an 8-ZGNR onto the calculated phonon dispersion of graphene (solid lines). $k_{\perp, N-1}$ does not reach the graphene $M$-point, as for ZGNRs of small width, the wavelengths obtained by fitting the displacement pattern of the calculated phonons are larger than the theoretically predicted ideal values.](ZGNRdisp){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In order to study the vibrational behavior of zigzag nanoribbons, we carried out calculations on $N$-ZGNRs with $N=2..14$ and performed the same rescaling of the calculated frequencies as was done for AGNRs. A distinction of the $\Gamma$-point phonons in fundamental modes, overtones and C-H-modes is performed as for the armchair nanoribbons. The direction perpendicular to the ribbon axis reproduced by the mapping corresponds to the $\Gamma$M-direction of graphene, see Fig. \[fig:brillouin\]. The wavelengths of the vibrations of equivalent carbon atoms over the nanoribbon width can be described by $$\lambda_n = \frac{2}{n}w_{\mbox{\tiny ZGNR}}\label{G6}\\$$ By Eqs. \[G5\], \[G1\] and \[G6\], we calculate a line spacing of $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta k_{\perp} &=& \frac{2\pi}{\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{2\pi}{\lambda_{n}}\\
&=& \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}(N-1)a_0}\\\end{aligned}$$ The overtone of highest order, $k_{\perp,\mbox{\tiny N-1}}$, is then $$\begin{aligned}
k_{\perp,\mbox{\tiny N-1}} &=& \Delta k_{\perp}(N-1)\\
&=& \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}(N-1)a_0}(N-1)\\
k_{\perp,\mbox{\tiny N-1}} &=& \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}a_0}\\\end{aligned}$$ This is equal to the graphene $\Gamma$-M distance, as $|\overline{\Gamma M}|=\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}a_0}$. Therefore, we can, in theory, reproduce the whole $\overline{\Gamma M}$ of the graphene dispersion by unfolding the $\Gamma$-point phonons of ZGNRs of finite width. On the other hand, we determined the wavelengths of the overtones of our investigated ribbons by fitting a cosine function to the respective displacement patterns and compared them to the theoretically expected values. For small nanoribbons, we found considerable deviations between the wavelength of the lattice vibration of graphene at the M-point and the smallest wavelength that the atomic displacements of the nanoribbon can describe, i.e. the wavelengths of the highest order overtones. Thus, the mapping of the Brillouin zone of small nanoribbons cannot reproduce the whole $\Gamma M$-direction, as $k_{\perp,\mbox{\tiny N-1}}<k_{\mbox{\tiny M-point}}=\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}a_0}$. However, these smallest wavelengths quickly converge towards the graphene M-point wavelength with increasing ribbon width. We performed mappings of the phonon modes of ZGNRs of various widths onto the graphene phonon dispersion in $\Gamma M$-direction (Fig. \[fig:ZGNRdisp\]). Again, unfolding the ribbon overtones onto the Brillouin zone of graphene shows good agreement, which improves for increasing ribbon width. The overtones of highest order of the optical modes of small nanoribbons appear to be clinched due to the mentioned deviations of fitted and theoretically predicted wavelength. The acoustical modes, however, display a great agreement of nanoribbon overtones and graphene dispersion. The ZGNR fundamental mode frequencies correspond to the six $\Gamma$-point frequencies of graphene. For ZGNRs we see, in contrast to AGNRs, a clear separation between the frequencies of in-plane acoustic and optical phonon modes. The in-plane acoustic modes are found in a frequency interval of 0-1300 cm$^{-1}$, the (in-plane) optical modes lie between 1300-1600 cm$^{-1}$ and are straightforward to classify as all of them are of pure longitudinal or transverse nature. The displacement pattern of ZGNRs shows no apparent mixing of modes, as found for AGNRs. As mentioned in Sect. III B, the mixing of modes in AGNRs occurs due to the symmetries at the graphene $K$-point. However, there’s no comparable point in the $\Gamma M$-direction, which is reproduced by the mapping of the ZGNR Brillouin zones onto the one of graphene.
![\[fig:ZOS\] (color online) Calculated longitudinal (a,b) and transverse (c,d) $\Gamma$-point frequencies of the ZGNR in dependence of nanoribbon width. Filled (red) squares are fundamental oscillations, empty symbols are overtones. Solid black lines connect overtones of equal order $n$ for different ribbons. Filled grey symbols connected with dashed lines show the results of calculations of Yamada *et al.*[@yamada08] for comparison. The experimentally determined $E_{\mbox{\tiny 2g}}$ mode frequency of 1580 cm$^{-1}$ is indicated by thick (brown) dashed lines.](ZOS){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:ZOS\] shows a comparison of in-plane phonon mode frequencies of $N$-ZGNRs with $N=2..14$. As was found for AGNRs, the 0-LO of the ribbon converges towards the graphene LO for increasing ribbon width. A similar behavior is found for the longitudinal optical overtones. For the frequency of the 0-TO, a non monotonic dependence on the ribbon width is observed. The calculated frequencies of the transverse optical overtones of low order are higher than those of the 0-TO. Similarly as for the AGNRs we thus find for ZGNR a (small) overbending for the graphene LO mode with our zone-folding method, at least for sufficiently large ribbon widths. The acoustic overtones of both longitudinal and transverse nature display an inversely proportional width dependence. In case of transverse overtones, this width dependence is well described by $\omega_{ac}\propto N^{-1}$. Longitudinal acoustic overtones, however, show a considerably weakening width dependence with increasing vibrational order, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:ZOS\] (b).
![\[fig:dispersions\] Phonon dispersions of hydrogenated $N$-ZGNRs with $N$=2-6 obtained by (a) DFT and (b) MO/8 calculations done by Yamada *et al*[@yamada08]. The dashed lines in (a) indicate the fourth acoustic mode, typical for 1D-crystals. Dashed lines in (b) are out-of-plane vibrations.](dispersionen){width="\columnwidth"}
Finally, we calculated the phonon dispersions over the whole Brillouin zone of various small nanoribbons by means of a supercell approach. We used a supercell of 9 unit cells along the nanoribbon axis. Figure \[fig:dispersions\] (a) shows the dispersions of $N$-ZGNR with $N=3-6$. As can be seen, the dispersions feature the characteristic fourth acoustic mode of 1D structures, which is a rotational mode around the z-axis. The displacement pattern of this mode at the $\Gamma$-point corresponds to the displacement pattern of the mode we classify as $1$-ZA. However, the $1$-ZA in our calculations has a frequency $\omega_{\mbox{\tiny 1ZA}}$=$5-20$ cm$^{-1}$, which we believe results from the presence of the hydrogen passivation and possibly also from numerical errors. The two out-of-plane acoustic modes converge swiftly for increasing ribbon widths, being noticeably separated for the $3$-ZGNR, but almost degenerate for the $6$-ZGNR, closely resembling the ZA-mode of graphene. An interesting fact was found for the phonon modes at the $X$-point: In armchair nanotubes the phonon modes are pairwise degenerate, i.e 6(n-1) phonon modes in $(n,n)$-CNTs with odd $n$ and all modes in $(n,n)$-CNTs with even $n$, at the $X$-point due to symmetry[@reich04buch]. Therefore, we might exüect $6(N-1)$ pairwise degenerate and 6 non-degenerate modes in $N$-ZGNR with odd $N$. Similarly, all phonon modes of $N$-ZGNRs with even $N$ should be pairwise degenerate. However, we do not find a similar degeneracy for the zigzag nanoribbon dispersions we studied so far. In fact, the calculated phonon spectra of $N$-ZGNR with odd $N$ consist solely of modes that are pairwise degenerate at the $X$-point. In contrast, the phonon modes of $N$-ZGNR with even $N$ are largely non-degenerate at the edge of the Brillouin zone.
We want to compare our results with previous calculations by Yamada *et al.*[@yamada08]. They applied the MO/8-method[@ohno02], which uses force fields based on the Hückel molecular orbital theory, i.e. a semi-empirical approach. This approach was shown to be efficient for calculating the vibrational properties of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons like graphene. In this approach, the topology of the structures of interest is fixed consisting of hexagons with C-C bond lengths of 1.39 Åand C-H bond lengths of 1.048 Å. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:ZOS\] and \[fig:dispersions\] (b), we find general agreement, but some deviations in particular for the longitudinal modes. We suggest the geometry relaxation that we performed in our calculations to be responsible for these deviations.
Conclusion
==========
We investigated the vibrational properties of graphene nanoribbons with density functional theory. We showed that the $\Gamma$-point phonons of graphene nanoribbons with armchair and zigzag type edges can be interpreted as six fundamental oscillations and their overtones, which show a characteristic nanoribbon width dependence. We demonstrated that the $\Gamma$-point phonon frequencies of nanoribbons can be mapped onto the phonon dispersion of graphene, i.e. to an “unfolding” of the nanoribbons’ Brillouin zone onto that of graphene. The edge magnetization and the resulting opening of a band gap in zig-zag nanoribbons has only a small influence on the phonon spectra. The behavior of overtones and fundamental modes for nanoribbons of increasing width was studied and a comparison of our results for ZGNRs with past studies performed.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported in part by the Cluster of Excellence ’Unifying Concepts in Catalysis’ coordinated by the TU Berlin and funded by DFG.
[32]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ** (, , ).
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
[^1]: $c_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}=2.4656$Å
[^2]: calculated by $w_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(N-1)a_0$
[^3]: $c_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}=\sqrt{3}a_0=4.27$ Å
[^4]: calculated by $w_{\mbox{\tiny ideal}}=\frac{1}{2}(N-1)a_0$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We revisit the problem of preparing a mechanical oscillator in the vicinity of its quantum-mechanical ground state by means of feedback cooling based on continuous optical detection of the oscillator position. In the parameter regime relevant to ground state cooling, the optical back-action and imprecision noise set the bottleneck of achievable cooling and must be carefully balanced. This can be achieved by adapting the phase of the local oscillator in the homodyne detection realizing a so-called variational measurement. The trade-off between accurate position measurement and minimal disturbance can be understood in terms of Heisenberg’s microscope and becomes particularly relevant when the measurement and feedback processes happen to be fast within the quantum coherence time of the system to be cooled. This corresponds to the regime of large quantum cooperativity $C_{{\rm}{q}}\gtrsim1$, which was achieved in recent experiments on feedback cooling. Our method provides a simple path to further pushing the limits of current state-of-the-art experiments in quantum optomechanics.'
address: |
$^1$Laser and Plasma Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, G. C., Evin 1983969411, Tehran, Iran\
$^2$Institute for Theoretical Physics & Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstra[ß]{}e 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany
author:
- 'Hojat Habibi,$^{1,2}$ Emil Zeuthen,$^2$ Majid Ghanaatshoar,$^1$ and Klemens Hammerer$^2$'
bibliography:
- 'FBCooling.bib'
title: 'Quantum Feedback Cooling of a Mechanical Oscillator Using Variational Measurements: Tweaking Heisenberg’s Microscope'
---
Introduction
============
The task of exerting quantum-level control over the motion of mechanically compliant elements has become a central challenge in several fields of physics ranging from quantum-limited measurement of the motion of kilogram-scale mirrors in laser-interferometric gravitational wave detectors [@Danilishin2012; @Chen2013] to experiments with nano- and micromechanical oscillators in optomechanics [@Aspelmeyer2010; @Aspelmeyer2013]. A paradigmatic example of such a system is an optical cavity mode coupling via radiation pressure to a mechanical mode whose motion modulates the optical resonance frequency (see Fig. \[fig:Optomechanical-simple\]). Current experiments in this direction involving meso- and microscopic oscillators include implementations of state-transfer [@OConnell2010; @Palomaki2013], frequency conversion [@Bochmann2013; @Bagci2014; @Andrews2014], impulse force measurement [@HosseiniGuccioneSlatyerEtAl2014], dynamical back-action cooling to near the quantum mechanical ground state [@Rocheleau2010; @Teufel2011; @Chan2011; @Verhagen2012], ponderomotive squeezing of light [@Brooks2012; @Safavi-Naeini2013; @PurdyYuPetersonEtAl2013], and the generation of nonclassical [@Riedinger2016], squeezed [@Wollman2015] and entangled states [@Palomaki2013a] of mechanical oscillators. Of these, the capability to perform ground-state cooling is the most straightforward benchmark of a quantum-enabled system, and it is this task that we will consider in the present paper.
![Optomechanical system with feedback. The mechanical motion of the end-mirror in a Fabry-Pérot cavity mirror of position $X_{{\rm}{m}}$ and momentum $P_{{\rm}{m}}$ is radiation-pressure coupled to a single cavity mode described by amplitude and phase quadratures $X_{{\rm}{c}},Y_{{\rm}{c}}$. The light serves as a meter field, which is continually read out from the cavity, and a particular quadrature $R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{out}}$ is obtained by homodyne measurement at local oscillator phase $\theta$. Based on the measurement record, that is determined by a spectral gain function $\mu({\rm}{t})$ programmed into the feedback circuit, a feedback force is applied to the mechanically compliant mirror ideally steering it into its ground state. \[fig:Optomechanical-simple\]](Schematicsimpleoptomechanicalcavity){width="1\columnwidth"}
Generally, two main approaches to optomechanical cooling have been considered in the literature, being of respectively passive and active nature: Dynamical back-action cooling and feedback cooling [@Genes2008]. The former relies on overcoupling the mechanical mode to a “cold” reservoir (e.g. optical vacuum) to which it will equilibrate. Meanwhile, feedback cooling works by continuously measuring the oscillator motion and, conditioned on the result, applying a force to the oscillator by some auxiliary means. In either scheme the cooling can be understood as an attempt to map the state of the quiet meter field onto the mechanical mode faster than the thermal decoherence rate of the latter. Roughly speaking, these approaches are preferred in the resolved- and unresolved-sideband regimes, respectively [@Genes2008]. Whereas dynamical back-action cooling to the vicinity of the ground state has already been successfully demonstrated in numerous experiments [@Rocheleau2010; @Teufel2011; @Chan2011; @Verhagen2012], it is only recently that active feedback cooling has started to approach the quantum regime [@WilsonSudhirPiroEtAl2015; @SudhirWilsonSchillingEtAl2016]. Reflecting this circumstance, the theory of quantum feedback cooling has not been explored to the same extent as that of the passive approach, and it is here the present work seeks to contribute.
![Heisenberg’s microscope modified by using a variational measurement that simultaneously obtains information about position and momentum: A particle (black dot) is confined to the focal plane of the lens (turquoise ellipse). A photon incident from the left scatters off the particle giving it a momentum kick. Photons within the angle $\varepsilon$ are collected by the lens and refocused at the image plane (eye, dashed). In this configuration, the image resolution is set by the diffraction limit of light, $\delta X\propto1/\sin(\varepsilon/2)$, whereas the uncertainty in momentum introduced by the scattering is $\delta P\propto\sin(\varepsilon/2)$. Moving the observation plane a distance $\Delta$ out of focus decreases the position resolution ($\propto1/\varrho$) but allow the observer (eye, solid) to partially resolve where in the plane the scattered photon arrived.\[fig:Heisenberg microscope-simple\]](SchematicHeisenbergMicroscope){width="1\columnwidth"}
In feedback cooling schemes, a balance must be sought between the level of precision at which the system of interest is monitored and the level of disturbance introduced to it. In the context of optomechanics, the measurement imprecision is set by the vacuum fluctuations of the measured field quadrature while measurement back action is due to vacuum fluctuations in the amplitude quadrature. The trade-off between measurement error and disturbance is a familiar theme within the realm of quantum mechanics which is well illustrated by the famous Gedankenexperiment on the Heisenberg microscope (Fig. \[fig:Heisenberg microscope-simple\]) and is expressed quantitatively in quantum measurement theory in terms of the standard quantum limit for continuous measurements [@Danilishin2012] and error-disturbance relations [@Busch2014]. In the context of feedback cooling, it will be vital to choose the right trade-off between measurement precision and disturbance of the system in order to minimize the effective mechanical temperature. This issue becomes relevant when the measurement and feedback processes happen to be fast compared to the quantum coherence time of the system to be cooled as demonstrated in the recent experiment by Wilson et al. [@WilsonSudhirPiroEtAl2015; @SudhirWilsonSchillingEtAl2016]. We note that this is equivalent to the regime of so-called strong optomechanical cooperativity which has been achieved, albeit in other contexts, in several of the experiments cited above. In view of this recent experimental progress we will address here one particular easily-implementable method to balance error and disturbance, namely the adjustment of the local oscillator phase in the homodyne detection of light. This method has been suggested first in the context of gravitational-wave detectors by Vyatchanin [@Vyatchanin1993] and Kimble [@Kimble2001]. It has also been suggested in our specific context of quantum feedback cooling in Refs. [@Genes200933; @Hofer2015], where it was shown theoretically to give an advantage over the conventional phase choice for the local oscillator. Here, we will provide a systematic optimization of the scheme, which has not been given so far and, moreover, we put the method in the appropriate conceptual framework of measurement error and disturbance.
In the next section we will introduce a model system for feedback cooling in optomechanics after which we will present its solution in Sec. \[sec:Mech-resp\]. Before proceeding with the rigorous analysis, we provide in Sec. \[sec:Heisenberg-microscope\] an intuitive explanation of the error-disturbance balance in feedback cooling and the role of using variational measurements. Then in Secs. \[sec:Steady-state-occupation\] and \[sec:Optimized-cooling\] we calculate and minimize the effective mechanical temperature in the presence of variational measurements. Finally, we conclude and give an outlook in Sec. \[sec:Conclusion\].
Optomechanical equations of motion with feedback\[sec:Model\]
=============================================================
We will now present the model system to be analyzed. As schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:Optomechanical-simple\], we study the standard optomechanical setup consisting of a Fabry-Pérot cavity with a resonating mirror, but the treatment is applicable to other types of optomechanical setups. The optical output from the cavity is sent to a balanced homodyne detector, measuring the optical quadrature $R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{out}}$ parametrized by the local oscillator (LO) phase $\theta$. The feedback circuit processes the measured signal according to a specified gain function $\mu(t)$ and applies a feedback force ($\propto \mu\left(t\right)*R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{out}}\left(t\right)$, where $*$ denotes a convolution) on the mechanical oscillator accordingly. We restrict ourselves to feedback that depends linearly on the measurement record, so as to obtain linear effective equations of motion. In particular this accommodates the simulation of a viscous force and hence cooling of the mechanical motion can be engineered.
We seek an effective description of the aforementioned setup including the feedback mechanism. In the limiting case of Markovian feedback ($\mu(t)\propto\delta(t)$) the dynamics can be described by means of the well developed formalism of feedback master equations [@Wiseman1994; @Jacobs2014]. Using these methods, Markovian feedback cooling in the regime of strong quantum cooperativity of optomechanics using variational measurement has been explored in [@Hofer2015]. The experimentally more relevant case of Non-Markovian feedback in linear system dynamics is commonly described in the formalism of Heisenberg-Langevin equations which has been fruitfully applied in the context of optomechanics [@ManciniVitaliTombesi1998; @Genes2008]. We will follow this path in the present article. The basic treatment given in this and the next section will largely reproduce the approach of Genes et al. [@Genes2008].
For our specific purposes of efficient optical readout of the mechanical motion, linear interaction is in fact well suited. The derivation of linear optomechanics from the radiation-pressure Hamiltonian is well-known in the community and here we will largely take the linearized equations as our starting point (see, e.g., Ref. [@Aspelmeyer2013] for further details). Essentially, this approach relies on the assumption that the applied laser drive will induce a large intra-cavity field amplitude. Henceforth, we consider the dynamics of the optical and mechanical excursions relative to the corresponding classical steady-state response. We denote these relative coordinates $X_{{\rm}{m}}$, $P_{{\rm}{m}}$ for the mechanical position and momentum, and $\delta a$ for the cavity mode amplitude. The linear coupling between these shifted variables of mechanical motion and light field will be enhanced due to the drive, which is essential for performing an efficient optical position measurement. Working in terms of the relative dynamical variables and neglecting nonlinear terms, as they are not enhanced by the strong driving field, the linear Heisenberg-Langevin equations for the fluctuations emerge. Considering resonant readout, where the drive field frequency $\omega_{{\rm}{d}}$ is aligned with the steady-state cavity resonance, $\omega_{{\rm}{d}}=\omega_{{\rm}{c}}$, the Heisenberg-Langevin equations for linear optomechanics including feedback are, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{X}_{{\rm}{m}}&=&\omega_{{\rm}{m}}P_{{\rm}{m}},\label{eq:motion eq. position}\\
\dot{P}_{{\rm}{m}}&=&-\omega_{{\rm}{m}}X_{{\rm}{m}}-\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}P_{{\rm}{m}}+g_{{\rm}{om}}X_{{\rm}{c}}+\xi+F_{{\rm}{fb}},\label{eq:motion eq. momentum}\\
\dot{X}_{{\rm}{c}}&=&-\frac{\kappa}{2} X_{{\rm}{c}}+\sqrt{\kappa}X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}},\label{eq:motion eq. ampl.}\\
\dot{Y}_{{\rm}{c}}&=&-\frac{\kappa}{2} Y_{{\rm}{c}}+g_{{\rm}{om}}X_{{\rm}{m}}+\sqrt{\kappa}Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}},\label{eq:motion eq. phase}
$$ where the optical annihilation operator $\delta a$ is replaced by cavity amplitude and phase quadratures in an appropriate rotating frame, $X_{{\rm}{c}}=(e^{i\omega_{{\rm}{c}}t}\delta a+e^{-i\omega_{{\rm}{c}}t}\delta a^{\dagger})/\sqrt{2}$ and $Y_{{\rm}{c}}=(e^{i\omega_{{\rm}{c}}t}\delta a-e^{-i\omega_{{\rm}{c}}t}\delta a^{\dagger})/i\sqrt{2}$. Eqs. (\[eq:motion eq. position\],\[eq:motion eq. momentum\]) represent the mechanical oscillator of resonance frequency $\omega_{{\rm}{m}}$ and intrinsic damping rate $\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$, whereas Eqs. (\[eq:motion eq. ampl.\],\[eq:motion eq. phase\]) describe an optical cavity mode which is read out at a rate $\kappa$ (intrinsic cavity damping is equivalent to an imperfect detection efficiency, which will be introduced later). The coupling between these two subsystems is characterized by the optomechanical coupling rate $g_{{\rm}{om}}=\sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_{{\rm}{m}}}(d\omega_{{\rm}{c}}/dx_{{\rm}{m}})\sqrt{2\Phi_{{\rm}{in}}/\kappa}$, where $\Phi_{{\rm}{in}}$ is the photon flux impinging on the cavity, $m$ is the effective mass of the mechanical mode and $(d\omega_{{\rm}{c}}/dx_{{\rm}{m}})$ is the optical frequency shift per mechanical displacement. Hence, the coupling rate $g_{{\rm}{om}}$ can be tuned via $\Phi_{{\rm}{in}}$ by changing the laser drive power. Note that the Eqs. (\[eq:motion eq. ampl.\],\[eq:motion eq. phase\]) for the optical quadratures are decoupled from one another due to the choice of on-resonant driving, $\omega_{{\rm}{d}}=\omega_{{\rm}{c}}$. In this case the mechanical motion is seen to be read out exclusively into the phase quadrature, $Y_{{\rm}{c}}$, while the back-action force on the mechanical mode, $g_{{\rm}{om}}X_{{\rm}{c}}$, comes entirely from the amplitude fluctuations, $X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$, as follows from Eq. (\[eq:motion eq. ampl.\]).
We now comment on the source terms in Eqs. (\[eq:motion eq. momentum\]-\[eq:motion eq. phase\]) driving the mechanical and optical modes. The feedback force on the mechanical oscillator is represented by the operator $F_{{\rm}{fb}}$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq:motion eq. momentum\]), and we will return to this below. Meanwhile, the thermal noise due to intrinsic mechanical damping, represented by the Langevin operator $\xi$, can for our purposes be characterized in the high-temperature limit $k_{{\rm}{B}}T\gg\hbar\omega$ by the following correlation function, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \xi\left(t\right)\xi\left(t'\right)\right\rangle \approx \gamma_{{\rm}{m}}(2\bar{n}+1)\delta\left(t-t'\right)\label{eq:thermal correlation}\\
\bar{n} \approx k_{{\rm}{B}}T/\hbar\omega_{{\rm}{m}},\label{eq:phonon number}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{n}$ is the mean number of phonons in the mechanical oscillator in thermal equilibrium (see Ref. [@GiovannettiVitali2001] for a discussion of the limitations of this approximation). Turning to the optical subsystem, we assume the optical amplitude and phase inputs $X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}},Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$ to represent vacuum fluctuations, i.e., that these operators have the thermal expectation values $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(t\right)X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(t'\right)\right\rangle & =\left\langle Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(t\right)Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(t'\right)\right\rangle \\ \nonumber \label{eq:vacuum-correl}
& = (1/2)\delta\left(t-t'\right). \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
To describe the optical readout, we must consider the input-output relations of the cavity output field, $$\begin{aligned}
X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{out}} & = & \sqrt{\kappa}X_{{\rm}{c}}-X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\nonumber \\
Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{out}} & = & \sqrt{\kappa}Y_{{\rm}{c}}-Y{}_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}.\label{eq:IO-rel-XY}\end{aligned}$$ By adjusting the phase of the local oscillator $\theta$ we will be able to combine the amplitude and phase quadratures in different ratios with the aim of better balancing measurement error and disturbance. By considering a general quadrature, $$R_{{\rm}{\ensuremath{\theta}}}^{{\rm}{out}(in)}\equiv\cos\theta X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{out}({\rm}{in})}+\sin\theta Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{out}({\rm}{in})},$$ the corresponding input-output relation reads $$R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{out}}=\sqrt{\eta}(\sqrt{\kappa}R_{\theta}-R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{in}})-\sqrt{1-\eta}R_{\theta}^{v},\label{eq:output quadrature}$$ where we are accounting for internal cavity loss and measurement imperfection by a net measurement efficiency $\eta$, assumed to admix a vacuum field $R^{v}$ that is uncorrelated with $R_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$. Solving Eqs. (\[eq:motion eq. ampl.\],\[eq:motion eq. phase\]) in the Fourier domain by using the convention $F\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f\left(\omega\right)e^{-i\omega t}d\omega$, we obtain $$R_{\theta}\left(\omega\right)=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{\kappa/2-i\omega}R_{\theta}^{{\rm in}}\left(\omega\right)+\frac{\sin\theta\,g_{{\rm om}}}{\kappa/2-i\omega}X_{{\rm m}}\left(\omega\right),\label{eq: Fourier domain of 3,4}$$ so that by substituting this into Eq. (\[eq:output quadrature\]), the general output quadrature reads $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{out}}\left(\omega\right)=&\sqrt{\eta}\sin\theta\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}g_{{\rm om}}}{\kappa/2-i\omega}X_{{\rm m}}\left(\omega\right) \nonumber \\
&+\sqrt{\eta}\frac{\kappa/2+i\omega}{\kappa/2-i\omega}R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(\omega\right)-\sqrt{1-\eta}R_{\theta}^{v}\left(\omega\right).\label{eq:new general output}\end{aligned}$$ making manifest the readout of the position of resonator $X_{{\rm m}}$, whereas the other terms show the contribution due to measurement noise. Ignoring the dependence on the parameters of the homodyne measurement $\theta$ and $\eta$, the maximal rate at which the mechanical motion $X_{{\rm m}}$ can be mapped to the optical quadrature $R_{\theta}^{{\rm out}}$ is given by the ideal measurement rate, $$\Gamma_{{\rm meas}}=\frac{4g_{{\rm om}}^{2}}{\kappa},\label{eq:measurement rate}$$ which in the bad-cavity limit is the square of the coefficient mapping the mechanical oscillator position into the optical readout in (\[eq:new general output\]) for $\eta=1$ and $\theta=\pi/2$. For other values of $\eta,\theta$, the effective readout rate is reduced by a factor of $\eta \sin^2\theta$.
Finally, we address the relationship between the feedback force $F_\mathrm{fb}$ and the optical homodyne measurement of $R_{{\rm}{\ensuremath{\theta}}}^{{\rm}{out}}$. The feedback circuit integrates the measured quadrature signal up to the present time $t$. Since we are interested in preserving the linearity of the equations of motion, (\[eq:motion eq. position\]-\[eq:motion eq. phase\]), we take the feedback force to be given by a temporal convolution $$F_{{\rm}{fb}}(t)=-\int_{-\infty}^{t}ds\mu(t-s)R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{est}}(s),\label{eq:Feedback operature}$$ where $\mu\left(\tau\right)=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\{\mu(\omega)\}$ is the inverse Fourier transform of the spectral gain function, $\mu(\omega)$, and $$R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{est}}\equiv\frac{R_{{\rm}{\ensuremath{\theta}}}^{{\rm}{out}}}{\sqrt{\kappa\eta}\sin\theta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa\eta}}(\cot\theta X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{out}}+Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{out}})\label{eq:estimated measrement quadrature}$$ is the rescaled measurement quadrature. The local oscillator phase $\theta$ in the homodyne measurement selects which light quadrature to condition the feedback force on, as was mentioned above. That we convolve with $R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{est}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:Feedback operature\]) rather than with the original $R_{\theta}^{{\rm}{out}}$ of Eq. (\[eq:output quadrature\]) amounts to a scaling convention for the gain function $\mu(t)$. The convention used here is designed to remove the terms which are related to the measurement apparatus ($\sqrt{\eta}\sin\theta$) from the proportionality factor in the relationship $R_{{\rm}{\ensuremath{\theta}}}^{{\rm}{out}}\propto X_{{\rm}{m}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:new general output\]). To be clear, $\mu(t)$ is the gain applied after having corrected for the measurement inefficiency $\eta$ and the quadrature angle entering as $\sin\theta$. This choice allows us to vary $\theta$ while keeping fixed the net gain of the position component of the measurement, in turn, keeping the feedback-induced damping fixed as we will see below.
Mechanical response and effective susceptibility \[sec:Mech-resp\]
==================================================================
Having established the equations of motion (\[eq:motion eq. position\]-\[eq:motion eq. phase\]) and the relevant optical input-output relation (\[eq:new general output\]), we turn to solving this set of equations for the mechanical response. Since the system is linear, this is straightforwardly done in the Fourier domain. A useful way of expressing the solution for the mechanical mode is the response relation (suppressing the $\omega$ dependence of the source terms for brevity)
$$X_{{\rm}{m}}\left(\omega\right)=\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)[\xi+f_{{\rm}{ba}}+f_{{\rm}{fb}}+f_{v}],\label{eq:response relation}$$
where the effective mechanical susceptibility is
$$\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}^{-1}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\omega_{{\rm}{m}}}[\omega_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}-\omega^{2}-i\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\omega+\mu(\omega)\frac{g_{{\rm}{om}}\omega_{{\rm}{m}}}{\kappa/2-i\omega}],\label{eq:effective susseptibility}$$
and the four stochastic forces driving the oscillator are the thermal Langevin operator $\xi$ and the fluctuation associated with back-action, feedback, and extraneous vacuum:
$$f_{{\rm}{ba}}(\omega)=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}g_{{\rm}{om}}}{\kappa/2-i\omega}X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega),\label{eq:back action noise}$$
$$f_{{\rm}{fb}}(\omega)=-\frac{\kappa/2+i\omega}{\kappa/2-i\omega}\frac{\mu(\omega)}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\left[\cot\theta X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega)+Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega)\right],\label{eq:feedback noise}$$
$$f_{v}(\omega)=\frac{\mu(\omega)}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\sqrt{\eta^{-1}-1}\left[\cot\theta X^{v}(\omega)+Y^{v}(\omega)\right].\label{eq:vacuum noise}$$
The back-action force $f_{{\rm}{ba}}$ arises from the optical amplitude fluctuations $X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$, whereas the noise of the meter field $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$ introduced via the feedback force contains both optical amplitude and phase fluctuations, $X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$ and $Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$, whereby $f_{{\rm}{ba}}$ and $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$ are correlated (for general $\theta$). $f_{v}$ is the part of the feedback force fluctuations coming from extraneous vacuum noise due to optical losses.
We see that the feedback gain function $\mu(\omega)$, i.e. the Fourier transform of $\mu(\tau)$, enters in the effective mechanical susceptibility $\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}$ as well as $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$ and $f_{v}$, Eqs. (\[eq:effective susseptibility\],\[eq:feedback noise\],\[eq:vacuum noise\]). The choice of the function $\mu(\omega)$ can hence be thought of as influencing both the response characteristics and the spectral mapping of imprecision noise into the oscillator. Following Ref. [@Genes2008] we choose the gain function
$$\mu(t)=\mu_{{\rm}{fb}}\frac{d}{dt}[\Theta(t)\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}e^{-t\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}}],\label{eq:gain time}$$
which in the frequency domain becomes $$\mu(\omega)=\frac{-i\omega \mu_{{\rm}{fb}}}{1-i\frac{\omega}{\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}}},\label{eq:gain frequency}$$ where $\mu_{{\rm}{fb}}$ is the dimensionless feedback gain, $\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}$ is a low-pass cut-off frequency, and $\Theta(t)$ is the Heaviside function. Considering Eq. (\[eq:gain frequency\]) in the limit $\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}\rightarrow\infty$, we see that it corresponds to a time derivative of the measurement current. The rationale behind this choice is to achieve an effective friction force ($F_{fb}\propto-P_{m}\propto-\dot X_m$) which is attained through the time derivative of the photocurrent given the fact that light reads out the position of the mechanical oscillator. For finite $\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}$, we can then think of the feedback filter as performing a derivative combined with a low-pass filter. Note, however, that the value of $\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}$ not only controls the frequency-cutoff of $|\mu(\omega)|$, but also influences the feedback phase function ${\rm}{Arg}[\mu(\omega)]$. By considering Eq. (\[eq:effective susseptibility\]) for this choice of feedback function, Eq. (\[eq:gain frequency\]), we can extract the effective mechanical resonance frequency and dissipation rate. In the bad-cavity limit we find $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{{\rm}{eff,m}}(\omega)&=&\sqrt{\omega_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}+\frac{\sigma\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}\omega^{2}}{\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}^{2}+\omega^{2}}},\label{eq:effective frequency large-kappa}\\
\gamma_{{\rm}{eff,m}}(\omega)&=&\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\left(1+\frac{\sigma\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}^{2}}{\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}^{2}+\omega^{2}}\right),\label{eq:effective dissipation large-kappa}\\
\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}^{-1}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{\omega_{{\rm}{m}}}[\omega_{{\rm}{eff,m}}^{2}(\omega)-\omega^{2}-i\gamma_{{\rm}{eff,m}}(\omega)\omega],\label{eq:Susseptibility large-kappa}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\sigma\equiv\frac{2\mu_{{\rm}{fb}}g_{{\rm}{om}}\omega_{{\rm}{m}}}{\kappa\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}}\label{eq:sigma-def}$$ is the rescaled dimensionless feedback gain. More precisely, then, we define the bad-cavity limit as $\kappa\rightarrow\infty$ while keeping $\sigma$ and $\Gamma_{{\rm meas}}$ finite. Practical considerations may limit the available range of the *absolute* feedback gain $\tilde{\sigma}=\sigma/(\sqrt{\kappa\eta}\sin\theta)$, cf. Eqs. (\[eq:Feedback operature\],\[eq:estimated measrement quadrature\]). Deviation from $\eta=1$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ requires larger absolute gain $\tilde{\sigma}$ in order to maintain a certain value of $\sigma$, the gain parameter entering $\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)$. The stability of the optomechanical system in the presence of feedback can be determined from the complex poles of $\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)$ using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion [@DeJesus1987]. Here it suffices to remark that in the idealized bad-cavity limit considered here, $\kappa\rightarrow\infty$, the stability criterion is fulfilled for all values of $\sigma$. (We give the stability criterion for arbitrary values of $\kappa$ in \[sec:stability\].)
Variational measurements and Heisenberg’s microscope\[sec:Heisenberg-microscope\]
=================================================================================
Before calculating the mechanical steady-state occupation from the solution found in the preceding section, it is appropriate to pause for a more qualitative discussion of the physics that will emerge from the analysis. At a very basic level, the idea of feedback cooling of a mechanical oscillator is simply that if we monitor its motion (by means of some meter degree of freedom), we may, based on this information, apply an effectively viscous force, that will dampen the motion. The extent to which we are able to bring the motion to a halt by this technique will be determined by the interplay of (at least) four effects as seen from Eq. (\[eq:response relation\]): Firstly, the thermal noise, $\xi$, driving the motion due to the internal friction mechanisms of the mechanical element. Secondly, the disturbing back-action force, $f_{{\rm}{ba}}$, of the meter system on the mechanical motion, e.g., the radiation-pressure shot noise arising from the random timing of the momentum kicks imparted on the mechanical oscillator by the impinging photons. Thirdly, the imprecision noise, $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$, of the position measurement, which limits the ability to apply the right amount of force required to halt the motion. Fourthly, the feedback modification of the mechanical response function, $\chi_{{\rm}{eff}},$ by inducing an increased damping.
In considering how to balance these effects, it is important to acknowledge the time-continuous nature of the scheme: For instance, if we were to attempt a perfectly precise instantaneous position measurement, the back-action force would introduce a large uncertainty in the mechanical momentum, as per Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, rendering the position a short while later completely unpredictable. If, on the other hand, we were to measure very weakly to avoid disturbing the system, the imprecision noise would dominate and very little information would be gained. Both outcomes are clearly at odds with the desired goal of cooling and we are therefore led to strike a balance between the influences of back-action and imprecision noise. In terms of the Gedankenexperiment of Heisenberg’s microscope, this trade-off would correspond to sacrificing (instantaneous) position resolution to gain increased information about the direction of the scattered photon (see Fig. \[fig:Heisenberg microscope-simple\]). The possibility of further optimizing feedback cooling in this way has previously been pointed out in Ref. [@Genes200933], although without extensive analysis or discussion. In the remainder of this section, we will provide intuition as to why variational measurements can be advantageous.
While we must generally include the thermal influence of intrinsic mechanical damping in the analysis (and will do so below), the main interest of this work is the regime of quantum operation, where this thermal load is perturbative. To establish intuition that will be useful in interpreting the results of the rigorous analysis to be presented in subsequent sections, we therefore proceed now to consider the trade-off between back-action and imprecision noise. This simpler scenario, in which we only consider the fundamental fluctuations required by quantum mechanics, is only adequate to the extent that the measurement and feedback processes occur fast compared to the thermal coherence time $\sim 1/\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\bar{n}$. This is the limit of very large quantum cooperativity, $$C_{{\rm}{q}}\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{{\rm}{meas}}}{\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\bar{n}}=\frac{4g_{{\rm}{om}}^2}{\kappa\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\bar{n}}\gg1,$$ and fast feedback $\sigma\propto\Gamma_{{\rm}{meas}}/\gamma_{\rm m}$ (whereas in current state-of-the-art experiments, $C_{{\rm}{q}}\gtrsim1$). In this limit we may for the purposes of the present discussion take the mechanical response, (\[eq:response relation\]), to be (in the bad-cavity limit and assuming perfect detection, $\eta=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega) &= \chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)F(\omega)\label{eq:mech-X-response_F}\\
F(\omega) & \approx f_{{\rm}{ba}}(\omega)+f_{{\rm}{fb}}(\omega) \nonumber\\ &=\left[\sqrt{\Gamma}_{\rm meas}-\frac{\mu(\omega)}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\cot\theta\right]X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega) \nonumber \\
& -\frac{\mu(\omega)}{\sqrt{\kappa}}Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega),\label{eq:F-highCq}\end{aligned}$$ where the expression for the force $F(\omega)$ is organized according to its contributions from amplitude and phase fluctuations. Eq. (\[eq:F-highCq\]) emphasizes the fact that for general $\theta$ the amplitude fluctuations drive the mechanical motion both directly, via the back-action force $f_{{\rm}{ba}}$, and indirectly, via the fluctuations $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$ injected by the feedback mechanism. As these contributions add coherently in determining the mechanical response, the possibility of destructive interference arises. Moreover, Eq. (\[eq:F-highCq\]) shows that the interference varies with $\omega$. This dependence must be considered over the effective mechanical bandwidth, which is typically set by the feedback-induced broadening, Eq. (\[eq:effective dissipation large-kappa\]). This observation hints at a trade-off between, on the one hand, achieving favorable interference over the entire effective bandwidth and, on the other hand, suppressing thermal noise by applying a large feedback gain.
Having established the interference effect between back-action and feedback forces, we now turn to the question of what constitutes favorable interference and, in particular, how $\theta$ and $\mu(\omega)$ should be chosen to attain this. In the classical regime, where thermal noise dominates, back-action noise can be neglected and the optimal measurement quadrature is the phase quadrature ($\theta=\pi/2$), into which the position measurement is read out (as described in Sec. \[sec:Model\]). In the quantum regime this is no longer the case as can be demonstrated by a simple geometrical argument, that we will now turn to. Since the purpose of the scheme is to map the vacuum state of light onto the mechanical mode, as mentioned previously, the scheme can only be successful if the (orthogonal) noise quadratures of light $X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}},Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}$ are mapped to orthogonal mechanical quadratures with equal strength. If this were not the case, it would violate equipartition between the mechanical quadratures and thus the resulting mechanical state could impossibly be the ground state. To understand the mapping into $X_{{\rm}{m}}$ and $P_{{\rm}{m}}$, we note that the Fourier transform of Eq. (\[eq:motion eq. position\]) is $P_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega)=-i(\omega/\omega_{{\rm}{m}})X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega)$. The relative phase of $(-i)$ between the position and momentum response entails that the real and imaginary parts of $X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega)=\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)F(\omega)$, which are $X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega)+X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega)$ and $[X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega)-X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega)]/i$, will map to orthogonal mechanical quadratures as seen from the time-domain response (in a narrow-band approximation for simplicity) $$\begin{aligned}
X_{{\rm}{m}}(t) & \propto & \left(e^{-i\omega_{{\rm}{m}}t}X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})+{\rm}{H.c.}\right)\nonumber\\
& = & \cos(\omega_{{\rm}{m}}t)\left[X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})+X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})\right] \nonumber\\
& &+\sin(\omega_{{\rm}{m}}t)\left[X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})-X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})\right]/i\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{{\rm}{m}}(t) & \propto & \left(e^{-i\omega_{{\rm}{m}}t}P_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})+{\rm}{H.c.}\right)\nonumber\\
& \approx & \cos(\omega_{{\rm}{m}}t)\left[X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})-X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})\right]/i\nonumber\\
& & -\sin(\omega_{{\rm}{m}}t)\left[X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})+X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})\right].\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the above equipartition argument requires $X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})+X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})$ and $[X_{{\rm}{m}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})-X_{{\rm}{m}}^{\dagger}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})]/i$ to represent orthogonal quadratures of light with equal weight.
Let us now apply this mapping condition to Eqs. (\[eq:mech-X-response\_F\],\[eq:F-highCq\]) near resonance $\omega\approx\omega_{{\rm}{m}}$. We introduce the simplified symbols $a\equiv\sqrt{\Gamma}_{\rm meas}$, $b\equiv|\mu(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})/\sqrt{\kappa}|,$ and $\phi={\rm}{Arg}[-\mu(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})/\sqrt{\kappa}]$, whereby the force, (\[eq:F-highCq\]), can be expressed as $$F(\omega)=(a+be^{i\phi}\cot\theta)X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(\omega\right)+be^{i\phi}Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}\left(\omega\right).\label{eq:F-net_geom-1}$$ We now fix $a$ and consider two characteristic values of $\phi$ (see Fig. \[fig:Geometrical-considerations-1\]): For $\phi=\pi/2$, $f_{{\rm}{ba}}$ and $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$ add in quadrature and we see from (\[eq:F-net\_geom-1\]) that matching can only be achieved for $\theta=\pi/2$ and $b=a$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Geometrical-considerations-1\]a. Consider now the case of $\phi=3\pi/4$, whereby part of $f_{{\rm}{fb}}$ is anti-correlated with $f_{{\rm}{ba}}$ and matching can be achieved by choosing $\theta=\pi/4$ and $b=a/\sqrt{2}$ (Fig. \[fig:Geometrical-considerations-1\]b). In the second scenario, part of the direct back action is cancelled by partially measuring the amplitude fluctuations in the light field and feeding them back into the mechanical mode via the feedback force, while operating at the same absolute feedback gain $\propto b/\sin\theta$ as in the first scenario (with $\theta=\pi/2$). Hence the second scenario leads to less fluctuations in the mechanical mode and thus the resulting state will be closer to the ground state as will in fact be found in the rigorous analysis below. These simple considerations indicate that in the quantum regime it is important to properly choose both the homodyne measurement quadrature, via $\theta$, and the feedback gain $\mu(\omega)$. Note however, as remarked below Eq. (\[eq:F-highCq\]), that the matching consideration illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Geometrical-considerations-1\] should be applied to all frequencies within the effective mechanical bandwidth. Since our chosen value of $\theta$ is a constant, whereas the feedback gain $\mu(\omega)$ is frequency dependent, it will in general not be possible to achieve advantageous interference over the entire bandwidth. In the next section we resume the quantitative mathematical analysis.
![Geometrical considerations regarding the choice of homodyne quadrature angle $\theta$. Depicted are the mapping coefficients of $X_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega),Y_{{\rm}{c}}^{{\rm}{in}}(\omega)$ in (\[eq:F-net\_geom-1\]) as solid arrows in the complex plane. Two cases are considered: a) $\phi=\pi/2,\theta=\pi/2,b=a$; b) $\phi=3\pi/4,\theta=\pi/4,b=a/\sqrt{2}$.\[fig:Geometrical-considerations-1\]](BA-FB-geom){width="1\columnwidth"}
Steady-state occupation in the bad-cavity regime\[sec:Steady-state-occupation\]
===============================================================================
Given the solution (\[eq:response relation\]) for the spectral response of the mechanical mode, we are now in a position to calculate the average number of phonons $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ it contains in the steady state of the feedback scheme. This quantity will serve as our figure of merit, with $n_{{\rm}{tot}}<1$ being the regime of interest. By considering the Hamiltonian of the free mechanical oscillator,
$$H=\frac{\hbar\omega_{{\rm}{m}}}{2}\left( X_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}+ P_{{\rm}{m}}^{2} \right)=\hbar\omega_{{\rm}{m}}\left(\hat{n}_{{\rm}{tot}}+\frac{1}{2}\right),\label{eq:Hamiltonian of oscillator}$$
which is stated in terms of the variance of the dimensionless operators $X_{{\rm}{m}}$ and $P_{{\rm}{m}}$, we can extract the mean number of phonons ${n}_{{\rm}{tot}}=\langle\hat{n}_{{\rm}{tot}}\rangle$ as an integral over spectral density of each quadrature, $$n_{{\rm}{tot}}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\left(S_{X}\left(\omega\right)+S_{P}\left(\omega\right)\right)-\frac{1}{2},\label{eq:Spectral integral}$$ where we have introduced the position and momentum fluctuation spectra $$\begin{aligned}
S_{X}\left(\omega\right) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega'\left\langle X_{{\rm}{m}}\left(\omega\right)X_{{\rm}{m}}\left(\omega'\right)\right\rangle ,\label{eq:Position spectrum}\\
S_{P}\left(\omega\right) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega'\left\langle P_{{\rm}{m}}\left(\omega\right)P_{{\rm}{m}}\left(\omega'\right)\right\rangle .\label{eq:Momentum spectrum}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[eq:response relation\]) the position spectrum reads $$\begin{aligned}
S_{X}\left(\omega\right) = & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega'|\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)|^{2}\bigg(\left\langle \xi(\omega)\xi(\omega')\right\rangle \nonumber\\ & +\left\langle f_{{\rm}{ba}}(\omega)f_{{\rm}{ba}}(\omega')\right\rangle +\left\langle f_{{\rm}{fb}}(\omega)f_{{\rm}{fb}}(\omega')\right\rangle \nonumber\\
&+\left\langle f_{{\rm}{co}}(\omega)f_{{\rm}{co}}(\omega')\right\rangle +\left\langle f_{v}(\omega)f_{v}(\omega')\right\rangle \bigg),\label{eq:Position spectrum in separated form}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\left\langle f_{{\rm}{co}}(\omega)f_{{\rm}{co}}(\omega')\right\rangle \equiv\left\langle f_{{\rm}{fb}}\left(\omega\right)f_{{\rm}{ba}}\left(\omega'\right)+f_{{\rm}{ba}}\left(\omega\right)f_{{\rm}{fb}}\left(\omega'\right)\right\rangle$$ is the correlation between back-action noise and feedback force. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:Heisenberg-microscope\], the indirect back action, coming through the feedback force, is responsible for this cross correlation. As one can easily find by using the Fourier transform of Eq. (\[eq:motion eq. position\]), we use the relation $S_{P}=\omega^{2}S_{X}/\omega_{\rm m}^{2}$ to simplify the calculation of Eq. (\[eq:Spectral integral\]). The correlation functions appearing on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:Position spectrum in separated form\]) can be determined from the definitions in Eqs. (\[eq:back action noise\]-\[eq:vacuum noise\]) by using appropriate Fourier domain equivalents of Eqs. (\[eq:thermal correlation\]-\[eq:vacuum-correl\]). By performing the integral (\[eq:Spectral integral\]) (using the analytical procedure given in \[sec:Rational-Integral\]) we obtain an expression of the form
$$n_{{\rm}{tot}}=n_{{\rm}{th}}+n_{{\rm}{ba}}+n_{{\rm}{fb}}+n_{{\rm}{co}}+n_{v}-\frac{1}{2},\label{eq:total number}$$
where the various contributions correspond to the respective terms in Eq. (\[eq:Position spectrum in separated form\]). The clear physical origin of these terms aids the interpretation of their impact on the total occupation number. The cross-correlation between direct back-action and the feedback noise is represented by $n_{{\rm}{co}}$, which for parameters of interest is negative.
Since feedback cooling is typically applied in the bad-cavity regime, $\kappa\gg\omega_{{\rm}{m}},\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}$, we will henceforth focus on this parameter regime for simplicity of analysis (see the \[sec:Exact-solution-for\] for a general expression for $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ valid for all values of $\kappa$). We parametrize the feedback cut-off frequency $\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}$ by its ratio to the mechanical resonance frequency $$\alpha\equiv\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}/\omega_{{\rm}{m}},\label{eq:alpha}$$ and note that $\alpha$ is typically within an order of magnitude of unity. Introducing the mechanical quality factor $Q_{{\rm}{m}}\equiv\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$, for which values on the order of $10^{6}$ and beyond are routinely achieved in optomechanical experiments, we can therefore safely make the additional assumption that $Q_{{\rm}{m}}\gg\alpha,\alpha^{-1}$. Under these assumptions the various contributions to $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ (\[eq:total number\]) are evaluated to $$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{th}}&=&\frac{1}{D}\left(\overline{n}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(1+\alpha^{-2}+\frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{\sigma}{2Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right),\label{eq:thermal number}\\
n_{{\rm}{ba}}&=&\frac{C_{{\rm}{cl}}}{4D}\left(1+\alpha^{-2}+\frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{\sigma}{2Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right),\label{eq:back action number}\\
n_{{\rm}{fb}}&=&\frac{\sigma^{2}}{4 C_{{\rm}{cl}} D}\left(1+\alpha\frac{\sigma}{2Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right)\csc^{2}\left(\theta\right),\label{eq:feedback number}\\
n_{{\rm}{co}}&=&-\frac{\sigma}{2\alpha D}\left(1+\alpha\frac{\sigma}{2Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right)\cot\left(\theta\right),\label{eq:correlation number}\\
n_{v}&=&n_{{\rm}{fb}}\left(\eta^{-1}-1\right),\label{eq:vacuum number}\\
D&\equiv&1+\sigma+\alpha^{-2},\label{eq:Simplified denominator}\end{aligned}$$ where $$C_{{\rm}{cl}}\equiv4g_{{\rm}{om}}^{2}/\kappa\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\label{eq:classical cooperativity}$$ is the classical cooperativity.
These results are relatively simple and we will now discuss their behavior. We start by noting that the feedback-induced mechanical broadening (\[eq:effective dissipation large-kappa\]) is given by $\gamma_{{\rm}{m,eff}}(\omega_{{\rm}{m}})-\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}=\sigma/[1+\alpha^{-2}]$, within a narrow-band approximation $\omega\approx\omega_{m}$. This increased broadening will tend to decouple the mechanical mode from its thermal bath while adding low-temperature noise from the optical bath resulting in net cooling, as is seen by considering the behavior of $n_{{\rm}{th}}$ (\[eq:thermal number\]) with increasing $\sigma$. However, this only holds insofar as the scaled cut-off feedback frequency $\alpha$ is large enough for the feedback mechanism to be able to react on the appropriate timescale. Moreover, there is a limit to how much $n_{{\rm}{th}}$ can be suppressed in this way which manifests itself when the effective mechanical quality factor becomes too small, $Q_{{\rm}{m,eff}}\equiv\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\gamma_{{\rm}{m,eff}}\ll\alpha,\alpha^{-1}$, as can be seen by taking the limit $\sigma\rightarrow\infty$. Since we treat both the thermal noise and the back-action as white noise (given the lack of cavity filtering in the bad cavity regime), Eqs. (\[eq:thermal number\],\[eq:back action number\]) are seen to be very similar, with $C_{{\rm}{cl}}/4$ simply playing the role of $\bar{n}+1/2,$ i.e. an equivalent back-action noise flux per unit bandwidth.
We now turn to the imprecision noise contribution $n_{{\rm}{fb}}$, (\[eq:feedback number\]). The increase in $n_{{\rm}{fb}}$ seen when $\theta$ moves away from $\pi/2$ occurs because this degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of the homodyne measurement. Unsurprisingly, $n_{{\rm}{fb}}$ increases with scaled effective gain $\sigma$, in fact it diverges as expected from amplifying a noisy measurement excessively. Interestingly, $n_{{\rm}{fb}}$ also diverges for $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$, i.e., when taking the feedback frequency cut-off $\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}$ to infinity which yields a derivative filter, see Eq. (\[eq:gain frequency\]). While this is ideal from the point of view of estimating the instantaneous mechanical velocity, it simultaneously feeds amplified imprecision noise into the oscillator from an unbounded spectral range resulting in $n_{{\rm}{fb}}\rightarrow\infty$ (as $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$). This observation prompts us to choose values of $\alpha$ which are not too large, which runs counter to the demand of having a large $\alpha$ to be able to cool out the mechanical noise. Hence the finite optimal value for $\alpha$ somehow balances these considerations. Imperfect homodyne detection or optical losses inject additional (uncorrelated) vacuum noise into the measurement current as accounted for by $n_{v}$, Eq. (\[eq:vacuum number\]).
The novel aspect of the present work hinges on the fact that for a general homodyne quadrature $\theta$, the imprecision shot noise of the measurement is correlated with the back-action noise on the mechanical mode as discussed previously. If we have anti-correlations, $n_{{\rm}{co}}<0$, destructive interference lessens the total mechanical occupancy $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ potentially leading to an advantage over the conventional choice of $\theta=\pi/2$ that maximizes the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement. Since the dependence of $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ on $\theta$ is just that of Eqs. (\[eq:feedback number\]-\[eq:vacuum number\]), the value of $\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}$ which minimizes $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ is straightforwardly found to be $$\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}={\rm}{Arccot}\left(\frac{\it{C}_{{\rm}{cl}}\eta}{\alpha\sigma}\right).\label{eq:theta-opt}$$ Substituting $\theta=\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}$ back into Eqs. (\[eq:feedback number\],\[eq:correlation number\]) and summing all contributions according to (\[eq:total number\]), we find,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left.n_{{\rm}{tot}}\right|_{\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}}= -\frac{1}{2}+\left(1+\sigma+\alpha^{-2}\right)^{-1}\times \nonumber \\
\Bigg[\left(\overline{n}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{C_{{\rm}{cl}}}{4}\right)\left(1+\alpha^{-2}+\frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{\sigma}{2 Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right) \nonumber\\
+\left(\frac{\sigma^{2}}{4 C_{{\rm}{cl}}\eta}-\frac{C_{{\rm}{cl}}\eta}{4\alpha^{2}}\right)\left(1+\alpha\frac{\sigma}{2Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right)\Bigg].\label{eq:solution for optimized theta}\end{aligned}$$
The optimal values $\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}$ and $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$, (\[eq:theta-opt\]) and (\[eq:solution for optimized theta\]), are given as functions of $C_{{\rm}{cl}}$, $\sigma$, and $\alpha$. These remaining parameters will be optimized in the next section.
Optimized cooling\[sec:Optimized-cooling\]
==========================================
{width="1.7\columnwidth"}
Having derived relatively simple expressions for the mechanical steady-state occupancy, we will now plot these functions for optimized parameter values. We assume here that the classical cooperativity $C_{{\rm}{cl}}$ is fixed (at the maximal value permitted by the given experimental circumstances). For purposes of demonstrating the benefit of varying $\theta$ in the quantum regime of feedback cooling, we consider the limit of large quantum cooperativity, $$C_{{\rm}{q}}\equiv C_{{\rm}{cl}}/\bar{n}\gtrsim1.\label{eq:Large quantum cooperativity}$$ This is the regime where the optical readout rate $\Gamma_{{\rm}{meas}}$ of the mechanical position exceeds the thermal decoherence rate $\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}\bar{n}$. We focus here on the limit of ideal detection $\eta=1$.
In Fig. \[fig:Func-gamma-fb\] we plot $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ and its components, Eqs. (\[eq:total number\]-\[eq:correlation number\]), as a function of the feedback parameter $\sigma$. We do so using the analytically optimized values $\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}(\sigma)$, Eq. (\[eq:theta-opt\]), and $\alpha_{{\rm}{opt}}(\sigma)$ which is found by minimizing Eq. (\[eq:solution for optimized theta\]), as the roots of higher order polynomials. This gives a sense of how the achievable performance varies as the feedback gain is increased. As expected from the discussion above, the ratio of thermal noise to back action remains constant as $\sigma$ is varied and is solely determined by the quantum cooperativity. For weak feedback $\sigma$ a large cut-off frequency can be afforded (see Fig. \[fig:Func-gamma-fb\], inset). Therefore an increase in $\sigma$ leads to further suppression of thermal and back-action noise. However, as $\sigma$ increases beyond its optimal value, the influence of the imprecision noise must be curbed by $\alpha\sim1$ for which no further suppression of the thermal and back-action noise is possible without paying an even larger penalty from the other sources. This trade-off determines the minimum achievable value of $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$. We note the following approximate scaling $\alpha_{{\rm}{opt}}\propto\sigma^{-1}$ from Fig. \[fig:Func-gamma-fb\] (inset), which explains, in view of Eq. (\[eq:solution for optimized theta\]), why the ratio $n_{{\rm}{fb}}/n_{{\rm}{co}}$ is seen to be constant in Fig. \[fig:Func-gamma-fb\]. The scaling also explains, in view of Eq. (\[eq:theta-opt\]), why the optimal angle is approximately independed on the value of $\sigma$.
Having determined the individual contributions to $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ and their behavior in the “graphical minimization” with respect to the feedback strength $\sigma$, we plot the achievable minimum occupancy $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ as a function of $C_{{\rm}{q}}$ in Fig. \[fig:ntot-func-Cq\]. Subfigures a and b together clearly demonstrate the necessity of adapting the measurement quadrature via $\theta$ in order to get as close to the ground state as possible. For small values of $C_{{\rm}{q}}\lesssim1$ we find $\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}\approx\pi/2$, whereas $\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}\rightarrow\pi/4$ as $C_{{\rm}{q}}$ increases, which is consistent with the intuitive discussion in Sec. \[sec:Heisenberg-microscope\]. Note however that $n_{{\rm}{tot}}(C_{{\rm}{q}})$ in Fig. \[fig:ntot-func-Cq\]a exhibits a finite global minimum for both the special case of $\theta=\pi/2$ and using the optimized $\theta=\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}(C_{{\rm}{q}})$. For values of $C_{{\rm}{q}}$ exceeding the minimum point, $\theta_{{\rm}{opt}}$ drops below $\pi/4$ to compensate for the unnecessarily large (direct) back action. We ascribe the appearance of the minimum in $n_{{\rm}{tot}}(C_{{\rm}{q}})$ to our suboptimal choice (\[eq:gain frequency\]) for the feedback gain function, $\mu(\omega)$. This can be understood in terms of suboptimal mapping of the light quadratures to the mechanical mode as discussed in Sec. \[sec:Heisenberg-microscope\]. Fig. \[fig:ntot-func-Cq\]c shows the optimal value of the feedback frequency cut-off $\alpha_{{\rm}{opt}}(C_{{\rm}{q}})$, which approaches order unity from above as $C_{{\rm}{q}}$ increases towards the optimum. Similar to the situation in Fig. \[fig:Func-gamma-fb\], the decreasing behavior of $\alpha_{{\rm}{opt}}(C_{{\rm}{q}})$ reflects the need to suppress the bandwidth of the feedback noise when the feedback gain increases.
From Fig. \[fig:ntot-func-Cq\] we conclude that it becomes relevant to choose a homodyne quadrature angle $\theta \neq \pi/2$ in the regime of very large quantum cooperativty, $C_{\rm q} \gg 1$. While the reduction in $n_{\rm tot}$ gained in this way will be small in absolute numbers, it can be significant relative to the value of $n_{\rm tot}$ achieved with $\theta=\pi/2$.
{width="1\linewidth"}
Conclusion and outlook\[sec:Conclusion\]
========================================
Simultaneous optimization of the feedback gain $\mu(\omega)$ and the homodyne quadrature angle $\theta$ are crucial elements of realizing the full potential of feedback cooling in the quantum regime.
As an outlook, we will point out two intriguing theoretical challenges on the subject of feedback cooling in the quantum regime. The analysis and optimization presented here was based on a particular choice for the feedback filter function $\mu(\omega)$, as stated in Eq. (\[eq:gain frequency\]), implementing a derivative-type feedback combined with a low-pass filter. While this choice of $\mu(\omega)$ has desirable features for purposes of cooling there is no reason to believe that the form of $\mu(\omega)$ assumed here is optimal from a theoretical perspective. Hence, this work does not establish the ultimate limit of performance for the scheme. This is an open question within quantum control theory (to the knowledge of the authors) and merits further investigation. The authors of Ref. [@WilsonSudhirPiroEtAl2015] made progress in this direction by deriving the optimal filter minimizing the position fluctuations for feedback based on measurements of the phase quadrature. As the authors emphasize, this filter includes spectrally sharp features, which will require very fast electronics to implement and may not be feasible in practice. Accordingly, the employed feedback filter was a delay line combined with a low-pass filter [@WilsonSudhirPiroEtAl2015; @SudhirWilsonSchillingEtAl2016]. This choice is simpler to implement in practice, but is in fact mathematically more cumbersome to treat than the form of $\mu(\omega)$ assumed here.
Another important remark should be made on the generality of the analysis presented here. As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:Model\], we adopted here a prescription for including feedback in the Heisenberg-Langevin equations as done in several previous studies found in the literature. While this approach can be justified rigorously for Markovian feedback, no such derivation is available for Non-Markovian feedback. Rigorous descriptions of Non-Markovian feedback exist based on the stochastic Schrödinger equation, cf. [@Wiseman1994; @Giovannetti1999]. However, it appears that a derivation of the corresponding Heisenberg-Langevin description has not been reported in the literature so far. It is therefore possible that this and previous studies neglect corrections due to the non-commutativity of Heisenberg operators at unequal times which may become significant in the quantum regime of operation. Only when these theoretical challenges have been addressed, the ultimate quantum limits of feedback cooling can be established.
References
==========
Stability condition\[sec:stability\]
====================================
In this Appendix we derive the stability condition for the optomechanical system subject to feedback. The validity of the linearized equations of motion given in the main text hinges on the fulfillment of this condition. Stability is ensured if the real part of all poles of the effective mechanical susceptibility $\chi_{{\rm}{eff}}(\omega)$ are negative. The character of the poles can be determined using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion [@DeJesus1987], which in the present case leads to a single non-trivial stability condition,
$$\begin{aligned}
1 & + & \sigma+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}\alpha}+\frac{\sigma}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}\alpha} \\
& + & \beta^{3}\biggl\{\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}+\frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha\biggr\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta^{2}\biggl\{1+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{2}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}\alpha}+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}} \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\sigma}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}+\frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha\right)\biggr\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta\biggl\{\alpha+\alpha\sigma+\frac{2}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}\alpha} \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\sigma}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}\alpha}\right)\biggr\} \nonumber \\
& - & \left(\sigma\beta^{2}+\frac{\beta\sigma}{\alpha}+\frac{\beta\sigma^{2}\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right) \nonumber > 0, \label{eq:stability-cond}\end{aligned}$$
where we have introduced the optomechanical sideband resolution factor $\beta\equiv 2\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\kappa$, the mechanical quality factor $Q_{{\rm}{m}}\equiv\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$, and (as in the main text) the rescaled dimensionless feedback gain is $\sigma\equiv 2\mu_{{\rm}{fb}}g_{{\rm}{om}}\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\kappa\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$. The feedback gain only enters the stability criterion (\[eq:stability-cond\]) via the rescaled definition $\sigma$, which is why no explicit dependence on the measurement quadrature angle $\theta$ enters. (If desired, Eq. (\[eq:stability-cond\]) can be restated in terms of $\theta$ and the absolute gain $\tilde{\sigma}$ as pointed out in the main text below Eq. (\[eq:sigma-def\]).) Note that in the main text we primarily focus on the idealized bad-cavity limit, $\kappa \rightarrow \infty$, in which the stability criterion \[eq:stability-cond\] is trivially fulfilled.
Mechanical steady-state occupation $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ for arbitrary $\kappa$\[sec:Exact-solution-for\]
====================================================================================================
In the main text we focus on the idealized bad-cavity limit, $\kappa\rightarrow\infty$, for simplicity of analysis. Here we will give the exact expression for the mechanical steady-state occupation number, $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$, valid for arbitrary values of $\kappa$ (insofar as the stability criterion of \[sec:stability\] is fulfilled). Retracing the steps taken in Sec. \[sec:Steady-state-occupation\] of the main text, we decompose the mechanical occupancy into contributions according to physical origin $$n_{{\rm}{tot}}=\frac{n_{X}+n_{P}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}=n_{{\rm}{th}}+n_{{\rm}{ba}}+n_{{\rm}{fb}}+n_{{\rm}{co}}+n_{v}-\frac{1}{2},\label{eq:C1}$$ where $n_{X}$ and $n_{P}$ are the contributions from the position and momentum variances, respectively. As will be clear from the expressions below, the steady state of the mechanical mode in the presence of feedback generally does not obey equipartition of energy, i.e., we will have $n_{X}\neq n_{P}$. To display the position and momentum contributions separately, we will decompose the various noise contributions as $n_{i}=(n_{i,X}+n_{i,P})/2$ below. These will be expressed in terms of the following dimensionless parameters: The classical optomechanical cooperativity $C_{{\rm}{cl}}=4g_{{\rm}{om}}^{2}/\kappa\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$, the rescaled feedback gain $\sigma=2\mu_{{\rm}{fb}}g_{{\rm}{om}}\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\kappa\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$, the optomechanical sideband resolution parameter $\beta=2\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\kappa$, the mechanical quality factor $Q_{{\rm}{m}}=\omega_{{\rm}{m}}/\gamma_{{\rm}{m}}$, and the feedback frequency cut-off parameter $\alpha\equiv\omega_{{\rm}{fb}}/\omega_{{\rm}{m}}$. All expressions below are organized according to the parameters $\beta$ and $1/Q_{{\rm}{m}}$, which are small in the typical parameter regime of interest.
The exact value of the mechanical steady-state occupancy $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$, valid for all stable values of $\kappa$, is given by the following contributions in Eq. (\[eq:C1\]): The thermal heating from intrinsic mechanical damping,
$$n_{{\rm}{th}}=\frac{n_{{\rm}{th},X}+n_{{\rm}{th},P}}{2}\label{eq:C2-2}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{th},X} & = & \frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(\bar{n}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\Bigg[1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\label{eq:C2}\\
& + & \beta\left\{ \frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(2+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}-\sigma\right)+\frac{1}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\right\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta^{2}\left\{ 1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{\sigma}{\alpha}\right)+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\right\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta^{3}\left\{ 1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \Bigg]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{th},P} & = & \frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(\bar{n}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\Bigg[1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha Q_{m}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\label{eq:C2-1}\\
& + & \beta\left\{ \frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(2+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\sigma\right)+\frac{1+\sigma}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\right\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta^{2}\biggl\{ 1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{\sigma}{\alpha}+\alpha\sigma\right) \nonumber \\
& + &\frac{1+\sigma}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\biggr\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta^{3}\left\{ 1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \Bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
the direct back-action heating,
$$n_{{\rm}{ba}}=\frac{n_{{\rm}{ba},X}+n_{{\rm}{ba},P}}{2}\label{eq:C2-2-1}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{ba},X} & = & \frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\frac{C_{{\rm}{cl}}}{4}\Bigg[1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\\
& + & \beta\left\{ \frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(2+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}-\sigma\right)+\frac{1}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\right\} \nonumber \\
& + & \beta^{2}\left\{ \frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha\right)+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\right\} \}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{ba},P} & = & \frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\frac{C_{{\rm}{cl}}}{4}\Bigg[1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\\
& + & \beta\left\{ \frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \Bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
the imprecision noise heating,
$$n_{{\rm}{fb}}=\frac{n_{{\rm}{fb},X}+n_{{\rm}{fb},P}}{2}\label{eq:C2-2-2}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{fb},X}&= \frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\frac{\sigma^{2}}{2 C_{{\rm}{cl}}}\Bigg[1+\beta\left\{ \alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \label{eq:C4} \\
&+ \beta^{2}\left\{ 1+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\right\} +\beta^{3}\alpha\Bigg]\csc^{2}(\theta), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{fb},P} &= \frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\frac{\sigma^{2}}{2 C_{{\rm}{cl}}}\Bigg[1+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\label{eq:C4-1}\\
&+ \beta\left\{ \alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\alpha^{2}+\alpha^{2}\sigma\right)+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\right\} \nonumber \\
&+ \beta^{2}\left\{ 1+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(2+\sigma\right)+\frac{\alpha^{2}}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\right\} \nonumber \\
&+ \beta^{3}\left\{ \alpha+\frac{\alpha^{2}}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \Bigg]\csc^{2}(\theta). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
the correction term due to correlations between the direct back-action and the measurement imprecision fluctuations ($n_{{\rm}{co}}<0$ for parameter choices of interest)
$$n_{{\rm}{co}}=\frac{n_{{\rm}{co},X}+n_{{\rm}{co},P}}{2}\label{eq:C2-2-3}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{co},X}&= -\frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\frac{\sigma}{4\alpha}\Biggl[1+\beta\left\{ 2\alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \label{eq:C5} \\
&+ \beta^{2}\left\{ \alpha^{2}+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \Biggr]\cot(\theta), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{{\rm}{co},P}&= -\frac{1}{S_{{\rm}{m}}}\frac{\sigma}{4\alpha}\Biggl[1+\frac{\alpha}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\sigma\right) \label{eq:C5-1} \\
&+ \beta\left\{ 2\alpha+\frac{\alpha^{2}}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(1+\sigma\right)\right\} +\beta^{2}\alpha^{2}\Biggr]\cot(\theta), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and finally the excess imprecision noise due to optical losses and imperfect detection ($\eta<1$)
$$n_{v} =n_{{\rm}{fb}}\left(\eta^{-1}-1\right),\label{eq:C2-2-4}$$
where the denominator of these expressions is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\rm}{m}}&= 1 + \sigma+\frac{1}{ \alpha^{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha {\rm}{Q}_{{\rm}{m}}}(1+\sigma)\label{eq:C7} \\
&+ \beta \biggl\{ \frac{1}{\alpha}\left(1-\sigma\right)+\left(\alpha+\frac{1}{\alpha {\rm}{Q}_{{\rm}{m}}^{2}}\right)(1+\sigma) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{{\rm}{Q}_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(2+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}+\sigma-\sigma^{2}\right) \biggr\} \nonumber \\
&+ \beta^{2} \biggl\{ 1+\frac{1}{\alpha^{2}}-\sigma+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left( \frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}+\alpha\right) \left( 1+\sigma\right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{\alpha Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\left(2+\sigma\right) \biggr\} \nonumber \\
&+ \beta^{3}\left\{ \frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha+\frac{1}{Q_{{\rm}{m}}}\right\} \nonumber .\end{aligned}$$ These formulas generalize the expressions given in Ref. [@Genes2008] in which the special case $\theta=\pi/2$ was considered.
Integrals over rational functions\[sec:Rational-Integral\]
==========================================================
We consider integrals over rational functions of the form $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{g_{n}\left(\omega\right)}{h_{n}\left(\omega\right)h_{n}\left(-\omega\right)}d\omega,$$ where $g_{n}$ and $h_{n}$ are polynomials of the following form
$$g_{n}\left(\omega\right)=b_{0}\omega^{2n-2}+b_{1}\omega^{2n-4}+\cdots+b_{n-2}\omega^{2}+b_{n-1}$$
$$h_{n}\left(\omega\right)=a_{0}\omega^{n}+a_{1}\omega^{n-1}+\cdots+a_{n-1}\omega+a_{n}$$
and we assume that $a_{0}\neq0$ and that all the roots of $h_{n}\left(\omega\right)$ lie in the upper half plane. The solution to the integral can be stated in terms of the determinants of two square matrices $\Delta_{n},M_{n}$ of dimension $n$. Setting $a_{k}=0$ for any $k\notin\{0,\ldots,n\}$ the $(i,j)'\rm{th}$ entries of the matrices can be stated as $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta_{n})_{i,j}&=&a_{2j-i} \\
(M_{n})_{i,j} &=& \delta_{1,i}b_{j-1} + (1-\delta_{1,i})a_{2j-i},\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{i,j}$ is the Kronecker delta function. The matrices differ only by their first rows as is clear from their explicit form, $$\Delta_{n}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{1} & a_{3} & a_{5} & \ldots & 0\\
a_{0} & a_{2} & a_{4} & \, & 0\\
0 & a_{1} & a_{3} & \, & 0\\
\vdots & \, & \, & \ddots & \,\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \, & a_{n}
\end{array}\right),\,\,\,$$
$$M_{n}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
b_{0} & b_{1} & b_{2} & \ldots & b_{n-1}\\
a_{0} & a_{2} & a_{4} & \, & 0\\
0 & a_{1} & a_{3} & \, & 0\\
\vdots & \, & \, & \ddots & \,\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \, & a_{n}
\end{array}\right).$$
The value of the integral can now be stated as
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{g_{n}\left(\omega\right)}{h_{n}\left(\omega\right)h_{n}\left(-\omega\right)}d\omega=i(-1)^{n+1}\frac{\pi}{a_{0}}\frac{\det M_{n}}{\det \Delta_{n}}.\label{eq:Integral Solution}$$
This formula was used to evaluate $n_{{\rm}{tot}}$ in terms of integrals over spectral densities as presented in the main text. The formula (\[eq:Integral Solution\]) appears in Ref. [@GRADSHTEYN1980211] on Page 253, however, there the factor $(-1)^{n+1}$ was omitted.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A proof that new massive gravity — the massive 3D gravity model proposed by Bergshoeff, Hohm and Townsend (BHT) — is the only unitary system at the tree level that can be constructed by augmenting planar gravity through the curvature-squared terms, is presented. Two interesting gravitational properties of the BHT model, namely, time dilation and time delay, which have no counterpart in the usual Einstein 3D gravity, are analyzed as well.'
address:
- '$^1$Laboratório de Física Experimental (LAFEX), Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud 150, Urca, 22290-180 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil'
- '$^2$Instituto de Física Teórica (IFT), São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Dr. Bento Teobaldo Ferraz 271, Bl. II-Barra Funda, 01140-070 São Paulo, SP, Brazil'
author:
- 'Antonio Accioly$^{1,2}$, José Helayël-Neto$^1$, Eslley Scatena$^2$, Jefferson Morais$^1$, Rodrigo Turcati$^1$ and Bruno Pereira-Dias$^1$'
title: Some interesting features of new massive gravity
---
Introduction
============
For too long physicists believed that gravity models containing fourth- (or higher-) derivatives of the metric were doomed to failure by virtue of one detail: they entail unphysical ghost states of negative norm. The pure scalar curvature models, i.e., the fourth-order gravity systems with Lagrangian $\mathcal{L} = R + \alpha R^2$ and which are tree-level unitary, seemed to be the only exception to this rule. Actually, these systems are conformally equivalent to Einstein gravity with a scalar field [@1]. Consequently, despite having fourth derivatives at the metric level, these models are ultimately second order in their scalar-tensor versions. It is, therefore, perfectly understandable that just about two years ago the physical community were absolutely amazed to learn that a particular higher-derivative extension of 3D general relativity — that is ghost-free at the tree level — has been found out by Bergshoeff, Hohm and Townsend (BHT) \[2-14\]. It was argued that this massive 3D gravity model, that is also known as “new massive gravity", is both unitary and power-counting UV finite in its pure quadratic curvature limit [@15], which, as it was pointed out by Ahmedov and Aliev [@10], violates the standard paradigm of its “cousins" in four dimensions [@16]. New massive gravity is defined by the Lagrangian density
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = \sqrt{g}\left[ -\frac{2R}{\kappa^2} + \frac{2}{\kappa^2 m_2^2}\left(R_{\mu \nu}^2
- \frac{3}{8} R^2 \right) \right], \end{aligned}$$
where $\kappa^2 = 32\pi G$, with $G$ being the 3D analog of Newton’s constant, and $m_2 \;(>0)$ is a mass parameter. It is worth noticing that the Lagrangian density given in (1) has a reversed Einstein-Hilbert (EH) term. On the other hand, a formal proof of the equivalence of the linearized version of the BHT model and the Einstein-Hilbert-Pauli-Fierz gravity was given in [@2]; incidentally, this proof was reviewed in [@17]. Nevertheless, the physical meaning of this equivalence is somewhat unclear; indeed, the linearized version of the BHT system is background diffeomorphism invariant, while the Pauli-Fierz theory is only invariant under the Killing symmetries of the spacetime (in particular, the 3D Minkowski space), which clearly shows that a better understanding of the symmetries is still lacking [@9]. And what about the odd sign change of the EH term previously mentioned? At the linearized level, Deser [@15] showed that the EH term breaks the Weyl invariance of the BHT model without the EH term and, consequently, is responsible for giving mass to the graviton. In other words, the higher-derivative terms provide the kinetic energy, whereas the EH term provides the mass in this linearized model, thus explaining the weird sign change of the EH term. It is remarkable that the EH term gives origin to the mass in the linearized version of the BHT system by breaking the Weyl invariance and not the expected diffeomophism invariance [@9].
At this point it would be interesting to ask ourselves about the reason for doing research on massive gravitons. The increased interest in recent years in this subject is motivated, on the one hand, by the discovery of cosmic acceleration, which might be explained in terms of an infrared modification of general relativity that gives the graviton a small mass [@18]; on the other, by the conjecture that some theory involving massive gravitons could be the low energy limit of a noncritical string-theory underlying QED [@19]. As it is often done for so many other gravitational physical issues, it is advisable to consider first the possibilities for massive gravitons in the simpler context of a 3D spacetime [@17]. The BHT model is accordingly the ideal arena for such investigations.
Our aim in this paper is twofold.
1. To show that the BHT gravity is the only tree-level unitary model that can be constructed in 3D by judiciously combining the Ricci scalar $R$ with the curvature-squared terms $R^2$ and $R_{\mu \nu}^2$.
2. To explore some interesting properties of this remarkable model that have no counterpart in the usual Einstein gravity in three dimensional spacetime.
We describe in the following the steps we shall take in order to accomplish these objectives. We start off our analysis by considering in section 2 the most general three-dimensional theory obtained by augmenting planar gravity through the curvature-squared terms. Now, taking into account that in three dimensions both the curvature tensor and the Ricci tensor have the same number of components [@20], we come to the conclusion that the Lagrangian density for the theory at hand can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}} = \sqrt{g}\left(\frac{2 \sigma}{\kappa^2}R + \frac{\alpha}{2}R^2 + \frac{\beta}{2}R_{\mu \nu}^2 \right),\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma$ is a convenient parameter that can take the values +1 (EH term with the standard sign), -1 (EH term with the “wrong sign”), and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are free coefficients. Note that the constants $\kappa, \; \alpha,$ and $\beta$, have the mass dimension $[\kappa]= -\frac{1}{2}$ and $[\alpha]= [\beta]= -1$, in fundamental units. We prove afterward that the BHT model is the only unitary system at the tree level that can be built from the Lagrangian given in Eq. (2). In section 3 it is shown that, unlike what occurs in 3D general relativity, clocks are slowed down in a gravitational field described by the BHT model. This gravitational time dilation is the basis of the gravitational spectral shift. An expression for a new-massive-gravity-induced time delay is obtained in section 4. Finally, we present in section 5 some comments and observations.
We employ natural units, $c=\hbar=1$, and our Minkowski metric is diag(+1,-1, -1). Our Ricci tensor is defined by $R_{\mu \nu}= {R^\lambda}_{\mu \nu \lambda}\equiv \partial_\nu {\Gamma^\lambda}_{\mu \lambda} - \partial_\lambda{\Gamma^\lambda}_{\mu \nu} + ...$ . A prescription for computing the graviton propagator, as well as a list of some identities that greatly facilitate this task, are collected in Appendix A. The derivation of an important result for checking the tree-level unitarity of a generic 3D gravity model is sketched in Appendix B.
Finding a class of tree-level unitary massive 3D gravity models
===============================================================
To probe the unitarity at the tree level of the models defined by Eq. (2), we make use of an uncomplicated and easily handling algorithm that converts the task of checking the unitarity, which is in general a time-consuming work, into a straightforward algebraic exercise. The prescription consists basically in saturating the propagator with external conserved currents, compatible with the symmetries of the system, and in examining afterwards the residues of the saturated propagator (SP) at each simple pole. Let us then compute the propagator for the gravity model in Eq. (2). To do that, we recall that for small fluctuations around the Minkowski metric $\eta$, the full metric assumes the form
$$g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+\kappa h_{\mu\nu}$$
Linearizing Eq. (2) via Eq. (3) and adding to the result the gauge-fixing Lagrangian density, $\mathcal{L}_{gf}=\frac{1}{2\Lambda}(\partial_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu})^2$, where $\gamma_{\mu\nu}\equiv h_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mu\nu}h$, that corresponds to the de Donder gauge, we find
$$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}h_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{O}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}h_{\alpha\beta},$$
where, in momentum space,
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\mathcal{O}&=&\left[\sigma k^{2}+\frac{\beta\kappa^{2}k^{4}}{4}\right]P^{(2)}+\frac{k^{2}}{2\Lambda}P^{(1)} +\frac{k^{2}}{4\Lambda}P^{(0-w)}-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\frac{k^{2}}{\Lambda}P^{(0-sw)}\\&&-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\frac{k^{2}}{\Lambda}P^{(0-ws)}
+\left[\frac{k^{2}}{2\Lambda}-\sigma k^{2}+2\alpha\kappa^{2} k^{4}+\frac{3}{4}\beta\kappa^{2} k^{4}\right]P^{(0-s)}.\end{aligned}$$
Here $P^{(2)}$, $P^{(1)}$, $P^{(0-w)}$, $P^{(0-s)}$, $P^{(0-sw)}$ and $P^{(0-ws)}$ are the usual three-dimensional Barnes-Rivers operators (see Appendix A).
Therefore, the propagator is given by (see Appendix A)
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\mathcal{O}^{-1}&=&\frac{2\Lambda}{k^2}P^{(1)}+\frac{1}{k^2(\sigma+\frac{\beta\kappa^2k^2}{4})}P^{(2)}+\frac{1}{-\sigma k^2+2\alpha\kappa^2k^4+\frac{3}{4}\kappa^2k^4\beta}P^{(0-s)} \\ \nonumber
&&+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{-\sigma k^2+2\alpha\kappa^2k^4+\frac{3}{4}\kappa^2k^4\beta}[P^{(0-sw)}+P^{(0-ws)}]\\&&+\frac{-4\Lambda\sigma+2+8\Lambda\alpha\kappa^2k^2+3\Lambda\beta\kappa^2k^2}{-\sigma k^2+2\alpha\kappa^2k^4+\frac{3}{4}\kappa^2k^4\beta}P^{(0-w)}.\end{aligned}$$
Contracting now the above propagator with conserved currents $T^{\mu\nu}(k)$, ($k_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}=k_{\nu}T^{\mu\nu}=0$), yields
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{SP}}&=&\frac{1}{\sigma}\left[\frac{1}{k^{2}}-\frac{1}{k^{2}-m^{2}_{2}}\right]\left[T_{\mu\nu}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}T^{2}\right]+ \frac{1}{\sigma}\left[-\frac{1}{k^2} +\frac{1}{k^{2}-m_{0}^{2}}\right]\frac{1}{2}T^{2},\end{aligned}$$
where $m^2_2\equiv-\frac{4\sigma}{\beta\kappa^2}$, $m_0^2\equiv\frac{4\sigma}{(8\alpha+3\beta)\kappa^2}$. Assuming that there are no tachyons in the model, we promptly find the following constraints
$$\frac{\sigma}{\beta}<0, \qquad \frac{\sigma}{8\alpha+3\beta}>0.$$
On the other hand, the residues of SP at the poles $k^2=m^2_2$, $k^2=0$, and $k^2=m^2_0$ are, respectively,
$$\begin{aligned}
Res ({\mathrm{SP}})\left. \right|_{k^{2}=m^{2}_{2}}&=&-\frac{1}{\sigma}\Big(T^{2}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}T^{2}\Big)\left.\right|_{k^{2}=m_{2}^{2}},\\
Res({\mathrm{SP}}) \left.\right|_{k^2=0}&=&\frac{1}{\sigma}\Big(T^2_{\mu\nu}-T^2\Big)\left.\right|_{k^2=0},\\
Res({\mathrm{ SP}})\left.\right|_{k^2=m^2_0}&=&\frac{1}{2 \sigma}(T^2)\left.\right|_{k^2=m_0^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, as is well-known, the tree-level unitarity of a generic model is assured if the residue at each simple pole of ${\mathrm{SP}}$ is $\geq 0$. Keeping in mind that $\Big(T^2_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}T^2\Big)\left.\right|_{k^2=m_2^2}>0$ and $\Big(T^2_{\mu\nu}-T^2\Big)\left.\right|_{k^2=0}=0$ (see Appendix B), we arrive at the conclusion that: (i)$ Res ({\mathrm{SP}})\left.\right|_{k^{2}=m^{2}_{2}}>0$ if $\sigma=-1$ (which implies $\beta>0$ and $\alpha<0$), and (ii) $Res ({\mathrm{ SP}})\left.\right|_{k^{2}=0}=0$. Consequently, we need not worry about these poles; the troublesome one is $k^2=m_{0}^{2}$ since $Res({\mathrm{ SP}})\left.\right|_{k^2=m_{0}^{2}}<0$. A way out of this difficult it is to consider the $m_{0}\rightarrow\infty$ limit of the model under discussion, which leads us to conclude that $\alpha=-\frac{3}{8}\beta$. Accordingly, the class of models defined by the Lagrangian density
$$\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{g}\left[-\frac{2R}{\kappa^2}+\frac{\beta}{2}\left(R^2_{\mu\nu}-\frac{3}{8}R^2\right)\right],$$
are ghost-free at the tree level. For the sake of convenience, we replace $\beta$ with $\frac{4}{\kappa^{2} m_2^{2}}$, where $m_2$ is a mass parameter. The resulting Lagrangian density,
$$\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{g}\left[-\frac{2R}{\kappa^2}+\frac{2}{\kappa^2 m_2^2}\left(R^2_{\mu\nu}-\frac{3}{8}R^2\right)\right],$$
is nothing but the BHT model for massive 3D gravity.
It is worth noting that it is not clear at all whether or not the particular ratio between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we have previously found will survive renormalization at a given loop level, even at one-loop; in other words, unitarity beyond tree level has to be checked [@9]. Most likely the BHT model is nonrenormalizable since it improves only the spin-2 projections of the propagator but not the spin-0 projection [@21].
Gravitational time dilation
===========================
Einstein 3D gravity is trivial outside the sources; consequently, no gravitational time dilation, or slowing down of clocks can take place in its framework. This can easily be shown in the particular case of a spherically symmetric distribution of mass $M$ whose metric tensor is approximately given by
$$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu \nu} &=& \eta_{\mu \nu} + \kappa h_{\mu \nu} \nonumber \\ &=&
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0&0\\
0&-(1+8GM\ln{\frac{r}{r_0}})&0\\
0&0&-(1+8GM\ln{\frac{r}{r_0}})
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding spacetime interval reads
$$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = dt^2 -(1 + \lambda)(dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2),\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda = 8GM \ln \frac{r}{r_0}$, with $r_0$ being an infrared regulator, and $r$ and $\theta$ are the usual polar coordinates.
Introducing now new radial ($r'$) and angular ($\theta'$) coordinates through the change of variables
$$\begin{aligned}
(1-\lambda)r^2 = (1- 8GM)r'^2, \;\; \theta' = (1-4GM)\theta, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
we obtain, to linear order in $GM$,
$$ds^2 = dt^2 - dr'^2 - r'^2d\theta'^2.$$
The geometry around the spherically symmetric distribution is, therefore, locally identical to that of a flat spacetime as it should; however, it is not globally Minkowskian since the angle $\theta'$ varies in the range $ 0 \leq \theta' < 2\pi(1-4GM)$. Accordingly, the three-dimensional metric (16) describes a conical space with a wedge of angular size equal to $8\pi GM $ removed and the two faces of the wedge identified. We thus come to the conclusion that in the framework of Einstein 3D gravity no gravitational spectral-shift occurs due to the presence of the mentioned odd geometrical effect. It is worth noticing that in this context, the non existence of a time dilation does not imply that the spacetime is necessarily flat; in other words, the time dilation is not a “classical test" of 3D general relativity. As we shall see in the following, the aforementioned bizarre geometrical effect does not take place in new massive gravity. To do that we have to solve beforehand the linearized field equations related to the BHT system.
The field equations concerning the Lagrangian density
$$\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{g}\left[-\frac{2R}{\kappa^2}+\frac{2}{\kappa^2 m_2^2}\left(R^2_{\mu\nu}-\frac{3}{8}R^2\right) - \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}\right],$$
where $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}$ is the Lagrangian density for matter, are
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&&G_{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{m_{2}^{2}}\Bigg[\frac{1}{2}R^{2}_{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}R
-2R_{\mu\rho\lambda\nu}R^{\rho\lambda}
-\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu\nu}\Box R+\Box R_{\mu\nu}\\&&-\frac{3}{16}R^{2}g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{3}{4}RR_{\mu\nu}\Bigg]=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{4}T_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$
where $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor, and $G_{\mu\nu}\equiv R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R$ is the Einstein tensor.
The corresponding linearized field equations are given by
$$\Bigg(1+\frac{\Box}{m_{2}^{2}}\Bigg)\Bigg[-\frac{1}{2}\Box h_{\mu\nu}+\frac{\eta_{\mu\nu}}{4\kappa}R^{\textrm{(lin)}}\Bigg]
+\frac{1}{2}\Big(\partial_{\mu}\Gamma_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}\Gamma_{\mu}\Big)
=\frac{\kappa}{4}\Bigg(\frac{T}{2}\eta_{\mu\nu}-T_{\mu\nu}\Bigg),$$
where $R^{\textrm{(lin)}}=\kappa \left[\frac{1}{2}\Box h-\gamma^{\mu\nu}_{\phantom{ab},\mu\nu}\right]$, $\Gamma_{\mu}\equiv\Big(1+\frac{\Box}{m_{2}^{2}}\Big)\partial_{\rho}\gamma_{\mu}^{\phantom{a}\rho}+\frac{\partial_{\mu}R^{(\textrm{lin})}}{4\kappa m_{2}^{2}}$, $\gamma_{\mu\nu}\equiv h_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mu\nu}$. Note that here indices are raised (lowered) using $\eta^{\mu\nu}$($\eta_{\mu\nu}$).
Mimicking Teyssandier’s work on 4D higher-derivative gravity [@22], it can be shown that it is always possible to choose a coordinate system such that the gauge conditions, $\Gamma_\mu =0$, on the linearized metric, hold. Assuming that these conditions are satisfied, it is straightforward to show that the general solution of (19) is given by
$$h_{\mu \nu} = \psi_{\mu \nu} - h_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})},$$
where $h_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})}$ is the solution of the linearized Einstein equation in the de Donder gauge, i.e.,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Box h_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})} = \frac{\kappa}{2}(Tn_{\mu \nu} - T_{\mu \nu}), \; \; \partial^\nu \gamma_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})}=0, \end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})}\equiv h_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})} - \frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mu \nu}h^{(\mathrm{E})}$, while $\psi_{\mu \nu}$ satisfies the equation
$$(\Box + m^2_2)\psi_{\mu \nu}= - \frac{\kappa}{2}(T_{\mu \nu}- \frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mu \nu}T).$$
It is worth noticing that in this very special gauge the equations for $\psi_{\mu \nu}$ and $h_{\mu \nu}^{(\mathrm{E})}$ are totally decoupled. As a result, the general solution to the equation (19) reduces to a linear combination of the solutions of the aforementioned equations.
Solving Eqs. (21) and (22) for a point-like particle of mass $M$ located at ${\bf r}= {\bf 0}$, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
h_{00}&=&-\frac{\kappa M}{8\pi}K_{0}(m_2r)\\
h_{11}&=&h_{22}=-\frac{\kappa M}{8\pi}\Big[K_{0}(m_2r)+2\ln\frac{r}{r_{0}}\Big],\end{aligned}$$
where $K_0$ is the modified Bessel function of order zero. Note that $K_0(x)$ behaves as -ln$x$ at the origin and as $x^{-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-x}$ asymptotically. Thence, the metric tensor and the spacetime interval are given, respectively, by
$$\begin{aligned}
\scriptsize{
g_{\mu \nu} =
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 -4MG K_0(m_2 r)&0&0\\
0&\begin{array}{l}-[1+4GM(K_0(m_2 r)\\\quad+ 2\ln{\frac{r}{r_0}})]\end{array}&0\\
0&0&\begin{array}{l}-[1+4GM(K_0(m_2 r)\\\quad+ 2\ln{\frac{r}{r_0}})]\end{array}
\end{array}\right),}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=&[1 -4MGK_0(m_2 r)] dt^2 -\left[1 + 4GM \left(K_0(m_2 r) + 2\ln\frac{r}{r_0}\right)\right](dr^2 \nonumber \\ &&+ r^2 d\theta^2).\end{aligned}$$
In the $m_2 \rightarrow \infty $ limit, (25) and (26) reproduce (14) and (15), in this order, as expected. The geometry around the point-particle is, of course, not locally identical to that of a Minkwoskian spacetime, signaling in this way the possibility of occurrence of gravitational spectral shift. Let us then show that the gravitational time dilation does occur in the BHT model.
Suppose that a signal sent from an emitter at a fixed point ($r_E, \theta_E$) is received, after traveling along a null geodesic, by a receiver at a fixed point ($r_R, \theta_R$) (see Fig. 1). Now, the difference $t_R - t_E$, where $t_E$ is the coordinate time of emission and $t_R$ the coordinate time of reception, is the same for all signs sent — the wordlines of successive signals are nothing but copies of successive signals merely shifted in time. As a result, if the $t$-time difference between a signal and the next is $dt_E$ at the departure point, the corresponding $t$-time difference at the the arrival point is necessarily the same. However, the clock of an observer situated at the point of emission records proper time ($\tau$) and not coordinate time ($t$). Accordingly, $d\tau_E= \sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_E)} dt_E$, and similarly $d\tau_R= \sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_R)}dt_R$. Since $dt_E= dt_R$, we promptly obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\tau_R}{d\tau_E} &=&\frac{ \sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_R)}}{\sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_E)}} \nonumber \\ &\approx& 1- 2MGK_0(m_2 r_R) + 2MGK_0(m_2 r_E) \nonumber \\ &=& 1 + V_R - V_E, \end{aligned}$$
where $V(r) \equiv \frac{\kappa}{2} h_{00}(r)=-2MGK_0(m_2r)$ is the gravitational potential. This shows that if the clock at $(r_R,\theta_R)$ is at a lower potential than the clock at $(r_E,\theta_E)$, i.e., $V_R <V_E$, then $d\tau_R$ is smaller than $d\tau_E$. In other words, the clock that is deeper in the gravitational potential runs slower. Eq. (27) is the gravitational time-dilation formula, or redshift formula. It is worth noticing that $d\tau_R \rightarrow d\tau_E$ as $m_2 \rightarrow \infty$, implying that no gravitational time dilation takes place in the framework of 3D general relativity, which totally agrees with the result we have previously found.
On the other hand, if the emitter is a pulsating atom which in the proper time interval $\Delta \tau_E$ emits $n$ pulses, an observer situated at the emitter will assign to the atom a frequency $\nu_E \equiv \frac{n}{\Delta \tau_E}$, which, of course, is the proper frequency of the pulsating atom. The observer located at the receiver, in turn, assigns a frequency $\nu_R \equiv \frac{n}{\Delta \tau_R}$ to the pulsating atom. Consequently,
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\nu_R}{\nu_E} &=&\frac{ \sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_E)}}{\sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_R)}} \nonumber \\ &\approx& 1+ 2MG\left[K_0(m_2 r_R) - K_0(m_2 r_E)\right]. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
From this we immediately get the fractional shift
$$\frac{\Delta \nu}{\nu} \equiv \frac{\nu_R - \nu_E}{\nu_E} \approx 2MG \left[ K_0(m_2 r_R) - K_0(m_2 r_E)\right].$$
Note that since $K_0(x)$ is a monotonically decreasing function in the range $0 \leq x < \infty, \;\frac{\Delta \nu}{\nu} $ is positive if $r_E > r_R$, and negative if $r_E < r_R$. Consequently, if the emitter is nearer to the massive object than the receiver is, the shift is towards the red, but if the receiver is nearer the massive object, it is towards the blue.
From the preceding considerations we come to the conclusion that the gravitational spectral shift is indeed a classical test of the BHT model. It can also be viewed, like in 4D general relativity, as a direct test of the curvature of the spacetime.
Gravitational time delay
========================
Another interesting effect that can be obtained from the linear approximation of new massive gravity is the time delay suffered by a light signal sent by an observer — situated at a fixed point in space in the gravitational field generated by a massive object — to a small object and reflected back to the observer. The small object is supposed to be located directly between the observer and the huge body (see Fig. 2). Consider, in this spirit, a light pulse that moves along a straight line connecting the observer and the small object. It is easy to show that the coordinate time for the whole trip (observer $\rightarrow $ small object $\rightarrow$ observer) is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta t_G= 2\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \sqrt{\frac{1 + 4MG[K_0(m_2 r) + 2\ln \frac{r}{r_0} ]}{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r)}}dr.\end{aligned}$$
Accordingly, the proper time lapse measured by the observer, whose clock, of course, records proper time, has the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau_G= 2 \sqrt{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r_2)} {\int_{r_1}^{r_2}}{\sqrt{\frac{1 + 4MG\left[K_0(m_2 r) + 2\ln \frac{r}{r_0}\right]}{1- 4MGK_0(m_2 r)}}dr.}\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, the distance traveled by the light pulse is equal to $$2\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \sqrt{1 + 4MG[K_0 (m_2 r) + 2 \ln \frac{r}{r_0}]}dr.$$ Consequently, on the basis of the classical theory we should expect a round-trip time of
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau_C = 2\int _{r_1}^{r_2}\sqrt{1+ 4MG\left[K_0(m_2 r) + 2\ln \frac{r}{r_0} \right]} dr.\end{aligned}$$
From (29) and (30), we arrive to the conclusion that $\Delta \tau_G \neq \Delta \tau_C$. Note that in the $m_2 \rightarrow \infty$ limit, $\Delta \tau_G = \Delta\tau_C = 2 \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \sqrt{1 + 8MG \ln \frac{r}{r_0}} dr$, which clearly shows that there is no time delay in the framework of 3D general relativity, as expected.
On the other hand, Eqs. (29) and (30), tell us that
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau_G &\approx& 2\int_{r_1}^{r_2}\left[ 1+ 4MG \left(K_0(m_2 r) + \ln\frac{r}{r_0} \right) \right]dr \nonumber \\ &&- 4MG[K_0(m_2 r_2)](r_2 - r_1), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau_C \approx 2\int_{r_1}^{r_2}\left[1 + 2GM\left(K_0(m_2 r) + 2\ln \frac{r}{r_0} \right)\right]dr. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
As a result,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau_G - \Delta \tau_C &\approx& 4MG\left[\int_{r_1}^{r_2}K_0(m_2 r)dr - (r_2 - r_1) K_0(m_2 r_2)\right] \nonumber \\ &=& 4MG \left[ K_0(m_2 r_0) - K_0(m_2 r_2)\right] (r_2 - r_1), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $r_1 < r_0 < r_2$. Hence, we come to the conclusion that there is a new-massive-gravity-induced time delay
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau_G - \Delta \tau_C \approx 4MG \left[K_0(m_2r_0) -K_0(m_2 r_2)\right] (r_2 - r_1).\end{aligned}$$
Final remarks
=============
As is well-known, three-dimensional Einstein gravity without sources is physically vacuous because Einstein and Riemann tensors are equivalent in $D=3$. In addition, the quantization of the gravity field does not give rise to propagating gravitons since the spacetime metric is locally determined by the sources. Consequently, the description of gravitational phenomena via $3D$ gravity leads to some bizarre results, such as the following.
- Lack of a gravity force in the nonrelativistic limit.
- Gravitational deflection independent of the impact parameter.
- Complete absence of gravitational time dilation.
- No time delay.
It can be shown that the first two odd phenomena in the above list do not take place in the context of the BHT model [@23]. In fact, in the framework of the latter, short-range gravitational forces are exerted on slowly moving particles; besides, the light bending depends on the impact parameter, as it should. On the other hand, the remaining strange phenomena in the aforementioned list, as we have shown, do not occur in the BHT system either. Indeed, both time delay and spectral shift do take place in the context of the new massive gravity. Like in 4D general relativity, gravitational time dilation and gravitational time delay are also tests of the BHT model. It is worth noticing that the basis for these tests is the time-independent solution of the linearized BHT field equations produced by a static spherical mass.
One of the main reasons for studying 3D gravity models is in reality to try to find out a gravity system with less austere ultraviolet divergences in perturbation theory. Since general relativity in 3D is dynamically trivial, the BHT model, which is tree-level unitary, is an important step in this direction. This kind of research conducted in lower dimensions certainly helps us to gain insight into difficult conceptional issues, which are present and more opaque in the physical (3+1)-dimensional world. Another strong argument in favor of considering massive gravity theories, as we have already commented, is the fact that the present accelerated expansion of the universe could be partially attributed to a graviton mass-like effect.
It is worth mentioning that the triviality of 3D general relativity can also be cured by adding to the EH action in 3D a parity-violating Chern-Simons term. The resulting model is usually known as topological massive gravity (TMG) [@24; @25]. Nonetheless, in contrast with TMG, 3D massive gravity has the great advantage of being a parity-preserving theory. On the other hand, since 3D higher-derivative gravity (3DHDG) — which is defined by the Lagrangian density ${\cal{L}}_\mathrm{3DHDG} = \sqrt{g}\left(\frac{2\sigma}{\kappa^2} R + \frac{\beta}{2} R_{\mu \nu}^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2} R^2 \right)$ — is nonunitary at the tree level [@26], it would be interesting to verify whether the addition of a topological Chern-Simons term (${\cal{L}}_\mathrm{CS}= \frac{\mu}{2} \epsilon^{\lambda\mu \nu} \Gamma^\rho_{\phantom{a}\sigma \lambda}[\partial_\mu \Gamma^\sigma_{\phantom{a}\rho \nu} + \frac{2}{3} \Gamma^\sigma_{\phantom{a}\omega \mu} \Gamma^\omega_{\phantom{a}\nu \rho} ], $ where $\mu$ is an arbitrary parameter) to this higher-order model would cure the nonunitarity of the former. It can be shown that in order to avoid ghosts and tachyons in the mixed theory (${\cal{L}} = {\cal{L}}_\mathrm{3DHDG} + {\cal{L}}_\mathrm{CS}$) the following constraints on the parameters must hold[^1] [@27]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{(spin-2 sector)} &:& \sigma < 0, \; \beta >0, \\
\textrm{(spin-0 sector)} &:& \sigma > 0, \; 3\beta + 8\alpha > 0.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, for arbitrary values of the parameters, the model at hand is nonunitary at the tree level, which clearly shows that the topological Chen-Simons term is not a panacea for 3DHDG’s unitarity problem. Nevertheless, if we prevent the spin-0 mode from propagating by choosing $3\beta + 8\alpha =0$, the resulting model is tree-level unitary. It is amazing that the above condition is exactly the same constraint that appears in the BHT model ($m_0 \rightarrow \infty$ limit). We call attention to the fact that, contrary to popular belief, the addition of a Chern-Simons term to a tree-level unitary model is not necessarily a guarantee that the resulting model will be tree-level unitary [@26]. For instance, the addition of a Chern-Simons term (${\cal{L}}_\mathrm{CS}$) to three-dimensional $R + \alpha R^2$ gravity (${\cal{L}}_\mathrm{R+\alpha R^2} = (-\frac{2R}{\kappa^2} + \frac{\alpha R^2}{2}) \sqrt{g}$), which is tree-level unitary, spoils the unitary of the latter [@26]. Therefore, in some cases the coexistence between the topological Chern-Simons term and 3D higher-derivative gravity theories is conflicting.
To conclude we remark that recently the nonlinear classical dynamics of the BHT model was exhaustively investigated by de Rham, Gabadadze, Pirtskhalava, Tolley and Yavin [@28], who found that the theory passed remarkably nontrivial checks at the nonlinear level, such as the following.
- In the decoupling limit of the theory, the interactions of the helicity-0 modes are described by a single cubic term, the so-called cubic Galileon [@29].
- The conformal mode of the metric coincides with the helicity-0 mode in the decoupling limit.
- The full theory does not lead to any extra degrees of freedom, which suggests that a 3D analog of the 4D Boulware-Deser ghost is not present in the BHT system.
Acnowledgments {#acnowledgments .unnumbered}
==============
The authors are very grateful to FAPERJ, CNPq, and CAPES (Brazilian agencies) for financial support.\
Propagator
==========
In order to find the propagator related to the Lagrangian density in Eq. (1) it is very convenient to work in terms of the Barnes-Rivers operators in the space of symmetric rank-two tensors. The complete set of 3-dimensional operators in momentum space is [@30; @31]
$$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}&=&\frac{1}{2}(\theta_{\mu\kappa}\theta_{\nu\lambda}+\theta_{\mu\lambda}\theta_{\nu\kappa}-\theta_{\mu\nu}\theta_{\kappa\lambda}),\label{p2}\\
\nonumber P^{(1)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda } &=&\frac{1}{2}(\theta_{\mu\kappa}\omega_{\nu\lambda}+\theta_{\mu\lambda}\omega_{\nu\kappa}+\theta_{\nu\lambda}\omega_{\mu\kappa}+\theta_{\nu\kappa}\omega_{\mu\lambda}),\label{p1}\\
P^{(0-s)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}&=&\frac{1}{2}\theta_{\mu\nu}\theta_{\kappa\lambda},\label{ps}\\
P^{(0-w)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}&=&\omega_{\mu\nu}\omega_{\kappa\lambda},\label{pw}\\
P^{(0-sw)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\theta_{\mu\nu}\omega_{\kappa\lambda},\label{psw}\\
P^{(0-ws)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\omega_{\mu\nu}\theta_{\kappa\lambda}\label{pws},\end{aligned}$$
where $\theta_{\mu\nu}\equiv\eta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{k_{\mu}k_{\nu}}{k^{2}}$ and $\omega_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{k_{\mu}k_{\nu}}{k^{2}}$ are, respectively, the usual transverse and longitudinal projection operators. The multiplicative table for these operators is displayed in Table I.
$P^{(2)}$ $P^{(1)}$ $P^{(0-s)}$ $P^{(0-w)}$ $P^{(0-sw)}$ $P^{(0-ws)}$
-------------- ----------- ----------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
$P^{(2)}$ $P^{(2)}$ 0 0 0 0 0
$P^{(1)}$ 0 $P^{(1)}$ 0 0 0 0
$P^{(0-s)}$ 0 0 $P^{(0-s)}$ 0 $P^{(0-sw)}$ 0
$P^{(0-w)}$ 0 0 0 $P^{(0-w)}$ 0 $P^{(0-ws)}$
$P^{(0-sw)}$ 0 0 0 $P^{(0-sw)}$ 0 $P^{(0-s)}$
$P^{(0-ws)}$ 0 0 $P^{(0-ws)}$ 0 $P^{(0-w)}$ 0
: Multiplicative table for the Barnes-Rivers operators
\[BarnesRivers\]
To compute the graviton propagator we need the bilinear part of the Lagrangian density (1). With the gauge fixing $\frac{1}{2\Lambda}(\partial_{\mu}\gamma^{\mu\nu})^2$ (de Donder gauge), and going over to momentum space we reproduce (5). The task of computing the operator $\mathcal{O}$ is greatly facilitated if we appeal to the following identities
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[P^{(2)}+P^{(1)}+P^{(0-s)}+P^{(0-w)}\right]_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta_{\mu\kappa}\eta_{\nu\lambda}+\eta_{\mu\lambda}\eta_{\nu\kappa}),\label{b1}
\nonumber\\
&&\left[2P^{(0-s)}+P^{(0-w)}+\sqrt{2}(P^{(0-sw)}+P^{(0-ws)})\right]_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}=\eta_{\mu\nu}\eta_{\kappa\lambda},\label{b2}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left[2P^{(1)}+4P^{(0-w)}\right]_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}=\frac{1}{k^{2}}(\eta_{\mu\kappa}k_{\nu}k_{\lambda}+\eta_{\mu\lambda}k_{\nu}k_{\kappa}+\eta_{\nu\lambda}k_{\mu}k_{\kappa}+\eta_{\nu\kappa}k_{\mu}k_{\lambda}),\label{b3}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left[2P^{(0-w)}+\sqrt{2}(P^{(0-sw)}+P^{(0-ws)})\right]_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}=\frac{1}{k^{2}}(\eta_{\mu\nu}k_{\kappa}k_{\lambda}+\eta_{\kappa\lambda}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}),\label{b4}\\
\nonumber\\
&&P^{(0-w)}_{\mu\nu,\kappa\lambda}=\frac{1}{k^{4}}(k_{\mu}k_{\nu}k_{\kappa}k_{\lambda}).\label{b5}\end{aligned}$$
Now, if we write the operator $\mathcal{O}$ in the generic form $$\mathcal{O}=x_{1}P^{(1)}+ x_{2}P^{(2)}+x_{s}P^{(0-s)}+x_{w}P^{(0-w)}+x_{sw}P^{(0-sw)}+x_{ws}P^{(0-ws)},$$ and take into account that $\mathcal{O}\mathcal{O}^{-1}=I$, where $\mathcal{O}^{-1}$ is the propagator, we promptly find
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\mathcal{O}^{-1}&=&\frac{1}{x_{1}}P^{(1)}+\frac{1}{x_{2}}P^{(2)}+\frac{1}{x_{s}x_{w}-x_{sw}x_{ws}}\Big[x_{w}P^{(0-s)}+x_{s}P^{(0-w)}\\&&-x_{sw}P^{(0-sw)}-x_{ws}P^{(0-ws)}\Big] .\end{aligned}$$
From (A.6) and (5) we obtain (6).
A useful result
===============
If $m$ is the mass of a generic physical particle related to a given 3D gravitational model and $k$ is the corresponding exchanged momentum, then
$$(T^2_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}T^2)|_{k^2=m^2}>0 \quad\mathrm{ and}\quad
(T^2_{\mu\nu}-T^2)|_{k^2=0}=0.$$
Here $T^{\mu\nu}(=T^{\nu\mu})$ is the external conserved current.
We begin by remarking that the set of independent vectors in momentum space, $k^{\mu}\equiv(k^{0}, \mathbf{k})$, $\tilde{k}^{\mu}\equiv(k^{0},-\mathbf{k})$, $\epsilon\equiv(0,\hat{\varepsilon})$, where $\hat{\varepsilon}$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $\mathbf{k}$, is a suitable basis for expanding any three-vector $V^{\mu}(k)$. Using this basis we can write the symmetric current tensor as follows $$T^{\mu\nu}=Ak^{\mu}k^{\nu}+B\tilde{k}^{\mu}\tilde{k}^{\nu}+C\epsilon^{\mu}\epsilon^{\nu}+Dk^{(\mu} \tilde{k}^{\nu)}+Ek^{(\mu}\epsilon^{\nu)}+F\tilde{k}^{(\mu}\epsilon^{\nu)},$$ where $a^{(\mu}b^{\nu)}\equiv\frac{1}{2}(a^{\mu}b^{\nu}+b^{\mu}a^{\nu})$.
The current conservations gives the following constraints on the coefficients $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, $E$, and $F$: $$\begin{aligned}
Ak^{2}+\frac{D}{2}(k_{0}^{2}+\mathbf{k}^{2})&=&0\\
B(k_{0}^{2}+\mathbf{k}^{2})+\frac{D}{2}k^{2}&=&0\\
Ek^{2}+F(k_{0}^{2}+\mathbf{k}^{2})&=&0\end{aligned}$$
From Eqs. (B1) and (B2), we get $Ak^{4}+B(k_{0}^{2}+\mathbf{k}^{2})^{2}$, while Eq. (B3) implies $E^{2}>F^{2}$. On the other hand, saturating the indices of $T^{\mu\nu}$ with momenta $k_{\mu}$, we arrive at a consistent relation for the coefficients $A$, $B$, and $D$:
$$Ak^{4}+B(k_{0}^{2}+\mathbf{k}^{2})^{2}+Dk^{2}(k_{0}^{2}+\mathbf{k}^{2})=0.$$
After a lengthy but otherwise straightforward calculation using the earlier equations, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mu\nu}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}T^{2}&=&\Bigg[\frac{k^{2}(A-B)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{C}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigg]^{2}\nonumber +\frac{k^{2}}{2}(E^{2}-F^{2}),\\
T_{\mu\nu}^{2}-T^{2}&=&k^{2}\Bigg[\frac{1}{2}(E^{2}-F^{2})-2C(A-B)\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, $$(T_{\mu\nu}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}T^{2})|_{k^2=m^{2}}>0 \quad\mathrm{and} \quad(T_{\mu\nu}^{2}-T^{2})|_{k^{2}=0}=0.$$
[^1]: The massless excitation, like the massless excitation of 3D general relativity, is a not a dynamical degree of freedom, i.e., it is nonpropagating.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Since Shor’s algorism was proposed, many studies have been carried out with a view to realize a quantum computer. The “computational” basis of a quantum computer is any superposition of two states, called “qubit” defined as $|\psi >=\cos \theta |0>+\sin \theta e^{i\alpha }|1>$, corresponding to classical(0,1) bit. Therefore, n-qubit can represent an arbitrary combination of $2^n$ informational states. It has been pointed out, with quantum mechanical effects of a parallel computation and interference, that an arbitrary physical system is efficiently simulated by a quantum computer.
Semiconductor quantum dots are attractive material for the quantum computation with its discrete electronic states and with its solid-state properties. Recently, technologies concerning the InAs/GaAs self-assembled quantum dots\[1\], \[2\] has been greatly developed especially with its closely stacking technique\[3\], \[4\], \[5\]. The InAs islands are found to align in the growth direction, as long as the GaAs barrier is thin enough below some 15nm, to form a column of InAs islands. We can control the tunneling barrier between quantum dots and also we can control effective height of a quantum dot by letting electronic wave function penetrating through nm-thick GaAs layers. Also, though electrons in quantum dots especially in the excited states are said to have short decoherence time, electron spins in quantum dots are believed to have much longer decoherence time. With these features in mind, we propose to use electron spins in three coupled quantum dots with different size, for the logic gates(one-bit rotation and controlled-NOT)\[6\] which can be operated by static and rotational (time-dependent) magnetic field and resonant optical pulses. With the different dot size, we can use the energy selectivity of both photon assisted tunneling and spin rotation of electrons.
[**Model**]{} We consider only the electronic ground state of the quantum dot. We apply a static magnetic field [**B**]{} $=(0,0,B)$ along the $z$ axis. [*[Zeeman effect]{}*]{} causes the spin splitting of the electronic ground state of a quantum dot with the energy splitting, $\Delta E$ (Fig. 1),\
$$\displaystyle
\Delta E=E(\uparrow )-E(\downarrow )=\mu_{B} g B\ .$$ Here, $\mu_{B}$ and $g$ denote the Bohr magneton and the effective g-factor of an electron.
According to the [**k**]{}$\cdot $[**p**]{} perturbation, the effective g-factor varies with the structure of the dot. For example, the g-factor of a sphere of “A” material embedded in “B” material is given by\[7\]\
\
$
\displaystyle
g(R)=g_{0}+[g_{A}(E)-g_{0}]w_{A}$ $$\displaystyle
+[g_{B}(E)-g_{0}]w_{B}
+[g_{B}(E)-g_{A}(E)]V(R)f^{2}(R)$$ where $R$ is the dot radius, $g_{0}$ is Land$\grave {\mbox e}$ factor$(g_{0}\sim 2)$, $f(r)$ is the real part of the spinor envelope function, $g_{A}(E)(g_{B}(E))$ is the electron g-factor of “$A(B)$” material in the bulk, $V(R)$ is the volume of the dot and $w_{A}(w_{B})$ is $\int d{\bf r}f^{2}(r)$ taken over the “$A(B)$” volume. For instance, for a ${\mbox {GaAs/Al}}_{0.35}{\mbox {Ga}}_{0.65}\mbox {As}$ quantum dot, the effective g-factor of an electron was calculated to vary from -0.25 to 0.3 as the dot radius was varied from 5 nm to 15 nm.
[**Electronic States**]{} Now, we consider three dots with different sizes under a static magnetic field ${\bf B}=(0,0,B)$. It causes the three electronic ground states splitted into six states, $|i>_{k}$ with energy, $$\displaystyle
E_{i,k}=E_{k}+(-1)^{i}\mu _{B}g_{k}B/2 .$$ Here, $k$ denotes the number of the three dots and $i(=0,1)$ indicates the up and down spin states of the dot. We can make differences of the energy of six states all different by using the size dependence of the effective g-factor of an electron (Fig. 2). In fact, the difference of the energy of six states are described as, $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
& &\Delta E_{ijkl}=E_{i,k}-E_{j,l}\nonumber \\
& &
=E_{k}-E_{l}\nonumber \\
& & \ +(-1)^{i}\mu _{B}g_{k}B/2-(-1)^{j}\mu _{B}g_{l}B/2\\
& &\ \ \ (\{ i,j\} \in \{ 0,1\} \ ,\ \{ k,l\} \in \{ C,S,T\}) .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We shine the (linearly polarized) resonant light which is resonant to the difference of the energy of six states. In the optical transition of the electron state by the resonant light, the spin state is conserved, $(i=j)$. Therefore, the operator, $C_{iikl}$, that indicates the optical transition between electronic states confined in the $k$-th quantum dot and the state in the $l$-th dot, is described as $$\displaystyle
C_{iikl}\ : \ \ |i>_{k} \longleftrightarrow |i>_{l}\ .$$ Here, we consider a three-quantum-dots system that has two-electrons. We only consider the coulomb energy, $U$ between two electrons in the same dot and neglect the electron-electron interaction otherwise. Also, we assume that $U$ is sufficiently larger than energy differences of single electron states. Therefore, we can neglect the possibilities of two electrons in a single dot.
[**One-bit Rotation**]{} The qubit can be represented by the spin-1/2 state, $|\psi >=\cos \theta |\uparrow >+\sin \theta e^{i\alpha }|\downarrow >$, of an electron confined in a quantum dot\[8\]. We apply a static magnetic field [**B**]{} $=(0,0,B)$ for the zeeman splitting of the electronic ground state (Fig. 1). In addition, we apply a rotational magnetic field, resonant to the zeeman splitting $$\displaystyle
B_{rot}=B_{1}\cos \omega _{B} t . \ \ \ \ (\hbar \omega _{B}=\mu _{B} g B)\ .$$ An inversion of qubit states, $|0>$ and $|1>$, can be realized by the $\pi $ pulse of the rotational magnetic field, $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
R|\psi>&=&\nonumber R[\cos \theta |0>+\sin \theta e^{i\alpha }|1>]\\
\ &=&\cos \theta |1>+\sin \theta e^{i\alpha }|0>\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $R$ denotes the unitary operator of the rotational magnetic field. If the n-qubit system is formed by n-dot with different sizes, we can rotate selectively the qubit with specific Zeeman Energy.
[**Controlled-NOT**]{} In Fig. 2, we assign that the left “C” quantum dot as a [*control dot*]{}, the right “T” dot as a [*target dot*]{} and the center “S” dot as a [*swap dot*]{}. The controlled-NOT gate is realized by making the electron of “T” dot tunnel to the “S” dot depending on the spin state of the “C” dot, followed by application of magnetic $\pi $ pulse to the spin of the “T” dot. Here, we use the resonant transition by the optical pulse for the electron tunneling, i.e. photon assisted tunneling. The operator of the tunneling used are defined as, $$\displaystyle
C_{1}=C_{11CS} \ \ , \ C_{2}=C_{11ST} \ \ , \ C_{3}=C_{00ST}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
C_{1}\ &:&\nonumber \ \ |1>_{C} \longleftrightarrow |1>_{S}\\
C_{2}\ &:& \ \ |1>_{S} \longleftrightarrow |1>_{T}\\
C_{3}\ &:&\nonumber \ \ |0>_{S} \longleftrightarrow |0>_{T}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Also, we can invert selectly the target bit. This unitary operation is described by the rotational magnetic field operator, $R_{T}$, $$\displaystyle
R_{T}\ : \ \ |0>_{T} \longleftrightarrow |1>_{T}\ .$$
Details of the controlled-NOT operation are as follows. First, we assume the initial state where two-electrons are separately in the control dot and target dot, and swap dot has no electron; $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
(\alpha |0>_{C}+\beta |1>_{C})(\gamma |0>_{T}+\delta |1>_{T})\nonumber \\
\alpha ^{2}+\beta ^{2}=1\ ,\ \gamma ^{2}+\delta ^{2}=1\ .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Second, we perform unitary operations, $\displaystyle CN\equiv C_{1}C_{2}C_{3}R_{T}C_{3}C_{2}C_{1}$, to the initial state. Fig. 3 shows the states realized by these operations. Consequently, states of qubits of control dot and target dot, transform as follows,\
\
$\displaystyle
CN(\alpha |0>_{C}+\beta |1>_{C})(\gamma |0>_{T}+\delta |1>_{T})$\
\
$\displaystyle
=\alpha |0>_{C}(\gamma |0>_{T}+\delta |1>_{T})$ $$\displaystyle
+\beta |1>_{C}(\gamma |1>_{T}+\delta |0>_{T})\ .$$ This is the controlled-NOT operation, $\displaystyle |\epsilon _{C}>|\epsilon _{T}> \ \rightarrow |\epsilon _{C}>|\epsilon _{C}\otimes \epsilon _{T}>$(modulo2).
Here, we discuss the advantage of the energy selectivity of our model. With the energy selectivity, we can extend the model to many coupled dots with many qubits. Let us discuss the practical use of the selectivity by considering detuning effect on the error factor of the gate operation. First, we consider the simple two-level system. The flopping frequency is described as $$\displaystyle
\tilde \Omega =\sqrt {\Omega ^{2}+(\omega _{0}-\omega)^{2}}$$ where $(\omega _{0}-\omega )$ and $\Omega $ denote the detuning frequency and the Rabi frequency. We look for the condition that by an $\pi $ pulse of selected resonant transition, the 2n$\pi $ transition occurs to the detuned (non-selected) system, i.e. , $$\displaystyle
\pi /\Omega =2\pi n/\tilde {\Omega } \ \ \ \ (n=1,2,3,\cdots ) .$$ Here, $\pi /\Omega $ is the “switching time”($T_{sw}$). For $n=1$, the detuning frequency, $\Delta $, is designed to be $$\displaystyle
\Delta =\sqrt {3}\times \Omega =\sqrt {3}\times (\pi /T_{sw})\ \ \ \ \ \ (\Delta \equiv \omega _{0}-\omega) \ \ .$$ The faster the switching time, the larger the detuning. If $T_{sw}$ is 10 ps, the detuning energy, $\hbar \Delta$, is 0.36 meV. Second, we consider the three-level system, or the “Vee” System\[9\]. We require larger detuning than the two-level system for the same maximum probability of “unintentional” transition. Fig. 4 shows the calculated change of 3 diagonal matrix elements of “Vee” System. The $\pi $ pulse ends at about 10 ps at which the “intentional” state “2” is almost fully populated. The “unintentional” state “3” is also populated but with a probability of less than 0.05. Here, the detuning frequency for 1 $\leftrightarrow$ 3 transition, $\Delta _{13}$, is set to be $2\sqrt {3}$ times the Rabi frequency of 1 $\leftrightarrow$ 2 transition, $\Omega _{12}$.
Let us go back to our model. First, the one-bit rotation gate operations at quantum dots can be seen as assembly of two-level transitions. The Rabi frequency is given by\[10\], $$\displaystyle
\Omega _{Ri}=g_{i}\mu _{B} B_{1} / \hbar$$ where $g_{i}$ and $B_{1}$ denote the electron g-factor of $i$-th dot and the amplitude of the rotational magnetic field. The requirement for the smallest detuning is $$\displaystyle
\Delta =|g_{i}-g_{j}|\mu _{B}B/\hbar \ge \sqrt {3}\Omega _{Ri} \ \ (i\neq j).$$
There are two requirements for the optical $\pi $ pulse. First, the error caused by the difference of the spin (such as $C_{2}$ and $C_{3}$ in Fig. 2) can again be treated by the two-level system, and $$\displaystyle
||\Delta E_{00kl}|-|\Delta E_{11kl}||\ge \sqrt {3}\hbar \Omega _{op}.$$ Here $\Omega _{op}$ is the Rabi frequency of optical transitions which we design by the switching time as, $\pi /\Omega _{op}=T_{sw}$. The error caused by the choice of the quantum dot (such as $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ transitions) can be discussed by the “Vee” System. Therefore, the requirement is $$\displaystyle
||\Delta E_{iikl}|-|\Delta E_{iilm}||\ge 2\sqrt {3}\hbar \Omega _{op}$$ where $i$ and ${k,l,m}$ denote the spin and quantum dots.
Now we consider an example of a simplified model of InAs/GaAs quantum dots\[11\]. We assume that the switching times of one operation, $R_{T}$, $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$ and $C_{3}$, are about 10 ps and static magnetic field, $B$ is 10 T. We assume the parabolic potential in the $xy$ plane and the square well in the $z$ axis. Then, the spinor wave function, $u_{s}=f_{z}\times f_{r}$, is\
$$f_{z}= \left \{
\begin {array}{l@{\quad : \quad }l}
C_{z}\cos [kz] & |z| \leq d \\
C_{z}\cos [kd] \exp [-\kappa (|z|-d)] & |z|\ge d\\
\end {array} \right.$$ $$f_{r}=
\begin {array}{l@{\quad : \quad }l}
C_{lt}\exp [-\omega _{lt} r^{2}] & r^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}\\
\end {array}$$ $
\displaystyle
k=\sqrt { 2m_{A}(E)E/\hbar ^{2}}\ ,\ \omega _{lt}=\pi/8d_{lt}$\
$\ \ \ ,\ \kappa =\sqrt {2m_{B}(E)(\Delta E_{c}-E)/ \hbar ^{2}}\
$\
where $2d$ and $d_{lt}$ denote the well width and the lateral extension. The effective electron g-factor is described by $$\displaystyle
g_{zz}=g_{0}+g_{zz}^{(2)}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
g^{(2)}_{zz} B_{z}&=&2\int d{\bf r} [u_{s}({\bf A}\times {\bf \nabla })_{z}
u_{s} ] (g(E)-g_{0}) \nonumber \\
&=&2\int d{\bf r}u_{s}^{2}(g(E)-g_0)B_{z} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where [**A**]{} denotes the vector potential. By using conditions (17)-(19) we could show that 9 quantum dots (5 qubits and 4 swap dots) can be controlled selectively with error rate of less than 0.1 (Fig. 5), (Table. I). This is not yet the optimized value. However, it is already large enough to demonstrate the potentiality of our model. So far we have assumed that the magnetic fields and optical pulses are specially uniform. If we can locally apply magnetic fields and optical pulses, the number of qubits could be infinite.
In summary, we have proposed the simple model of a quantum computer, using 6 levels of two-electrons confined in the three quantum dots. The basic ideas are 1) we neglect higher states of the electron confined by a quantum dot except the ground state, 2) The coulomb interaction is large enough to avoid the double occupancy of a quantum dot, 3) We use the electronic spin-1/2 state confined by a quantum dot as the “qubit”, 4) We can operate the one-bit rotation to the qubit which we aim at using the dot size dependence of the effective g-factor of the quantum dot, 5) The controlled-NOT operation is realized by the simple combination of resonant transitions by linearly polarized light and the rotational magnetic field. Also, we have discussed the merit of energy selectivity of our model for its extension to many qubit system.
The authors would like to thank professor R. Morita of Hokkaido University for helpful advises and discussions. The work is done by a Grant-in-Aid Scientific Research on the Priority Area “Spin Controlled Semiconductor Nanostructure” from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.
[REFERENCE]{}
$[1]$ D. Leonard [*et al*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**63**]{}, 3203
(1993).\
$[2]$ J.-Y. Marzin [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 716
(1994).\
$[3]$ Q. Xie, A. Madhukar, P. Chen and N. P.
Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} 2572 (1995).\
$[4]$ G. S. Solomon, J. a. Trezza, A. F. Marshall and
J. S. Harris Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 952 (1996).\
$[5]$ Y. Sugiyama, Y. Nakata, K. Imamura, S. Muto
and N. Yokoyama, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**35**]{}, 1320
(1996).\
$[6]$ A. Barenco [*et al*]{}, Phy. Rev. A. [**52**]{}, 3457 (1995).\
$[7]$ A. A. Kiselev and E. L. Ivchenko, Phy. Rev. B.
[**58**]{}, 16353 (1998).\
$[8]$ D. Loss, and D. P. DiVicenzo, Phy. Rev. A. [**57**]{},
120 (1998).\
$[9]$ B. W. Shore,
*The theory of coherent atomic*
excitation
, Vol. 2.\
$[10]$ C. P. Slichter,
*Principles of Magnetic*
Resonance
.\
$[11]$ C. Hermann [*et al*]{}, Phy. Rev. B. [**15**]{}. 823
(1977).
[CAPTIONS]{}
FIG. 1. Qubit using an electron spin.\
\
FIG. 2. Optical transitions (photon assisted
tunneling), $C_{1}-C_{3}$, and spin rotation, $R_{T}$,
used to realize the controlled-NOT.\
\
FIG. 3. 2 electron states realized during the
controlled-NOT operation.\
\
FIG. 4. Density matrix elements vs time for
the “Vee” system. The $1\rightarrow 2$ transition is
resonantly excited with $\hbar \omega _{2}-\hbar \omega _{1}=10$ meV.
Transition has a detuning, $2\sqrt {3}\Omega _{12}=\hbar \omega _{3}$
$-\hbar \omega _{2}=0.72$ meV.\
\
FIG. 5. The quantization energy, $E_{k}$, and
the zeeman energy, $g_{k}\mu _{B}B$, for the dot heights
chosen for the 9-dot InAs/GaAs system (B=10
T).\
\
TABLE I. The resonant energies for optical
transitions of 9 dots in Fig. 5, showing that the
requirements (17) and (18) of the text are
satisfied. \
\
[E-mail address]{}\
$^{*}$Electronic address: [email protected]\
\
\
TABLE I \
\
k-l $\Delta E_{00kl}$(meV) $\Delta E_{11kl}$(meV)
------------ ------------------------------- -------------------------------
1-2 13.2029 12.4829
2-3 8.9224 8.2024
3-4 16.5682 15.8482
4-5 14.9201 14.2001
5-6 19.2130 18.4930
6-7 22.1300 21.4100
7-8 24.4699 23.7499
8-9 37.3454 36.6254
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Laurent Evain ([email protected])'
title: Intersection theory on punctual Hilbert schemes and graded Hilbert schemes
---
Abstract {#sec:abstract .unnumbered}
========
The rational Chow ring $A^*(S^{[n]},\QQ)$ of the Hilbert scheme $S^{[n]}$ parametrising the length $n$ zero-dimensional subschemes of a toric surface $S$ can be described with the help of equivariant techniques. In this paper, we explain the general method and we illustrate it through many examples. In the last section, we present results on the intersection theory of graded Hilbert schemes.
Résumé {#résumé .unnumbered}
======
Les techniques équivariantes permettent de décrire l’anneau de Chow rationnel $A^*(S^{[n]},\QQ)$ du schéma de Hilbert $S^{[n]}$ paramétrant les sous-schémas ponctuels de longueur $n$ d’une surface torique $S$. Dans cet article, nous présentons la démarche générale et nous l’illustrons au travers de nombreux exemples. La dernière section expose des résultats de théorie d’intersection sur des schémas de Hilbert gradués.
Introduction {#sec:introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface and $S^{[n]}$ the Hilbert scheme parametrising the length $n$ zero-dimensional subschemes of $S$. How to describe the cohomology ring $H^*(S^{[n]},\QQ)$ and the Chow ring $A^*(S^{[n]},\QQ)$ ?
A first approach is based on the work of Nakajima, Grojnowski and Lehn among others [@lehn_sorger01:cup_product_on_Hilbert_schemes], [@vasserot01:anneauCohomologieHilbert], [@lehn_sorger02:cup_product_on_Hilbert_schemes_for_K3], [@liQinWang04mathAG:cohomoDesSchemaHilbertSurface=FibreSurP1], [@costello-grojnowski03:CohomoSchemaHilbertPonctuel]. The direct sum $\oplus_{n\in \NN} H^*(S^{[n]},\QQ)$ is an (infinite dimensional) irreducible representation and carries a Fock space structure [@nakajima97:_heisenberg_et_Hilbert_schemes]. Lehn settles a connection between the Fock space structure and the intersection theory of the Hilbert scheme via the action of the Chern classes of tautological bundles [@lehn99:_chern_classes_of_tautological_sheaves_on_Hilbert_schemes].
An other method, independent of the Fock space formalism introduced by Nakajima, has been developed in [@evain2007:chowRingHilbertTorique] when $S$ is a toric surface. The point is that the extra structure coming from the torus action brings into the scene an equivariant Chow ring which is easier to compute than the classical Chow ring. The classical Chow ring is a quotient of the equivariant Chow ring.
The computations of this equivariant approach are explicit. They rely on the standard description of the cohomology of the Grassmannians and on a description of the tangent space to the Hilbert scheme at fixed points.
The main goal of this paper is to present this equivariant approach. We follow the general theory and we illustrate it with the case $S=\PP^2$ and $n=3$ as the main example.
In the last section, we bring our attention to graded Hilbert schemes, which played an important role in the equivariant computations. We present results on the set theoretic intersection of Schubert cells, which suggest that intersection theory on graded Hilbert schemes could be described in terms of combinatorics of plane partitions.
Throughout the paper, we use the formalism of Chow rings and work over any algebraically closed field $k$. When $k=\CC$, the Chow ring co[ï]{}ncides with usual cohomology since the action of the two-dimensional torus $T$ on $S$ induces an action of $T$ on $S^{[d]}$ with a finite number of fixed points.
Equivariant intersection theory {#sec:equiv-inters-theory}
===============================
General results {#sec:equiv-chow-rings}
---------------
In this section, we recall the facts about equivariant Chow rings that we need. To simplify the presentation, we work with rational coefficients and the notation $A^*(X):=A^*(X,\QQ)$ denotes the rational Chow ring.
The construction of an equivariant Chow ring associated with an algebraic space endowed with an action of a linear algebraic group has been settled by Edidin and Graham [@edidinGraham:constructionDesChowsEquivariants]. Their construction is modeled after the Borel construction in equivariant cohomology.
Let $G$ be an algebraic group, $X$ an equidimensional quasi-projective scheme with a linearized $G$-action and $i,j\in \ZZ$, $i\leq dim(X), j\geq 0$. There exists a representation $V$ of $G$ such that
$V$ contains an open set $U$ on which $G$ acts freely,
$U{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}U/G$ exists as a scheme and is a principal $G$ bundle,
${\mbox{codim}\;}_V V\setminus U> \dim(X)-i$.
The quotient $X_G=(X{\ensuremath{\times}}U)/G$ under the diagonal action exists as a scheme. The groups $A_i^G(X):=A_{i+\dim(V)-\dim(G)}(X_G)$ and $A^j_G(X):=A_{\dim(X)-j}^G(X)$ are independent of the choice of the couple $(U,V)$.
The group $A^i_G(X)$ is by definition the equivariant Chow group of $X$ of degree $i$.
If $G=T= (k^*)^n$ is a torus, then a possible choice for the couple $(U,V)$ is $V=(k^l)^n$ with $l>>0$, and $U=(k^l-\{0\})^n$ with $T$ acting on $V$ by $(t_1,\dots,t_n)(x_1,\dots,x_n)=(t_1x_1,\dots,t_nx_n)$. The quotient $U/T$ is isomorphic to $(\PP^{l-1})^n$.
Let $p$ be a point and $T=(k^*)^n$ the torus acting trivially on $p$. Then $A_T^*(p)\simeq \QQ[h_1,\dots,h_n]$ where $h_i$ has degree $1$ for all $i$.
By the above example, $A^*_T(p)=\lim_{l{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\infty}A^*((\PP^{l-1})^n)=\lim_{l{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\infty}
\QQ[h_1,\dots,h_n]/(h_1^{l},\dots,h_n^{l})=\QQ[h_1,\dots,h_n]$, where $h_i$ has degree $1$ ( according to the definition of the equivariant Chow group, the limit considered is a degreewise stabilisation thus the limit is the polynomial ring and not a power series ring).
If $X$ is smooth, then $(X{\ensuremath{\times}}U)/G$ is smooth too and $A_T^*(X)$ is a ring : the intersection of two classes $u,v\in A_T^*(X)$ takes place in the Chow ring $A^*((X{\ensuremath{\times}}U)/G)$.
The isomorphism $A_T^*(p)\simeq \QQ[h_1,\dots,h_n]$ of the last example is an isomorphism of rings.
Let $E$ be a $G$-equivariant vector bundle on $X$ and $E_G{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}X_G$ the vector bundle with total space $E_G=(E{\ensuremath{\times}}U)/G$. The equivariant Chern class $c_j^G(E)$ is defined by $c_j^G(E)=c_j(E_G)\in
A^j(X_G)=A_G^j(X)$.
The identification of $A_T^*(p)$ with a ring of polynomials $R$ can be made intrinsic using equivariant Chern classes.
Let $\hat T$ be the character group of a torus $T\simeq (k^*)^n$. Any character $\chi\in \hat T$ defines a one-dimensional representation of $T$ by $t.k=\chi(t)k$, hence an equivariant bundle over the point and an equivariant Chern class $c^T_1(\chi)$. The map $\chi{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}c_1^T(\chi)\in A^1_T(p)$ extends to an isomorphism $R=Sym_\QQ(\hat T) {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A_T^*(p)$, where $Sym_\QQ(\hat T)$ is the symmetric algebra over $\QQ$ of the group $\hat T$.
\[exemple:projectiveSpace\] Let $T=k^*$ be the one dimensional torus acting on the projective space $\PP^r=Proj \ k[x_0,\dots,x_r]$ by $t.(x_0:\dots:x_r)=(t^{n_0}x_0:\dots:t^{n_r}x_r)$. Then $A_T^*(\PP^r)=\QQ[t,h]/p(h,t)$ where $p(h,t)=\sum _{i=0}^r h^{r-i}
e_i(n_0t,\dots, n_rt)$, $e_i$ being the $i$-th elementary symmetric polynomial.
$X_T$ is the $\PP^r$ bundle $\PP(\fxo(n_0)\oplus \dots \oplus \fxo(n_r))$ over $\PP^{l-1}$. The rational Chow ring of this projective bundle is $\QQ[h,t]/(p(h,t),t^l)$. We have the result when $l$ tends to $\infty$.
\[exemple:Grassmannian\] Let $V$ be a representation of $G$ and $G(k,V)$ the corresponding Grassmannian. Then $A_G^*(G(k,V))$ is generated as an $R$ module by the equivariant Chern classes of the universal quotient bundle.
The quotient $(G(k,V){\ensuremath{\times}}U)/G$ is a Grassmann bundle over $U/G$ with fiber isomorphic to $G(k,V)$. Since the Chow rings of Grassmann bundles are generated over the Chow ring of the base by the Chern classes of the universal quotient bundle, the result follows.
Results specific to the action of tori {#sec:results-spec-acti}
--------------------------------------
Brion [@brion97:_equivariant_chow_groups] pushed further the theory of equivariant Chow rings when the group is a torus $T$ acting on a variety $X$.
[@brion97:_equivariant_chow_groups]\[thr:restrictionAuxPointsFixesInjective\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective $T$-variety. The restriction morphism $i_T^*:A_T^*X {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A_T^*X^T$ is injective.
Let $T=k^*$ act on $\PP^1$ by $t.(x:y)=(tx:y)$. The inclusion $i_T^*:A_T^*(\PP^1){\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A_T^*(\{0,\infty\})=R^2$ identifies $A_T^*(\PP^1)$ with the couples $(P,Q)$ of polynomials $\in R=\QQ[t]$ such that $P(0)=Q(0)$.
Let $V=Vect(x,y)$ be the 2 dimensional vector space with $\PP(V)=\PP^1$. By the above $A_T^*(\PP^1)$ is generated by the Chern classes of the universal quotient bundle as an $R$-module. On the point $\infty = ky\in \PP(V)$, the quotient bundle $Q$ is isomorphic to $kx$ and $T$ acts with character $t$. Thus $c_1(Q)_{\infty}=t$. Similarly, the restriction of $Q$ to the point $0=kx$ is a trivial equivariant bundle and $c_1(Q)_{0}=0$. Thus $c_1(Q)$ restricted to $\{0,\infty\}$ is $(0,t)$. Obviously, $c_0(Q)=(1,1)$. Thus $A_T^*(\PP^1)=\QQ[t](0,t)+\QQ[t](1,1)$ as expected.
If $T' {\ensuremath{\subset}}T$ is a one codimensional torus, the localisation morphism $i_T^*$ factorizes: $ A_T^*(X){\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A_T^*(X^{T'})\stackrel{i_{T'}^*}{{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}}A_T^*(X^T)=R^{X^T}$. Brion has shown
[@brion97:_equivariant_chow_groups] \[thr:sousToresCodim1\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with an action of $T$. The image $Im(i_T^*)$ satisfies $Im(i_T^*)=\cap_{T'}
Im(i_{T'}^*)$ where the intersection runs over all subtori $T'$ of codimension one in $T$.
An important point is that the equivariant Chow groups determine the usual Chow groups. The fibers of $X_T{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}U/T$ are isomorphic to $X$. Let $j:X {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}X_T$ be the inclusion of a fiber and $j^*:A_T^*(X){\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A^*(X)$ the corresponding restriction.
[@brion97:_equivariant_chow_groups] Let $R^+=\hat TR {\ensuremath{\subset}}R$ be the set of polynomials with positive valuation. The morphism $j^*$ is surjective with kernel $R^+ A_T^*(X)$.
$A^*(\PP^1)=(\QQ[t](t,0)+\QQ[t](1,1))/(\QQ[t]^+(t,0)+\QQ[t]^+(1,1))
\simeq \QQ[t]/(t^2)$. The isomorphism sends $(P=\sum p_it^i,Q=\sum q_i
t_i)$ with $p_0=q_0$ to $(p_0,p_1-q_1)$.
Finally, we have an equivariant Kunneth formula for the restriction to fixed points, proved in [@evain2007:chowRingHilbertTorique].
\[thm:kunneth\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective $T$-varieties with finite set of fixed points $X^T$ and $Y^T$. Let $A_T^*(X){\ensuremath{\subset}}R^{X^T}$, $A_T^*(Y){\ensuremath{\subset}}R^{Y^T}$, and $A_T^*(X{\ensuremath{\times}}Y){\ensuremath{\subset}}R^{X^T{\ensuremath{\times}}Y^T}$ the realisation of their equivariant Chow rings via localisation to fixed points. The canonical isomorphism $ R^{X^T} {\otimes }_R R^{Y^T}\simeq R^{X^T{\ensuremath{\times}}Y^T}$ sends $A_T^*(X){\otimes }A_T^*(Y)$ to $A_T^*(X{\ensuremath{\times}}Y)$.
\[ex:produit\] Let $T$ be the one dimensional torus acting on $\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1$ by $t.([x_1,y_1],[x_2:y_2])= ([tx_1,y_1],[tx_2:y_2])$. For each copy of $\PP^1$, $A_T^*(\PP^1)$ is generated as an $R$-module, by the elements $e=1.\{0\}+1.\{\infty\}=(1,1)$ and $f=0.\{0\}+t.\{\infty\}=(0,t)$. By the Kunneth formula, $A_T^*(\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1){\ensuremath{\subset}}\QQ[t]^4$ is generated by the elements $(1,1,1,1)=(1,1){\otimes }(1,1)$, $(0,t,0,t)=(1,1){\otimes }(0,t)$, $(0,0,t,t)=(0,t){\otimes }(1,1)$, $(0,0,0,t^2)=(0,t){\otimes }(0,t)$ where the coordinates are the coefficients with respect to the four points $(a,b)\in \PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1$ with $a,b\in
\{0,\infty\}$.
### The strategy {#sec:strategy .unnumbered}
Let’s sum up the situation. The equivariant Chow ring $A_T^*(X)$ satisfies the usual functorial properties of a Chow ring: there is an induced pushforward for a proper morphism , an induced pull-back for a flat morphism, equivariant vector bundles have equivariant Chern classes... When the fixed point set $X^T$ is finite, the computations are identified with calculations in products of polynomial rings.
Since it is possible to recover the usual Chow ring from the equivariant Chow ring, the point is to compute the equivariant Chow ring and its restriction to fixed points. The strategy that will be followed in the case of the Hilbert schemes is to use theorem \[thr:sousToresCodim1\] above. It is not obvious a priori that the geometry and the equivariant Chow rings of $(S^{[n]})^{T'}$ and their restriction to fixed points are easier to describe than the equivariant Chow ring of the original variety $S^{[n]}$. This is precisely the work to be done.
Iarrobino varieties and graded Hilbert scheme
=============================================
In our computations of the Chow ring of the Hilbert scheme, a central role will be played by the Iarrobino varieties or graded Hilbert schemes that we introduce now.
Fix a set of dimensions $H=(H_d)_{d \in \NN}$ such that $H_d=0$ for $d>>0$.
The Iarrobino variety $\HH_{hom,H}$ is the set of homogeneous ideals $I=\oplus
I_d{\ensuremath{\subset}}k[x,y]$ of colength $\sum_d H_d$ such that $codim(I_d,k[x,y]_d)=H_d$. This is a subvariety of $\GG=\prod_{d\ s.t.\ H_d\neq 0} Grass(H_d,k[x,y]_d)$. Moreover, $\HH_{hom,H}$ is empty or irreducible.
Each vector space $I_d$ corresponds to a point in the Grassmannian $Grass(H_d,k[x,y]_d)$ and $I$ corresponds to a point in the product $\GG=\prod
Grass(H_d,k[x,y]_d)$. Accordingly, $\HH_{hom,H}$ is a subvariety of $\GG$. The irreducibility of $\HH_{hom,H}$ is shown in [@iarrobino77:_punctual_hilbert_schemes_AMS].
The Chow ring $A_*(\HH_{hom,H})$ is related to the Chow ring of $\GG$, as shown by King and Walter [@king_walter95:generateurs_anneaux_chow_espace_modules].
Let $i:\HH_{hom,H}\hookrightarrow \GG$ denote the inclusion. The pull back $i^*:A^*(\GG){\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A^*(\HH_{hom,H})$ is surjective.
There are natural generalisations of the Iarrobino varieties, introduced by Haiman and Sturmfels [@haiman_sturmfels02:multigradedHilbertSchemes] and called graded Hilbert schemes. In our case, the graded Hilbert schemes we are interested in are the quasi-homogeneous Hilbert schemes.
Let $weight(x)=a\in \NN$,$weight(y)=b\in \NN$ with $(a,b)\neq
(0,0)$. Consider the set $\HH_{ab,H}$ of quasi-homogeneous ideals $I=\oplus_{d\in \NN} I_d{\ensuremath{\subset}}k[x,y]$ with $codim(I_d,k[x,y]_d)=H_d$. There is a closed embedding $i:\HH_{ab,H}\hookrightarrow \GG=\Pi_{d\in \NN, H_d\neq 0}
Grass(H(d),k[x,y]_d)$.
We could also consider the case $a\in \ZZ$ and/or $b\in \ZZ$. However when $ab<0$, $\HH_{ab,H}$ would be empty or a point. Moreover, changing $(a,b)$ with $(-a,-b)$ gives an isomorphic graduation. Consequently, any non trivial variety $\HH_{ab,H}$ can be realized with $a\geq 0$ and $b\geq 0$. We thus consider $a\in \NN$ and $b\in \NN$ without loss of generality.
One wants to extend in this context the results by Iarrobino and King-Walter.
Extending Iarrobino’s irreducibility result is possible, but not immediate, as Iarrobino’s argument does not extend.
[@evain04:irreductibiliteDesHilbertGradues] The graded Hilbert scheme $\HH_{ab,H}$ is empty or irreducible.
*Idea of the proof.* Since $\HH_{ab,H}$ is smooth as the fixed locus of $({{\mathbb{A}}^2})^{[\sum
H_d]}$ under the action of a one dimensional torus, irreducibility is equivalent to connectedness. To prove connectedness, $\HH_{ab,H}$ admits a stratification where the cells are the inverse images of the product of Schubert cells on $\GG$ by the immersion $\HH_{ab,H}{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\GG$. Each cell is an affine space. The cells being connected spaces, it suffices to connect together the different cells to prove the connectedness of $\HH_{ab,H}$. To this aim, one writes down explicit flat families over $\PP^1$. These flat families correspond to curves drawn on $\HH_{ab,H}$ that give the link between the different cells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The arguments of King and Walter generalise easily to the quasi-homogeneous case. Moreover, the affine plane ${{\mathbb{A}}^2}$ is a toric variety. The action of $T=k^*{\ensuremath{\times}}k^*$ on ${{\mathbb{A}}^2}$ induces an action of $T$ on $\HH_{ab,H}$. It is possible to generalise the results of King-Walter to the equivariant setting. With minor modifications of their method, one gets the following theorem.
The natural restriction morphisms $i^*:A^*(\GG){\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A^*(\HH_{ab,H})$ and $i_T^*:A_T^*(\GG){\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A_T^*(\HH_{ab,H})$ are surjective.
The above theorem induces a description of $A_T^*(\HH_{ab,H})$. Indeed, if $j: (\HH_{ab,H})^T{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\HH_{ab,H}$ is the inclusion of the $T$-fixed points, then $A^*(\HH_{ab,H})=im(j_T^*)=im(ij)_T^*$ and the computation of $(ij)_T^*:A_T^*(\GG) {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A_T^*(\HH_{ab,H}^T)$ follows easily from the description of $A_T^*(\GG)$ using equivariant Chern classes.
\[exemple:calculChowHilbertGradue\] Let $\HH_{hom,H}$ be the Iarrobino variety parametrising the homogeneous ideals in $k[x,y]$ with Hilbert function $H=(1,1,0,0,\dots)$. The torus $T=k^*$ acts by $t(x,y)=(tx,y)$. The two fixed points are the ideals $(x^2,y)$ and $(x,y^2)$. The Iarrobino variety $\HH_{hom,H}$ embeds in the Grassmannian $Grass(1,k[x,y]_1)$ of one dimensional subspace of linear forms. The universal quotient $Q$ over the Grassmannian is a $T$-bundle. Its restriction over the points $(x^2,y)$ and $(x,y^2)$ is a $T$-representation corresponding to the characters $t \mapsto t$ and $t\mapsto 1$. Thus the first Chern class of the universal quotient is $(t,0)\in
R^{\HH_{hom,H}^T}=R^2$. Finally $A_T^*\HH_{hom,H}= (c_1^T(Q),c_0^T(Q))=R(t,0)+R(1,1)$.
Geometry of the fixed locus {#sec:geometry-fixed-locus}
===========================
Geometry of $(S^{[d]})^T$ {#sec:geometry-sdt}
-------------------------
Let $S$ be a smooth projective toric surface. The 2-dimensional torus $T$ which acts on $S$ acts naturally on $S^{[d]}$. According to theorems \[thr:restrictionAuxPointsFixesInjective\] and \[thr:sousToresCodim1\], one main ingredient to describe the equivariant Chow ring $A_T^*(S^{[d]})$ is to describe the geometry of the fixed loci $(S^{[d]})^T$ and $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ of the Hilbert scheme $S^{[d]}$ under the action of the two dimensional torus $T$ and under the action of any one-dimensional torus $T'{\ensuremath{\subset}}T$.
Consider the example $S={\PP^2}=Proj\ k[X,Y,Z]$ and $({\PP^2})^{[3]}$ the associated Hilbert scheme. The action of $T=k^*{\ensuremath{\times}}k^*$ on $\PP^2$ is $(t_1,t_2).X^aY^bZ^c=(t_1X)^a(t_2Y)^bZ^c$. First, we describe the finite set $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^T$. Obviously, a subscheme $Z\in (({\PP^2})^{[3]})^T$ has a support included in $\{p_1,p_2,p_3\}$ where the $p_i$’s are the toric points of ${\PP^2}$ fixed under $T$. Through each toric point, there are two toric lines with local equations $x=0$ and $y=0$. Since $Z$ is $T$-invariant, the ideal $I(Z)$ is locally generated by monomials $x^\alpha y^\beta$. 
Using the two lines, we can represent graphically the monomials $x^\alpha y^\beta$ as shown. An ideal $I{\ensuremath{\subset}}k[x,y]$ generated by monomials is represented by the set of monomials which are not in the ideal. For instance, the ideal $(x^2,y)$ which does not contain the monomials $1,x$ is drawn in the above figure.
In $({\PP^2})^{[3]}$, there are a finite number of subschemes invariant under the action of the two-dimensional torus. Up to permutation of the projective variables $X,Y,Z$ of ${\PP^2}$, there are five such subschemes $A,B,C,D,E$.
By the above, the invariant subschemes are represented by monomials around each toric point of ${\PP^2}$. The number of monomials is the degree of the subscheme, ie. 3 in our situation. Up to permutation of the axes, all the possible cases $A,B,C,D,E$ are given in the picture.
In general, we have:
The points of $(S^{[d]})^{T}$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the tuples of staircases $(E_i)_{i\in S^T}$ such that $\sum_{i\in
S^T}cardinal(E_i)=d$.
Tangent space at $p\in (S^{[d]})^{T}$
-------------------------------------
We recall the description of the tangent space at a point $p\in (S^{[d]})^{T}$ ([@evain04:irreductibiliteDesHilbertGradues], but see also [@ellingsrud-stromme87:chow_group_of_hilbert_schemes] for an other description) .
For simplicity, we suppose that the subscheme $p$ is supported by a single point. Recall that we have associated to $p$ the staircase $F$ of monomials $x^a y^b$ not in $I(p)$ where $x,y$ are the toric coordinates around the support of $p$. A cleft for $F$ is a monomial $m=x^ay^b \notin F$ with ($a=0$ or $x^{a-1}y^b\in F$) and ($b=0$ or $x^{a}y^{b-1}\in F$). We order the clefts of $F$ according to their $x$-coordinates: $c_1=y^{b_1},c_2=x^{a_2}y^{b_2},\dots,c_p=x^{a_p}$ with $a_1=0<a_2<\dots<a_p$. An $x$-cleft couple for $F$ is a couple $C=(c_k,m)$, where $c_k$ is a cleft ($k\neq p$), $m\in F$, and $mx^{a_{k+1}-a_k}\notin F$. By symmetry, there is a notion of $y$-cleft couple for $F$. The set of cleft couples is by definition the union of the ($x$ or $y$)-cleft couples.
The vector space $T_pS^{[d]}$ is in bijection with the formal sums $\sum \lambda_i C_i$, where $C_i$ is a cleft couple for $p$.
$({\PP^2})^{[3]}$ is a 6 dimensional variety. A basis for the tangent space at a point with local equation $(x^2,xy,y^2)$ is the set of cleft couples shown in the figure.
With equivariant techniques, it is desirable to describe the tangent space as a representation. The torus $T$ acts on the monomials $c_k$ and $m$ with characters $\chi_k$ and $\chi_m$. We let $\chi_C=\chi_m-\chi_k$.
Under the correspondence of the above theorem, the cleft couple $C$ is an eigenvector for the action of $T$ with character $\chi_C$.
Geometry of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ {#geometry-of-sdt}
----------------------------
We come now to the description of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ where $T'$ is a one-dimensional subtorus of $T$. We start with an example.
\[exempleDeBase\] If $S={\PP^2}$ and $T'\simeq k^*$ acts on ${{\mathbb{A}}^2}{\ensuremath{\subset}}{\PP^2}$ via $t.(x,y)=(tx,ty)$ the irreducible components of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ through the points ${A,B,C,D,E}$ are isomorphic to an isolated point, $ \PP^1,
\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1,\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1,\PP^2$.
*Proof.* The tangent space to $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ at a point $p\in
(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T}$ is the tangent space to $({\PP^2})^{[3]}$ invariant under $T'$. Using the description of the tangent space to $({\PP^2})^{[3]}$ as a representation in the previous section, one computes the dimension of the tangent space of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ at each of the points ${A,B,C,D,E}$. The corresponding dimensions are $0,1,2,2,2$.
In particular, an irreducible variety through $A$ (resp. $B,C,D,E$) invariant under $T'$ with dimension $0$ (resp. $1,2,2,2$) is the irreducible component of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ through ${A}$ (resp. through ${B,C,D,E}$). It thus suffices to exhibit such irreducible varieties.
$A$ is an isolated point and there is nothing to do.
The component $\PP^1$ passing through $B$ can be described geometrically. The set of lines through the origin of $\AA^2$ is a $\PP^1$. To each such line $D$, we consider the subscheme $Z$ of degree $3$ supported by the origin and included in $D$. The set of such subschemes $Z$ moves in a $\PP^1$. It is the component of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ through $B$. This component can be identified with the Iarrobino variety with Hilbert function $H=(1,1,1,0,0,\dots)$.
With the same set of lines through the origin, one can consider the subschemes $Z$ of degree $2$ supported by the origin and included in a line $D$. Since $Z$ moves in a $\PP^1$, $Z \cup p$ where $p$ is a point on the line at infinity moves in a $\PP^1 {\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1$. It is a component through $C$ and $D$.
Finally, a subscheme $Z$ of degree $2$ included in the line at infinity moves in a ${\PP^2}$. Thus the union of $Z$ and the origin moves in a ${\PP^2}$ which is the component of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ through $E$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following proposition says that all but a finite number of representations of $T'$ give a trivial result.
Let $a$ and $b$ be coprime with $|a|\geq 3$ or $|b|\geq 3$. Suppose that $T'=k^*$ acts on ${{\mathbb{A}}^2}{\ensuremath{\subset}}{\PP^2}$ via $t.(x,y)=(t^ax,t^by)$. Then the irreducible components of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ through the points ${A,B,C,D,E}$ are isolated points.
The tangent space at these points is trivial.
We see in the examples that the irreducible components of $(\PP^2)^{T'}$ are the three toric points of ${\PP^2}$ for a general $T'$. For some special $T'$, there are two components, namely a toric point and the line joining the remaining two toric points.
For a general toric surface $S$, the situation is similar.
For any $T'$ one codimensional subtorus of $T$, $S^{T'}$ is made up of isolated toric points $(w_i)$ and of toric lines $(y_j)$ joining pairs of the remaining toric points.
We denote by $PFix(T')=\{w_i\}$ the set of isolated toric points in $S^{T'}$ and by $LFix(T')=\{y_j\}$ the set of lines in $S^{T'}$.
In the $(\PP^2)^{[3]}$ example, we identified the irreducible components of $((\PP^2)^{[3]})^{T'}$ with products $B_1{\ensuremath{\times}}\dots {\ensuremath{\times}}B_r$ of projective spaces. Some of the projective spaces were identified with a graded Hilbert scheme. For instance, the component of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ through $B$ has been identified with the Iarrobino variety with Hilbert function $H=(1,1,1,0,0,\dots)$.
In general, the irreducible components of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ are products $B_1{\ensuremath{\times}}\dots {\ensuremath{\times}}B_r$ where the components $B_i$ are projective spaces or graded Hilbert schemes.
Let’s look at the situation more closely to describe these components. If $Z \in (S^{[d]})^{T'}$, the support of $Z$ is invariant under $T'$. The invariant locus in $S$ is a union of isolated points $(w_i)$ and lines $(y_i)$. We denote by $W_i(Z)$ and $Y_i(Z)$ the subscheme of $Z$ supported respectively by the point $w_i$ and by the line $y_i$. By construction, we have:
A subscheme $Z \in (S^{[d]})^{T'}$ admits a decomposition $Z=\cup_{w_i \in PFix(T')} W_i(Z) \cup_{y_i \in LFix(T')} Y_i(Z)$.
Obviously, $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ is not irreducible : when $Z$ moves in in a connected component, the degree of $W_i(Z)$ and $Y_i(Z)$ should be constant. But fixing the degree of $W_i(Z)$ and $Y_i(Z)$ is not sufficient to characterize the irreducible components of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ as shown by the components identified in example \[exempleDeBase\].
The components of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ through $A$ and $B$ are 2 distinct Iarrobino varieties corresponding to the same degrees $3$ on the point $(0,0)$ in $\AA^2$ and 0 on the line at infinity.
The finer invariant which distinguishes the irreducible components is similar to the one used for the Iarrobino varieties. It is a Hilbert function taking into account the graduation provided by the action.
Let $O_A=k[x,y]/(x^2,xy,y^2)$ and $O_B=k[x,y]/(y,x^3)$ be the ring functions corresponding to the points $A$ and $B$ in example \[exempleDeBase\]. The action of $T'$ on $O_A$ is diagonalizable with characters $1,t,t$ whereas the action of $T'$ on $O_B$ acts with characters $1,t,t^2$.
Let $Z={Spec\ }O_Z\in (S^{[d]})^{T'}$. The torus $T'$ acts on $O_Z$ with a diagonalizable action. In symbols, $
O_Z=\oplus V_{\chi}$, where $V_{\chi}{\ensuremath{\subset}}O_Z$ is the locus where $T'$ acts through the character $\chi \in
\hat{T'}$.
If $Z \in (S^{[d]})^{T'}$, we define $\underline H_Z:\hat{T'}{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\NN$, $\chi {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\dim V_{\chi}$ and we let $Z=\cup W_i(Z) \cup Y_i(Z)$ the decomposition of $Z$ introduced above. The tuple of functions $H_Z=(\underline
H_{W_i(Z)},\underline H_{Y_i(Z)})$ indexed by the connected components $\{w_i,y_j\}$ of $S^{T'}$ is by definition the Hilbert function associated to $Z$.
[@evain04:irreductibiliteDesHilbertGradues] The set of Hilbert functions $H_Z=(\underline H_{W_i(Z)},\underline H_{Y_i(Z)})$ corresponding to the subschemes $Z\in (S^{[d]})^{T'}$ is a finite set. Moreover, the irreducible components of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ are in one-to-one correspondence with this set of Hilbert functions $H_Z$.
The decomposition of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ as a product follows easily from the description of the Hilbert functions. Let $B_{w_i}(H)$ be the set of subschemes $W_i{\ensuremath{\subset}}S$, $T'$ fixed, supported by the fixed point $w_i$ with $\underline H_{W_i}=H$. Similarly, let $B_{y_i}(H)$ be the set of subschemes $Y_i{\ensuremath{\subset}}S$, $T'$ fixed, with support in the fixed line $y_i$ and $\underline H_{Y_i}=H$. A reformulation of the above is thus:
$S^{[d],T'}=\cup B_{w_1}(H_{w_1}){\ensuremath{\times}}\dots B_{w_r}(H_{w_r}) {\ensuremath{\times}}B_{y_1}(H_{y_1})\dots {\ensuremath{\times}}B_{y_s}(H_{y_s})
$ where $\{w_1,\dots,w_r\}=PFix(T')$ are the isolated fixed points, $\{y_1,\dots, y_s\}=LFix(T')$ are the fixed lines, and the union runs through all the possible tuples of Hilbert functions $ (H_{w_1},\dots, H_{w_r},H_{y_1},\dots,H_{y_s})$.
The next two propositions identify geometrically the factors $B_{w_i}(H_{w_i})$ and $B_{y_j}(H_{y_j})$ of the above product.
By the very definition, we have:
For every isolated fixed point $w_i\in PFix(T')$ and every function $H_{w_i}:\hat T' {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\NN$, the variety $B_{w_i}(H_{w_i})$ is a graded Hilbert scheme.
In example \[exempleDeBase\], take $w=(0,0)\in {{\mathbb{A}}^2}$ and Hilbert function $H(\chi)=1$ for the three characters $\chi=1,t,t^2$ and $H(\chi)=0$ otherwise. Then $B_{w}(H)$ is the component of $(({\PP^2})^{[3]})^{T'}$ passing through $B$, which has been identified with the homogeneous Hilbert scheme $H_{hom,H}$.
As for the other components, we have:
For every fixed line $y_i\in LFix(T')$ and every function $H_{y_i}:\hat T' {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\NN$, $B_{y_i}(H_{y_i})$ is a product of projective spaces.
*Illustration of the last proposition on an example.* Consider $T'=k^*$ acting on ${{\mathbb{A}}^2}{\ensuremath{\subset}}{\PP^2}$ via $t.(x,y)=(tx,y)$. The line $x=0$ is $T'$-fixed. We say that a scheme $Z$ is horizontal of length $n$ if it is in the affine plane and $I(Z)=(y-a,x^n)$, or if it is a limit of such schemes when the support $(0,a)$ moves to infinity. Two horizontal schemes $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ of respective length $n_1\neq n_2$ move in a $\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1$. When the supports of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are distinct, $Z_1\cup Z_2$ is a scheme of length $n_1+n_2$. We thus obtain a rational function $\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1\ \cdots> ({\PP^2})^{[n_1+n_2]}$. The schemes being horizontal, the limit of $Z_1 \cup Z_2$ is completely determined by the support when the schemes $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ collide. More formally, the rational function extends to a well defined morphism ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}:\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}({\PP^2})^{[n_1+n_2]}$. This morphism is an embedding and gives an isomorphism between $\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1$ and one of the components $B_{y_i}(H_{y_i})$ introduced above.
If $n_1=n_2$ in the above paragraph, ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}$ is not an embedding any more because of the action of the symmetric group which exchanges the roles of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. But taking the quotient, we obtain an embedding $\PP^2=(\PP^1{\ensuremath{\times}}\PP^1)/\sigma_2 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}(\PP^2)^{[n_1+n_2]}$ which is an isomorphism on a component.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of the Chow ring {#sec:conclusion}
============================
Description using generators {#sec:descr-using-gener}
----------------------------
Let $T'{\ensuremath{\subset}}T$ be a one dimensional subtorus. Recall that each irreducible component $C$ of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ is a product $B_{w_1}(H_{w_1}){\ensuremath{\times}}\dots B_{w_r}(H_{w_r}) {\ensuremath{\times}}B_{y_1}(H_{y_1})\dots {\ensuremath{\times}}B_{y_s}(H_{y_s})
$ where $\{w_1,\dots,w_r\}=PFix(T')$ and $\{y_1,\dots, y_s\}=LFix(T')$.
The factors $B_{w_i}(H_{w_i})$ are graded Hilbert schemes. We have seen in example \[exemple:calculChowHilbertGradue\] the computation of generators for their equivariant Chow ring. We denote by $M_{w_i,T',H_{w_i}}$ this equivariant Chow ring.
The factors $B_{y_i}(H_{y_i})$ are product of projective spaces. We have seen in examples \[exemple:projectiveSpace\], \[exemple:Grassmannian\] or \[ex:produit\] the computation of generators for their equivariant Chow ring. We denote by $N_{y_i,T',H_{y_i}}$ this equivariant Chow ring.
Then the equivariant Chow ring of the component $C$ is given by the Kunneth formula of theorem \[thm:kunneth\]: $$A_T^*(C)=\bigotimes_{w_i\in PFix(T')} M_{w_i,T',H_{w_i}}
\bigotimes_{y_i\in Lfix(T')}N_{y_i,T',H_{y_i}}$$
When $H=(H_{w_1},\dots,H_{w_r},H_{y_1},\dots,H_{y_s})$ runs through the possible Hilbert functions to describe all the irreducible components $C$ of $(S^{[d]})^{T'}$ and using theorem \[thr:sousToresCodim1\], we finally get:
[@evain2007:chowRingHilbertTorique] $$A_T^*(S^{[d]})=\bigcap_{T'\subset T}\ \bigoplus_{
\# H=d}
\\
(\ \ \bigotimes_{w_i\in
PFix(T')}M_{w_i,T',H_{w_i}} \bigotimes_{y_i\in
LFix(T')}N_{y_i,T',H_{y_i} \ )}$$
Second description of the Chow ring: From generators to relations {#sec:from-gener-relat}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the last formula, the modules $M_{w_i,T',H_{w_i}}$ and $N_{y_i,T',H_{y_i} }$ were described with explicit generators. It is possible to adopt the relations point of view rather than the generators point of view. This is an algebraic trick which relies on Bott’s integration formula, proved by Edidin and Graham in an algebraic context. The equivariant Chow ring is then described as a set of tuples of polynomials satisfying congruence relations.
The proposition below that makes the transition from generators to relations involves equivariant Chern classes of the restrictions $T_{S^{[d]},p}$ of the tangent bundle $T_{S^{[d]}}$ at fixed points $p\in (S^{[d]})^T$. Since we have described the fiber of the tangent bundle at these points as a $T$-representation, computing the equivariant Chern classes is straightforward and the set of relations can be computed.
[@evain2007:chowRingHilbertTorique] Let $\beta_i=(\beta_{ip})_{p\in (S^{[d]})^T}$ be a set of generators of the $\QQ[t_1,t_2]$-module $i_T^*A_T^*(S^{[d]})\subset \QQ[t_1,t_2]^{(S^{[d]})^T}$. Let $\alpha=(\alpha_p)\in \QQ[t_1,t_2]^{(S^{[d]})^T}$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
$\alpha \in i_T^*A_T^*(S^{[d]}) $
$\forall i$, the congruence $$\ \sum_{p \in (S^{[d]})^T} (\alpha_p\beta_{ip} \prod_{q\neq
p}c_{\dim S^{[d]}}^T(T_{S^{[d]},q}))\equiv 0\ (mod\ \prod_{p \in
(S^{[d]})^T}c_{\dim S^{[d]}}^T(T_{S^{[d]},p}))$$ holds.
We apply the method to $(\PP^2)^{[3]}$. There are 22 fixed points thus the equivariant Chow ring is a subring of $\QQ[t_1,t_2]^{22}$. Five of the fixed points $A,\dots,E$ have been introduced in the examples. The other fixed points are obtained from these five by a symmetry. For instance, $A_{12}=\sigma(A)$ where $\sigma$ is the toric automorphism of ${\PP^2}$ exchanging the points $p_1$ and $p_2$.
\[thr:leCasHilbTroisP2\] [@evain2007:chowRingHilbertTorique] The equivariant Chow ring $A_T^*((\PP^{2})^{[3]}){\ensuremath{\subset}}\QQ[t_1,t_2]^{\{A,A_{12},\dots,E\}}$ is the set of linear combinations $aA+a_{12}A_{12}+\dots +eE$ satisfying the relations
$a+a_{13}-d-d_{13}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_2^2)$
$d-d_{13}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_2)$
$a-a_{13}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_2)$
$a-b\equiv 0\ (mod \ 2t_1-t_2)$
$b-b_{13}\equiv 0\ (mod\ t_2)$
$-b+3c-3c_{12}+b_{12}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_1^3)$
$-b+c+c_{12}-b_{12}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_1^2)$
$3b-c+c_{12}+-3b_{12}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_1)$
$b-b_{23}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_2-t_1)$
$ c-d+c_{23}-d_{23} \equiv 0\ (mod \ (t_1-t_2)^2)$
$c+d-c_{23}-d_{23} \equiv 0\ ( mod\ (t_1-t_2))$
$c_{23}-d_{23} \equiv 0\ (mod \ (t_1-t_2))$
$c-c_{13}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_2)$
$d-2e+d_{12}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_1^2)$
$d-d_{12}\equiv 0\ (mod \ t_1)$
all relations deduced from the above by the action of the symmetric group $S_3$.
The Chow ring $A^*((\PP^{2})^{[3]})$ is the quotient of $A_T^*((\PP^{2})^{[3]})$ by the ideal generated by the elements $fA+\dots +fE$, $f\in \QQ[t_1,t_2]^+$.
Graded Hilbert schemes revisited {#sec:homog-vari}
================================
The quasi-homogeneous Hilbert schemes played a central role in the computation of $A_T^*(S^{[d]})$ and their Chow ring was computed using equivariant techniques. In this section, we present a result suggesting that their Chow ring could admit an alternative description in terms of combinatorics of partitions.
To simplify the notations, we restrict from now on our attention to the homogeneous case of Iarrobino varieties, but the statements below can be formulated in the quasi-homogeneous case [@evain00:cnincidence_cellules_schubert].
Recall that the graded Hilbert scheme $\HH_{hom,H}$ embeds in a product of Grassmannians: $\HH_{hom,H}\hookrightarrow
\GG=\prod_{d\in \NN, H_d\neq 0} Grass(H_d,k[x,y]_d)$. The Grassmannians are stratified by their Schubert cells, constructed with respect to the flag $F_1=Vect(x^d){\ensuremath{\subset}}F_2=Vect(x^d,x^{d-1}y)
{\ensuremath{\subset}}\dots F_{d+1}=k[x,y]_d$. The product $\GG$ is stratified by the product of Schubert cells, and $\HH_{hom,H}$ is stratified by the restrictions of these products of Schubert cells. We still call these restrictions Schubert cells on $\HH_{hom,H}$.
A Schubert cell of a Iarrobino variety $\HH_{hom,H}$ contains a unique monomial ideal $I{\ensuremath{\subset}}k[x,y]$ that we represent as usual by the set of monomials $E(I)=\{x^ay^b \notin I\}$.
The Grassmannians in the product $\GG$ are trivial when $H_d=\dim k[x,y]_d$. When the numbers of non trivial Grassmannians in $\GG$ is one, the inclusion $\HH_{hom,H}{\ensuremath{\subset}}\GG$ is an isomorphism. In this Grassmannian case, the closures of the Schubert cells form a base of $A^*(\HH_{hom,H})$ and the intersection is classically described in terms of combinatorics involving the partitions associated to the cells.\
**Question**: *Is it possible to describe the intersection theory in terms of partitions when $\HH_{hom,H}$ is not a Grassmannian ?*\
The intersection theory when $\HH_{hom,H}$ is not a Grassmannian is more complicated than in the Grassmannian case. On the set theoretical level, the intersection $\overline C \cap
\overline D$ between the closures of two cells $C$ and $D$ is difficult to determine. The closure $\overline C$ of a cell $C$ is not a union of cells any more.
However, a necessary condition for the incidence $\overline C\cap D \neq
\emptyset$ is known and expressed in terms of reverse plane partitions with shape $E(J)$, where $J$ is the unique monomial ideal in $D$.
A reverse plane partition with shape $E{\ensuremath{\subset}}\NN^2$ is a two-dimensional array of integers $n_{ij}, \ (i,j)\in E$ such that $n_{i,j}\leq n_{i,j+1}$, $n_{i,j}\leq n_{i+1,j}$
A monomial ideal $I$ is linked to a monomial ideal $J$ by a reverse plane partition $n_{ij}$ with support $E(J)$ if $E(I)=\{x^{a+n_{a,b}}y^{b-n_{ab}}, (a,b)\in E(J)\}$
In the above figure, $E(I)$ is linked to $E(J)$.
If $I{\ensuremath{\subset}}k[x,y]$ is a monomial ideal of colength $n$, the complement of $I$ is the ideal $C(I)$ such that $E(C(I))$ contains the monomials $x^ay^b$, $a< n$, $b< n$ with $x^{n-1-a}y^{n-1-b}\in I$ (see the figure below).
[@evain00:cnincidence_cellules_schubert] Let $C$ and $C'{\ensuremath{\subset}}\HH_{hom,H}$ be two cells containing the monomial ideals $I$ and $I'$. If $\overline C\cap C'\neq \emptyset$, then
$I$ is linked to $I'$ by a reverse plane partition.
$C(I)$ is linked to $C(I')$ by a reverse plane partition.
By analogy with the Grassmannian case, we are led to the following open question: Can we describe the intersection theory on the Graded Hilbert schemes in terms of combinatorics of the plane partitions ?
[10]{}
M Brion. Equivariant chow groups for torus actions. , (2):225–267, 1997.
K Costello and I Grojnowski. Hilbert schemes, hecke algebras and the [C]{}alogero-[S]{}utherland system. .
Dan Edidin and William Graham. Equivariant intersection theory. , 131(3):595–634, 1998.
Geir Ellingsrud and Stein Arild Str[ø]{}mme. On the homology of the [H]{}ilbert scheme of points in the plane. , (87):343–352, 1987.
L. Evain. The [C]{}how ring of punctual [H]{}ilbert schemes on toric surfaces. , 12(2):227–249, 2007.
Laurent Evain. Incidence relations among the [S]{}chubert cells of equivariant punctual [H]{}ilbert schemes. , 242(4):743–759, 2002.
Laurent Evain. Irreducible components of the equivariant punctual [H]{}ilbert schemes. , 185(2):328–346, 2004.
Mark Haiman and Bernd Sturmfels. Multigraded [H]{}ilbert schemes. , 13(4):725–769, 2004.
Anthony A. Iarrobino. Punctual [H]{}ilbert schemes. , 10(188):viii+112, 1977.
A King and C Walter. On chow rings of fine moduli spaces of modules. , 461:179–187, 1995.
M Lehn. Chern classes of tautological sheaves on hilbert schemes of points on surfaces. , (136):157–207, 1999.
Manfred Lehn and Christoph Sorger. Symmetric groups and the cup product on the cohomology of [H]{}ilbert schemes. , 110(2):345–357, 2001.
Manfred Lehn and Christoph Sorger. The cup product of [H]{}ilbert schemes for [$K3$]{} surfaces. , 152(2):305–329, 2003.
Wei-Ping Li, Zhenbo Qin, and Weiqiang Wang. The cohomology rings of [H]{}ilbert schemes via [J]{}ack polynomials. In [*Algebraic structures and moduli spaces*]{}, volume 38 of [ *CRM Proc. Lecture Notes*]{}, pages 249–258. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004.
H Nakajima. Heisenberg algebra and [H]{}ilbert schemes of points on projective surfaces. , 2(145):379–388, 1997.
Eric Vasserot. Sur l’anneau de cohomologie du sch[é]{}ma de [H]{}ilbert de [$\bold
C\sp 2$]{}. , 332(1):7–12, 2001.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'J. Isern[^1]'
- 'A. Artigas'
- 'E. García–Berro'
bibliography:
- 'isern.bib'
title: White dwarf cooling sequences and cosmochronology
---
Introduction
============
White dwarfs represent the last evolutionary stage of low and intermediate mass stars, i.e. stars with masses smaller than $10\pm 2
\, M_\odot$. Most of them are composed of carbon and oxygen, but white dwarfs with masses smaller than $0.4\, M_\odot$ are made of helium and are members of close binary systems, while those more massive than $\sim 1.05\, M_\odot$ are probably made of oxygen and neon. The exact composition of the cores of carbon-oxygen white dwarfs critically depends on the evolution during the previous red giant and asymptotic giant branch phase, and more specifically on the competition between the carbon–$\alpha$ and triple-$\alpha$ reactions, on the details of the stellar evolutionary codes and on the choice of several other nuclear cross sections. In a typical case — for instance a white dwarf of $0.58\, M_\odot$ — the total amount of oxygen represents the 62% of the total mass while its concentration in the central layers of the white dwarf can be as high as 85%.
In all cases, the core is surrounded by a thin layer of pure helium with a mass ranging from $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-4}\, M_\odot$. This layer is, in turn, surrounded by an even thinner layer of hydrogen with a typical mass lying in the range of $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-15}\, M_\odot$. This layer is missing in $\sim 25\%$ of the cases. From the phenomenological point of view, white dwarfs containing hydrogen are classified as DA while the remaining ones (the collectively denoted as non-DA) are classified as DO, DB, DQ, DZ and DC, depending on their spectral features. The origin of these spectral differences and the relationship among them has not been yet elucidated, although it is related to the initial conditions during the AGB evolutionary phase, and also to delicate interplay between several physical process, among which we mention gravitational and thermal diffusion, radiative levitation, convection at the H-He and He-core interfaces, proton burning, stellar winds and mass accretion from the interstellar medium — see, for instance Fontaine (2013), this volume.
The structure of white dwarfs is sustained by the pressure of degenerate electrons and these stars cannot obtain energy from thermonuclear reactions. Therefore, their evolution can be described in terms of a simple cooling process [@mest52] in which the internal degenerate core acts as a reservoir of energy and the outer non-degenerate layers control the energy outflow. A simple calculation indicates that the time they take to fade and disappear beyond the capabilities of the present telescopes is very long, $\sim
10$ Gyr. Thus the populations of white dwarfs retain important information about the past history of our Galaxy. In particular, they allow to obtain the age of the different Galactic components, namely the disk, the spheroid and the system of open and globular clusters, as well as the star formation history of the Galactic disk [@alth10; @font01; @hans03; @iser98; @koes02; @koes90].
The tool to obtain such information is the luminosity function, which is defined as the number of white dwarfs of a given luminosity per unit volume and magnitude interval:
$$N(l) = \int^{M_{\rm s}}_{M_{\rm i}}\,\Phi(M)\,\Psi[T-t_{\rm cool}(l,M)-t_{\rm PS}(M)]
\tau_{\rm cool}(l,M) \;dM
\label{ewdlf}$$
where $T$ is the age of the population under study, $l =
-\log (L/L_\odot)$, $M$ is the mass of the parent star (for convenience all white dwarfs are labeled with the mass of the main sequence progenitor), $t_{\rm cool}$ is the cooling time down to luminosity $l$, $\tau_{\rm cool}=dt/dM_{\rm bol}$ is the characteristic cooling time, $M_{\rm s}$ is the maximum mass of a main sequence star able to produce a white dwarf, and $M_{\rm i}$ is the minimum mass of the main sequence stars able to produce a white dwarf of luminosity $l$, i.e. is the mass that satisfies the condition $T=t_{\rm cool}(l,M) + t_{\rm PS}(M)$ and $t_{\rm PS}$ is the lifetime of the progenitor of the white dwarf. The remaining quantities, the initial mass function, $\Phi(M)$, and the star formation rate, $\Psi(t)$, are not known a priori and depend on the astronomical properties of the stellar population under study. Since the total density of white dwarfs of a given population is not usually well known, to compare the theoretical and observational luminosity functions it is customary to normalize the computed luminosity function to the bin with the smallest error bar. For instance, for the case of the disk white dwarf luminosity function it is traditionally chosen to normalize at $l=3$ [@iser98]. In summary, if the observed luminosity function and the evolutionary behavior of white dwarfs are well known, it is possible to obtain the age and the star formation rate of the evolution under study.
The observed luminosity functions
=================================
\[oldlf\]
The first luminosity function was derived about four decades ago [@weid68], and since then it has been noticeably improved with the work of many authors — see Fig. \[oldlf\]. The monotonic behavior of this function clearly proves that the evolution of white dwarfs is a simple gravothermal process, while the sharp cut-off at low luminosities is the consequence of the finite age of the Galaxy. The recent availability of data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has noticeably improved the accuracy of the new luminosity functions, as many new white dwarfs were added to the very limited sample of white dwarfs with measured magnitudes, parallaxes and proper motions. For instance, the white dwarf luminosity function of Ref. [@harr06] (HA-LF) was built from a sample of $\sim 6,000$ DA and non-DA white dwarfs with accurate photometry and proper motions obtained from the SDSS Data Release 3 and the USNO-B catalogue, whereas that of Ref. [@dege08] (DG-LF) was constructed from a sample of $3,528$ spectroscopically-identified DA white dwarfs obtained from the SDSS Data Release 4.
The discrepancies between the HA-LF and the DG-LF at low luminosities are well understood, and can be attributed to the different way in which the effective temperatures and gravities of the sample of white dwarfs were observationally determined [@dege08]. Furthermore, the DG-LF only considers DA white dwarfs and, at low temperatures, it is difficult to separate them from non-DA white dwarfs. For this reason in this work we will restrict ourselves to analyze the DG-LF for magnitudes smaller than $M_{\rm bol} \sim 13$.
At high luminosities, say magnitudes smaller than $M_{\rm bol} \sim
6$, the dispersion of both luminosity functions is very large — see Fig. \[newlf\]. The reason is that both luminosity functions have been built using the reduced proper motion method that is not appropriate for bright white dwarfs. The UV-excess technique has allowed to build a luminosity function in the range $-0.75$ to 7 (KZ-LF) [@krze09]. This method, however, is not adequate for dim stars and becomes rapidly incomplete out of this range of magnitudes. Fortunately, this sample overlaps with the HA-LF and, assuming continuity, it is possible to extend the luminosity function to the brightest region.
\[newlf\]
One of the potential problems of the luminosity functions obtained from the SDSS results from the fact that the integration time is fixed and, consequently, the S/N ratio depends on the brightness of the source. This can lead to large uncertainties in the determination of the parameters of faint white dwarfs, and may introduce systematic errors [@limo10]. Fortunately, a completely independent luminosity function has been obtained [@rowe11] from the SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey, which culls white dwarfs using their proper motion. As can be seen in Fig. \[newlf\], this luminosity function (hereafter called RH-LF) does not excessively deviate from the HA-LF at low luminosities, thus providing some hope that these luminosity functions are not affected by large systematic effects. However, for bright white dwarfs this luminosity function suffers from the same drawbacks as the HA-LF and the DG-LF luminosity functions. Thus, at bright luminosities is better to use the KZ-LF data.
Because of the overlap in the velocity distributions, the luminosity function obtained from reduced proper motion methods are in fact a superposition of thin and thick disc objects. It has been recently shown [@rowe11] that, in principle, it is possible to separate both populations using kinematic arguments. This technique yielded, for the first time, luminosity functions for both populations in a self-consistent way, thus offering the possibility to provide interesting insight in the sequence of events that led to the formation of the galactic disk — see below.
An overall view of white dwarf cooling
======================================
Since white dwarfs are degenerate objects, they cannot obtain energy from nuclear burning. Therefore, their evolution can be considered as a simple cooling process. Globally, the evolution of their luminosity can be written as: $$L+L_{\nu} =- \int^{M_{\rm WD}}_0 C_{\rm v}\frac{dT}{dt}\,dm
- \int^{M_{\rm WD}}_0 T\Big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial
T}\Big)_{V,X_0}\frac{dV}{dt}\,dm
+\;\; (l_{\rm s}+e_{\rm s}) \dot{M}_{\rm s}$$ \[eener\] where the l.h.s. of the equation represents the sinks of energy, photons and neutrinos, while the r.h.s. contains the sources of energy, the heat capacity of the star, the compressional work, the contribution of the latent heat release and of the energy released by gravitationl settling upon crystallization, times the rate of crystallization, $\dot{M}_{\rm s}$ [@iser98]. This equation has to be complemented with a relationship connecting the temperature of the core with the luminosity of the star.
The evolution of white dwarfs from the planetary nebula phase to its disappearance can be roughly divided in four stages:
**Neutrino cooling:** The range of luminosities of this phase is $\log (L/L_\odot) > -1.5$. This stage is very complicated because of the dependence on the initial conditions of the newly born star as well as on the complex and not yet well understood behavior of the hydrogen envelope. If the hydrogen layer is smaller than a critical value, $M_{\rm H} \le 10^{-4}$ $M_\odot$, nuclear burning via the pp–reactions quickly drops as the star cools down and never becomes dominant. Since astero-seismological observations seem to constrain the size of $M_{\rm H}$ well below this critical value, this source can be neglected. Fortunately, when neutrino emission becomes dominant, the different thermal structures converge to a unique one, granting the uniformity of the models with $\log (L/L_\odot)\le -1.5$. Furthermore, since the time necessary to reach this value is $\le
8\times 10^7$ years for any model, its influence in the total cooling time is negligible [@dant89], except of course at large luminosities.
**Fluid cooling:** This phase occurs at luminosities $-1.5 \ge
\log (L/L_\odot) \ge -3$. The main source of energy is the gravothermal one. Since the plasma is not very strongly coupled ($\Gamma < 179$), its properties are reasonably well known. Furthermore, the flux of energy through the envelope is controlled by a thick non degenerate layer with an opacity dominated by hydrogen (if present) and helium, and weakly dependent on the metal content. The main source of uncertainty is related to the chemical structure of the interior, which depends on the adopted rate of the $^{12}$C$(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}$O reaction and on the treatment given to semiconvection and overshooting. If this rate is high, the oxygen abundance is higher in the center than in the outer layers, thus resulting in a reduced specific heat at the central layers of the star, where the oxygen abundance can be as high as $X_{\rm O}=0.85$ [@sala97].
\[fig3\]
**Crystallization:** White dwarfs with $\log (L/L_\odot) < -3$ are expected to experience a first order phase transition, and their deep cores crystallize at these luminosities. Crystallization introduces two new sources of energy: latent heat and sedimentation. In the case of Coulomb plasmas, the latent heat is small, $\sim k_{\rm
B} T_{\rm s}$ per nuclei, where $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T_{\rm s}$ is the temperature of solidification. Its contribution to the total luminosity is small, $\sim 5$%, but not negligible [@shav76]. During the crystallization process, the equilibrium chemical compositions of the solid and liquid plasmas are not equal. Therefore, if the resulting solid flakes are denser than the liquid mixture, they sink towards the central region. If they are lighter, they rise upwards and melt where the solidification temperature, which depends on the density, becomes equal to that of the isothermal core. The net effect is a migration of the heavier elements towards the central regions with the subsequent release of gravitational energy [@moch83; @iser97]. Of course, the efficiency of the process depends on the detailed chemical composition and on the initial chemical profile and it is maximum for a mixture made of half oxygen and half carbon uniformly distributed through all the star [@iser00]. An additional source of energy that has to be taken into account is the gravitational diffusion of $^{22}$Ne synthesized from the initial content of $^{12}$C, $^{14}$N and $^{16}$O during the He-burning phase [@garc08].
**Debye cooling:** When almost all the star has solidified, the specific heat follows Debye’s law. However, the outer layers still have very large temperatures as compared with the Debye’s one, and since their total heat capacity is still large enough, they prevent the sudden disappearance of the white dwarf at least for the case of white dwarfs with thick hydrogen envelopes [@dant89].
Cooling sequences
=================
In this work we have adopted the BASTI models [^2] [@sala10]. These models can follow the diffusion of the different chemical species, convective mixing, residual nuclear burning and all the phenomena related with the crystallization process, and the evolutionary ages are in excellent agreement with other recent calculations [@rene10]. The parameters for the envelopes adopted here are $q_{\rm He} = 10^{-2} M_{\rm WD}$ and $q_{\rm H} = 10^{-4}
M_{\rm WD}$ for the DAs and $q_{\rm He} = 10^{-3.5} M_{\rm WD}$ for the non-DAs.
The choice of the chemical composition of the white dwarf interior is of critical importance since all the factors influencing the cooling rate, specific heat, neutrino emission, crystallization temperature, sedimentation and so on, depend on the detailed chemical structure. In the present work, the chemical profile has been obtained assuming solar metallicity, convective overshooting during the main sequence and semiconvection during central He-burning, while the breathing pulses occurring at the end of the core He-burning have been suppressed [@sala10]. The adopted rate for the $^{16}$C$(\alpha,\gamma)$$^{16}$O was that of Ref. [@kunz02].
\[fig4\]
Fig. \[fig3\] displays the oxygen profiles for the CO core of a $\sim 0.6\, M_\odot$ white dwarf progenitor obtained just at the end of the AGB phase (solid line). The inner part of the core, with a constant abundance of $^{16}$O, is determined by the maximum extension of the central He-burning convective region while beyond this region the oxygen profile is built when the thick He-burning shell is moving towards the surface. Simultaneously, gravitational contraction increases its temperature and density and, since the ratio between the $^{16}$C$(\alpha,\gamma)$$^{16}$O and the $3\alpha$ reaction rates is smaller for higher temperatures, the oxygen mass fraction steadily decreases in the external part of the CO core [@sala97]. Fig. \[fig3\] also displays how the inner abundance of oxygen gradually increases in the inner regions as the crystallization front advances in mass. The region with a flat chemical profile placed just above the solidification front is due to the convective instability induced upon crystallization. The first calculation of a phase diagram for CO mixtures was done several years ago [@stev80] and resulted in an eutectic shape. This result was a consequence of the assumption that the solid was entirely random. Later on [@segr94], it was found that the CO phase diagram was of the spindle form. Because of this, the solid formed upon crystallization is richer in oxygen than the liquid and therefore denser. For a $0.6\, M_{\odot}$ white dwarf with equal amounts of carbon and oxygen, $\delta \rho /\rho \simeq
10^{-4}$. Therefore the solid settles down at the core of the star and the lighter liquid left behind is redistributed by Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities [@stev80; @moch83; @iser97; @alth12]. The result is an enrichment of oxygen in the central layers and its depletion in the outer ones. Even when rotation is considered, convection is indeed an efficient mechanism to redistribute the carbon rich fluid out from the crystallization front and that the liquid phase can be considered as well mixed [@iser97].
Finally, we mention that the characteristic cooling time that appears in Eq. \[ewdlf\] not only depends on the internal energy sources or sinks but also on the photon luminosity which, in turn, depends on the transparency of the envelope. Since non-DA models are more transparent than the DA ones, they cool down much more rapidly as it can be seen in Fig. \[fig4\].
The age of the Galactic disk
============================
\[fig5\]
A common picture of the formation of the Milky Way is that spiral galaxies form as a consequence of the gas cooling inside a spinning dark matter halo. In a first stage, the gas collapses in a dynamical time scale that lasts for several hundred million years, leaving behind a spherical stellar halo, and settles down into a disk from where stars form. Galactic discs are structures that are easily destroyed by mergers with other structures of similar mass. Therefore, if a disk appears almost undamaged, it means that its has not suffered strong mergers since it was born and that its life has been reasonably quiet. It is also possible for disks formed early in the life of a spiral galaxy to have been heated by minor mergers leading to the formation of a thick disk able to produce a new thin disk within it. According to this picture, the sequence of events leading to the formation of the presently observed structure of the Milky Way could have been the following one [@reid05]: i) Formation of the primitive halo at $t \sim 12 - 13$ Gyr, ii) Episodes of minor mergers of satellite systems at $t \sim 11-12$ Gyr, iii) Formation of the disk at $t \sim 10-11$ Gyr, iv) A major merger produces the formation of a thick disk at $ t \sim 9-10$ Gyr, and v) Formation of the thin disk at $ t \sim 8 $ Gyr.
\[fig6\]
In the case of the halo, the age is essentially determined by the age of the system of globular clusters, which at present is estimated to be $\sim 13$ Gyr. In the case of the disk, several indicators are used. The main ones are the ages of F and G stars, the luminosity function of white dwarfs, radioactive clocks are also often employed, and finally the ages of old open clusters. Some of these ages are obtained from objects in the solar neighborhood, as it is the case of white dwarfs, assuming they are representative of the total Galaxy, which is not the case. On the contrary, old open clusters are distributed all over the Galaxy, and are considered more representative but, since their lifetime is relatively short (several $10^8$ years) many of them could have been destroyed and, in fact they only provide a lower limit to the age of the disk, for which reason the local indicators continue to be extremely useful. Incidentally, it is worth noting that one of the key points in the determination of the age of the disk is NGC 6791, a very old, extremely metal-rich Galactic cluster. The age of this cluster estimated from the main-sequence turn-off method was different from the one estimated from the termination of the white dwarf cooling sequence. When the energy release due to the gravitational diffusion of $^{22}$Ne and the settling of oxygen upon crystallization are included, both ages coincide and turn to be 8 Gyr [@garc10].
There are two important properties of the luminosity function that deserve a comment. The first one is that, after normalization, the bright part of the luminosity function $( M_{\rm bol} \le 14)$ is almost independent of the star formation rate [@iser09], $N(l)
\propto \langle\tau_{\rm cool}\rangle$, unless a burst of star formation occurred very recently. The second important fact that needs to be considered is that Eq. (\[ewdlf\]) do not satisfies Piccard’s theorem for the inversion of integral equations. Thus, the star formation rate cannot be directly obtained, as the unicity of the solution cannot be guaranteed and the final result depends on the trial function used to fit observations. The first property is clearly illustrated in Fig. \[fig5\], where the luminosity functions obtained using different SFRs are almost coincident in the region $ 6
\le M_{\rm bol} \le 14$. The corollary is that the BASTI models reproduce reasonably well the evolution of white dwarfs in this region.
The age of the disk depends on the form adopted for the star formation rate. If a constant rate is adopted, the cutoff is compatible with an age of $\sim 13$ Gyr, i.e. the disk would had been formed a short time after the primitive halo. If an exponentially declining star formation rate is adopted, it is necessary to reduce the age of the disk to $\sim 11$ Gyr (not shown in the figure) to adjust the position of the cut-off. A good fit can also be obtained if an almost constant rate lasting for the last $\sim 10$ Gyr preceded by an exponentially growing star formation activity is adopted. This is the same to say that the disk started to form from the center to the periphery. Notice that the cool end of the luminosity function still shows an important dispersion in the values and to elucidate among these possibilities it will be necessary to improve its accuracy at low luminosities.
Obviously, the determination of the ages of the thin and thick disks would be extremely helpful to prove the previously described sequence of events. Fig. \[fig6\] displays the observed luminosity functions of the thin and thick disks, as well as the theoretical predictions assuming a constant star formation rate and different ages. The most striking feature is that both structures look as if they were coeval since the maximum of both distributions lies approximately at the same magnitude, $M_{\rm bol} \sim 15$. Furthermore, both populations seem to be rather old, $\sim 11$ Gyr, in agreement with the luminosity functions obtained using the SDSS. Certainly, it is premature to extract conclusions since the cut-off of the thick disk is not well defined and the modeling of very old white dwarfs is still plenty of uncertainties. Nevertheless, if this result turns out to be correct, it could be obviously interpreted as if there was no difference between the time at which thin and the thick disk formed, and moreover that this unique disk formed quite soon in life of the Milky Way. This, if correct, could give support to the recent discovery that sub-populations with similar \[$\alpha$/Fe\]$-$\[Fe/H\] have a smooth distribution of scale heights, thus suggesting that effectively there is not a distinctive thick disk population. It is also important to notice here that in deriving the luminosity function it has been assumed that no vertical and radial migration of stars is effective. If these effects were important, it would be necessary to compute the luminosity function in the context of a complete numerical simulation of the Galaxy.
Conclusions
===========
The use of white dwarfs as cosmochronometers has experienced noticeable advances during the last years both from the theoretical and observational point of views, and has become a reliable tool to measure the age of an ensemble population of stars if the conditions are well defined, as is the case, for instance, of NGC 6791. Furthermore, having for the first time separated luminosity functions of the thin and thick disk opens new possibilities to understand the origin and evolution of the Milky Way.
However, several unsolved problems still remain. From the theoretical point of view, there are still noticeable differences among the different cooling tracks at low luminosities. These differences are probably due to the use of different boundary conditions [@rohr12] and different sizes and physics adopted for the envelope. An additional problem is our incomplete understanding of the origin and evolution of the DA, non-DA character, which could introduce some uncertainties in the determinations of the theoretical luminosity function. From the observational point of view the main problem resides in the still poor determination of the luminosity function of cool white dwarfs, as well as in the criteria to efficiently separate the different populations (thin disk, thick disk and spheroid) of Galactic white dwarfs.
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} This research was partially supported by MICINN grants AYA2011–24704, and AYA2011–23102 by the ESF EUROGENESIS project (MICINN grants EUI2009–04167 and 04170), by the European Union FEDER funds and by the AGAUR.
[^1]:
[^2]: These models can be downloaded from http://www.oa-teramo.inaf.it/BASTI
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
\
Institute of Experimental Physics, Department of Physics, University of Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany\
E-mail:
title: 'A search for energy-dependence of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 morphology in GeV'
---
Introduction
============
1E 1841-045 is an anomalous X-ray pulsar (AXP) as well as the central source of the supernova remnant (SNR) Kes 73 [@Vasisht1997]. This system shows intense TeV emission at the northern edge of HESS J1841-055 [@Aharonian2008; @Bochow2011]. While [@Li2017] and [@Yeung2017] consistently determined that the GeV counterpart of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 system is extended with a radius of $\sim$0.32$^\circ$, this is at least four times larger than both radii of the radio shell and the outer X-ray shell (cf. [@Kumar2014][@Borkowski2017]). It is interesting to examine whether this morphology is applicable to analyses in the whole LAT band. With regards to this, we break the whole LAT band into three sections for more detailed morphological studies: 0.3-1 GeV, 1-3 GeV and 3-200 GeV.
Data Analyses and Results
=========================
Aided with *Fermi* Science Tools v10r0p5 package, we reduced and analysed *Fermi* data of a 20$^\circ$$\times$20$^\circ$ region of interest (ROI) centered at RA=$280.28218^\circ$, Dec=$-4.9687344^\circ$ (J2000), which is the centroid of the GeV counterpart of Kes 73/1E 1841-045 [@Yeung2017]. We used the Pass8 “Clean" class data, accumulated over $\sim$8.9 years. We screened out the “BACK" data for the sake of better spatial resolution. We further filtered the data by accepting only the good time intervals where the ROI was observed at a zenith angle less than 90$^\circ$ so as to reduce the contamination from the albedo of Earth.
For each energy band, we performed a chain of maximum-likelihood analyses with the improved instrument response function (IRF) “P8R2$_-$CLEAN$_-$V6". In our source model for background subtraction, we adopted the most updated Fermi/LAT catalog (3FGL [@Acero2015a]), which includes the most updated models of Galactic diffuse background (gll$_-$iem$_-$v06.fits) and isotropic background (iso$_-$P8R2$_-$CLEAN$_-$V6$_-$FRONT$_-$v06.txt). We also included the serendipitous sources reported in [@Yeung2017]. We set free the spectral parameters of the sources within 6$^\circ$ from the ROI center in the analysis. For the sources beyond 6$^\circ$ from the ROI center, their spectral parameters were fixed at the catalog values.
The test-statistic (TS) maps, at 0.3-1 GeV, 1-3 GeV and 3-200 GeV respectively, are shown in Figure \[1E\_tsmap\], where all sources in the model except Kes 73/1E 1841-045 are subtracted. As we can see, the $\gamma$-ray features in these three bands share a common centroid, which is also the same as the 1-50 GeV centroid reported in [@Yeung2017]. Hence, we continued to take this centroid position for investigating the extensions of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 associated source in both bands.
![TS maps of the field around 1E 1841-045 at 0.3-1 GeV (top-left), 1-3 GeV (top-right) and 3-200 GeV (bottom) respectively, where all neighboring sources in the model except Kes 73/1E 1841-045 are subtracted. The black thick circle indicates the position and dimension of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 system in radio, which are taken from [@Acero2015b]. The position and dimension of HESS J1841-055, indicated as a gray ellipse, are taken from [@Aharonian2008]. The positions of nearby 3FGL sources are marked by red crosses. The 1-50 GeV centroid determined in [@Yeung2017] is indicated as a green diamond.[]{data-label="1E_tsmap"}](Fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![TS maps of the field around 1E 1841-045 at 0.3-1 GeV (top-left), 1-3 GeV (top-right) and 3-200 GeV (bottom) respectively, where all neighboring sources in the model except Kes 73/1E 1841-045 are subtracted. The black thick circle indicates the position and dimension of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 system in radio, which are taken from [@Acero2015b]. The position and dimension of HESS J1841-055, indicated as a gray ellipse, are taken from [@Aharonian2008]. The positions of nearby 3FGL sources are marked by red crosses. The 1-50 GeV centroid determined in [@Yeung2017] is indicated as a green diamond.[]{data-label="1E_tsmap"}](Fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}\
![TS maps of the field around 1E 1841-045 at 0.3-1 GeV (top-left), 1-3 GeV (top-right) and 3-200 GeV (bottom) respectively, where all neighboring sources in the model except Kes 73/1E 1841-045 are subtracted. The black thick circle indicates the position and dimension of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 system in radio, which are taken from [@Acero2015b]. The position and dimension of HESS J1841-055, indicated as a gray ellipse, are taken from [@Aharonian2008]. The positions of nearby 3FGL sources are marked by red crosses. The 1-50 GeV centroid determined in [@Yeung2017] is indicated as a green diamond.[]{data-label="1E_tsmap"}](Fig1c.eps "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
In each band, we performed a likelihood ratio test to quantify the radius and significance of extension, following the scheme adopted by [@Yeung2016] and [@Yeung2017]. We assigned this source a simple power law, and we attempted uniform-disk morphologies of different radii as well as a point-source model on it. The results are tabulated in Table \[Ext\]. The 0.3-1 GeV morphology can be described by either a point model or an extended model of $<0.35^\circ$ radius, within the tolerance of the $2\sigma$ uncertainty. On the other hand, the 1-3 GeV morphology is extended with a $0.369^\circ\pm0.040^\circ$ radius at a $>6\sigma$ level, and the 3-200 GeV morphology is extended with a $0.383^\circ\pm0.046^\circ$ radius at a $>4.5\sigma$ level.
------------- --------------------- -----------------------
Energy Band Radius of Extension $2ln(L_{ext}/L_{pt})$
(GeV) (deg)
0.3-1 0.167$\pm$0.091 1.30
1-3 0.369$\pm$0.040 37.13
3-200 0.383$\pm$0.046 21.89
------------- --------------------- -----------------------
: Morphological properties of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 associated source in different energy bands.[]{data-label="Ext"}
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
While it is unascertainable whether the actual morphology in 0.3-1 GeV is a point or an extended clump, its allowable extension is smaller than each of the 1-3 GeV and 3-200 GeV morphologies by $>2\sigma$. Since the 95% upper limit of the radius of extension in 0.3-1 GeV is $0.35^\circ$, the spectral energy distribution in [@Yeung2017] with a unified radius of extension of $0.32^\circ$ could still be a rough approximation for the 0.3-1 GeV band. Nevertheless, we encourage ones to look into the 0.3-1 GeV properties of this source by assigning it a point morphology or a less extended morphology, so that we can distinguish between Kes 73 and 1E 1841-045 contributions more accurately. The systematic uncertainties induced by the error of extension should also be taken into account. On the other hand, the 1-3 GeV and 3-200 GeV morphologies are in a good agreement, within the tolerance of statistical uncertainties.
We recall that the position and dimension of HESS J1841-055 has not been refined yet. Thus, the interplay between the morphologies of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 associated source and HESS J1841-055 still remains a crucial issue in this work as well as in [@Yeung2017].
Noticeably, [@Ackermann2017] replaced HESS J1841-055 with two extended sources FGES J1839.4-0554 and FGES J1841.4-0514 in their $>$10 GeV analyses, where the latter is spatially consistent with our targeted AXP/SNR pair. This is undoubtedly an alternative way to goodly describe the entire $\gamma$-ray complex. Whereas, FGES J1841.4-0514 contains other high-energy components as well. Since we intend to model the AXP/SNR pair as a single source independent from other high-energy sources, their revised morphological model for this field is not applicable to our studies.
[99]{} G. Vasisht and E. V. Gotthelf, *The Discovery of an Anomalous X-ray Pulsar in the Supernova Remnant Kes 73*, *ApJ* **486** (Sept. 1997) L129. H.E.S.S. Collaboration, *HESS very-high-energy gamma-ray sources without identified counterparts*, *A&A* **477** (Jan. 2008) 353-363. A. Bochow, *A Systemtatic Study of Supernova Remnants as seen with H.E.S.S.*, PhD Thesis, Ruperto-Carola University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 2011. J. Li, N. Rea, D. F. Torres, and E. de Ona-Wilhelmi, *Gamma-ray Upper Limits on Magnetars with Six Years of Fermi-LAT Observations*, *ApJ* **835** (Jan. 2017) 30. P. K. H. Yeung, A. K. H. Kong, P. H. T. Tam, C. Y. Hui, J. Takata, and K. S. Cheng, *Gamma-Ray Emission of the Kes 73/1E 1841-045 Region Observed with the Fermi Large Area Telescope*, *ApJ* **837** (Mar. 2017) 69. H. S. Kumar, S. Safi-Harb, P. Slane, and E. V. Gothelf, *Chandra and XMM-Newton Study of the Supernova Remnant Kes 73 Hosting the Magnetar 1E 1841-045*, *ApJ* **781** (Jan. 2014) 41. K. J. Borkowski and S. P. Reynolds, *Expansion of Kes 73, A Shell Supernova Remnant Containing a Magnetar*, *ApJ* **846** (Aug. 2017) 13. Fermi-LAT Collaboration, *Fermi Large Area Telescope Third Source Catalog*, *ApJS* **218** (June 2015) 23. P. K. H. Yeung, A. K. H. Kong, P. H. T. Tam, L. C. C. Lin, C. Y. Hui, C.-P. Hu, and K. S. Cheng, *Studying the SGR 1806-20/Cl\* 1806-20 Region Using the Fermi Large Area Telescope*, *ApJ* **827** (Aug. 2016) 41. Fermi-LAT Collaboration, *Search for Extended Sources in the Galactic Plane Using Six Years of Fermi-Large Area Telescope Pass 8 Data above 10 GeV*, *ApJ* **843** (July 2017) 139. Fermi-LAT Collaboration, *The First Fermi LAT Supernova Remnant Catalog*, *ApJS* **224** (May 2016) 8.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the quantization of a classical system of interacting particles obeying a recently proposed kinetic interaction principle (KIP) \[G. Kaniadakis, Physica A [**296**]{}, 405 (2001)\]. The KIP fixes the expression of the Fokker-Planck equation describing the kinetic evolution of the system and imposes the form of its entropy. In the framework of canonical quantization, we introduce a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations (NSEs) with complex nonlinearities, describing, in the mean field approximation, a system of collectively interacting particles whose underlying kinetics is governed by the KIP. We derive the Ehrenfest relations and discuss the main constants of motion arising in this model. By means of a nonlinear gauge transformation of third kind it is shown that in the case of constant diffusion and linear drift the class of NSEs obeying the KIP is gauge-equivalent to another class of NSEs containing purely real nonlinearities depending only on the field $\rho=|\psi|^2$.'
author:
- 'A.M. Scarfone'
title: Canonical quantization of nonlinear many body systems
---
Introduction
============
A wide class of diffusive processes in nature, known as normal diffusion, are successfully described by the linear Fokker-Planck equation. Its relation to Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy (BG-entropy) in the framework of the irreversible thermodynamics is well established [@deGroot; @Prigogine; @Glansdorff].\
However, nonlinear Fokker-Planck equations (NFPEs) [@Frank1; @Frank2; @Chavanis1; @Chavanis4; @Chavanis2] and their connection in the field of the generalized thermodynamics [@Abe; @Kaniadakis0; @Kaniadakis00] is nowadays an intense research area. In particular, many physical phenomena, in presence of memory effects, nonlocal effects, long-range effects or, more in general, nonlinear effects, are well understood with the help of NFPEs.\
To cite a few, let us recall the problem of diffusion in polymers [@Ott], on liquid surfaces [@Bychuk], in Lévy flights [@Solomon] and enhanced diffusion in active intracellular transport [@Caspi]. Many anomalous diffusion systems have a quantum nature, like for instance charge transport in anomalous solids [@Sher], subrecoil laser cooling [@Bardou] and the aging effect in quantum dissipative systems [@Mauger].
A still open question concerns the dynamics underlying the nonlinear kinetics governing the above anomalous systems. Langevin-like, Fokker-Planck-like or Boltzmann-like equations have been used by different authors to generate nonlinear terms in the Schrödinger equation with the aim of describing, in the mean field approximation, the many quantum particle interactions [@Kostin; @Schuch1; @Schuch; @Kaniadakis].\
It is now widely recognized that the presence of a nonlinear drift term as well as the presence of a diffusive term in a quantum particle current originates complex nonlinearities in the evolution equation for the $\psi$-wave function.\
Different examples are known in literature of nonlinear Schrödinger equations (NSEs) originating from the study of the kinetics governing the many-body quantum system. For instance, the Doebner-Goldin family equations [@Doebner1] have been introduced from topological considerations as the most general class of Schrödinger equations compatible with the linear Fokker-Planck equation. In Ref. [@Scarfone3] the authors introduced a NSE starting from a generalized exclusion-inclusion principle (EIP) in order to describe systems of quantum particles with different statistics interpolating with continuity between the Bose-Einstein and the Fermi-Dirac ones. In Ref. [@Scarfone7], in the stochastic quantization framework, starting from the most general nonlinear kinetics containing a nonlinear drift term and compatible with a linear diffusion term, a class of NSEs with a complex nonlinearity was obtained.
Recently, a kinetic interaction principle (KIP) has been proposed [@Kaniadakis1] to define a special collective interaction among the $N$-identical particles of a classical system. On the one hand, the KIP imposes the form of the generalized entropy associated with the system, while on the other hand it governs the evolution of the system toward equilibrium by fixing the expression of the nonlinear current of particles in the NFPE, thus governing the kinetics underlying the system.\
The link between the generalized entropic functional and the corresponding NFPE can also be obtained starting from a maximum entropic production principle. In Refs. [@Chavanis1; @Chavanis4], taking into account a variational principle maximizing the dissipation rate of a generalized free energy, the authors obtained a NFPE in the Smoluchowski limit. The same NFPE was obtained in Ref. [@Chavanis2] from a stochastic process described by a generalized Langevin equation where the strength of the noise is assumed to depend on the density of the particle.
In the present paper we perform the quantization of a classical system obeying KIP, where the statistical information is supplied by a very general entropy.\
Up to today, different methods have been proposed for the microscopic description of systems. Schrödinger’s wave mechanics, Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics or Feynman’s path-integral mechanics are some of the many. Another approach is given by the hydrodynamic theory of quantum mechanics originally owing to Madelung [@Madelung] and de Broglie [@Broglie] and successively reconsidered by Bohm [@Bohm] in connection with his theory of hidden variables.\
In the hydrodynamic formulation of quantum mechanics, the complex linear Schrödinger equation is replaced by two real nonlinear differential equations for two independent fields: the probability density and its velocity field. Basically, such equations are formally similar to the equations of continuity and the Euler equation of ordinary hydrodynamics.\
This formalism is fruitful, as in the present situation, when the expression of the quantum continuity equation is inherited from the one describing the kinetics of the ancestor classical system. However, for a complete quantum mechanical description, besides the continuity equation, we need to know if and how we should generalize the Euler equation that describes the dynamics of the system. In this paper, in order to fix the nonlinear terms in the Euler equation, we require that the whole model be formulated in the canonical formalism.\
We obtain a class of NSEs with complex nonlinearity describing a quantum system of interacting particles obeying the KIP in the mean field approximation. We study the case of a quantum system undergoing a constant diffusion process. The generalization to the case of a nonconstant diffusive process is also presented at the end of the paper. It is shown that the form of the entropy of the ancestor classical system fixes the nonlinearity appearing in the evolution equation. By means of a recently proposed nonlinear gauge transformation [@Doebner1; @Scarfone1; @Scarfone4] this family of evolution equations is transformed into another one describing a nondiffusive process. In particular, when the kinetics of the system is governed by a linear drift term, the new family of NSEs contains a purely real nonlinearity depending only on the density of particles $\rho=|\psi|^2$.\
As working examples we present the quantization of some classical systems described by entropies already known in the literature: BG-entropy, Tsallis-entropy [@Tsallis], Kaniadakis-entropy [@Kaniadakis1] and the interpolating quantum statistics entropy [@Quarati1].
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section II we recall the relation between a given generalized entropy and the associated NFPE describing the kinetic evolution of the classical system in the nonequilibrium thermodynamic framework. This kinetic equation is justified on the ground of KIP. In Section III, firstly first present an overall summing up of the hydrodynamic formulation of the linear Schrödinger equation, then we generalize the method to quantize the classical system obeying EIP. The Hamiltonian formulation of this model is presented and a family of NSEs with complex nonlinearity is obtained. In Section IV we study the Ehrenfest relations and discuss the conserved mean quantities. In Section V, the nonlinear gauge transformation is introduced. Some relevant examples are presented in Section VI. The final Section VII present comments and conclusions. In Appendix A we give the derivation of the Ehrenfest relations while in Appendix B we briefly discuss the generalization of the model for a quantum system whose kinetics undergoes a nonconstant diffusive process.
Nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation
================================
Our starting point, according to nonlinear kinetics, is to relate the production of the entropy of a classical system to a Fokker-Planck equation. This can be accomplished by following the classical approach to diffusion [@deGroot; @Prigogine].\
We start by assuming a very general trace-form expression for the entropy (throughout this paper, we use units with the Boltzmann constant $k_{_{\rm B}}$ set equal to unity) $$S(\rho)=-\int d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\int d\rho\,\ln\kappa(\rho) \
,\label{entropy}$$ where $\kappa(\rho)$ is an arbitrary functional of the density particles field $\rho=\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$, with ${{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\equiv(x_{_1},\,\cdots,\,x_{_n})$ a point in the $n$-dimensional space.\
The constraints $$\int \rho\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}=1 \ ,\label{norm}$$ on the normalization and $$\int{\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\rho\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}=E \ ,\label{energy}$$ total energy of the system, with ${\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}^2/2\,m+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ the energy for each particle, are accounted for by introducing the constrained entropic functional $${\mathcal S(\rho)}=-\int d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\int
d\rho\,\ln\kappa(\rho)-\beta\int {\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\rho\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-\beta^\prime\int \rho\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \
.\label{funentropy}$$ The two constants $\beta$ and $\beta^\prime$ are the Lagrange multipliers associated with constraints (\[norm\]) and (\[energy\]).\
Quite generally, the evolution of the field $\rho$ in the configuration space is governed by the continuity equation $$\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}=0 \
,\label{cont}$$ with ${{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\equiv(\partial/\partial\,x_{_1},\,\cdots,\,\partial/\partial\,x_{_n})$, and assures the conservation of the constraint (\[norm\]) in time.\
We assume a nonlinear relation between the current ${\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}$ and the constrained thermodynamic force $${\mbox{\boldmath${\mathcal F}$}}(\rho)={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\left(\frac{\delta{\mathcal
S}}{\delta\rho}\right) \ ,\label{force}$$ by posing $${{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}=D\,\gamma(\rho)\,{\mbox{\boldmath${\mathcal F}$}}(\rho) \ ,\label{d}$$ with $D$ the diffusion coefficient and $\gamma(\rho)$ still an arbitrary functional of $\rho$.\
Putting Eq. (\[d\]) in Eq. (\[cont\]), and taking into account the expression of $\mathcal
S$ given in Eq. (\[funentropy\]) we obtain the following continuity equation $$\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\Big\{-D\,\gamma(\rho){{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\Big[\beta\,
{\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})+\beta^\prime+\ln\kappa(\rho)\Big]\Big\}=0 \
.\label{cont1}$$ Introducing drift velocity $${{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}=-D\,\beta\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,{\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}) \ ,$$ Eq. (\[cont1\]) takes the form of a NFPE for the field $\rho$ $$\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\Big[{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}\,\gamma(\rho)-D\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\Big]=0
\ ,\label{cont2}$$ where $$f(\rho)=\gamma(\rho)\,
\frac{\partial\,\ln\,\kappa(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho} \ .$$ Total current ${{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}_{\rm drift}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}_{\rm
diff}$ is the sum of a nonlinear drift current ${{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}_{\rm drift}={{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}\,\gamma(\rho)$, and a nonlinear diffusion current ${{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}_{\rm
diff}=-D\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho$, different from Fick’s standard one ${{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}_{\rm
Fick}=-D\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho$, which is recovered by posing $\gamma(\rho)=\kappa(\rho)=\rho$.\
Eq. (\[cont2\]) describes a class of nonlinear diffusive processes varying the functionals $\gamma(\rho)$ and $\kappa(\rho)$.\
We observe that for any given entropy (\[entropy\]) an infinity of associated NFPEs exists, one for any choice of $\gamma(\rho)$.
In Refs. [@Chavanis1; @Chavanis4], starting from a variational principle which maximizes the dissipation rate of a generalized free energy functional, substantially equivalent to Eq. (\[funentropy\]), a NFPE in the position space as in Eq. (\[cont2\]) has been obtained. The same NFPE (\[cont2\]) was also obtained in Ref. [@Chavanis2], starting from a stochastic process described by a generalized Langevin equation, where the strength of the noise is assumed to depend on the density of the particle. The nonlinear current, as in Eq. (\[d\]), is given by the gradient of the functional derivative of a generalized free energy equivalent to Eq. (\[funentropy\]).\
In Ref. [@Frank1] the problem of the NFPE derived from generalized linear nonequilibrium thermodynamics was also discussed at length.
At equilibrium, the particle current must vanish, and from Eq. (\[force\]) it follows $$\ln\kappa(\rho_{\rm eq})+\beta\,{\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})+\beta^\prime=0 \ ,\label{equi}$$ where, without loss of generality, we posed the integration constant equal to zero (otherwise it can be included in the Lagrange multiply $\beta^\prime$).\
We obtain the equilibrium distribution of the system $$\rho_{\rm eq}=\kappa^{-1}\Big(\exp\left(-\beta\,{\mathcal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})-\beta^\prime\right)\Big) \ .\label{distry}$$ In particular, with the choice $\kappa(\rho)=e\,\rho$, Eq. (\[entropy\]) reduces to standard BG-entropy and Eq. (\[distry\]) gives the well-known Gibbs-distribution.\
Let us now justify Eq. (\[cont2\]) starting from the kinetic approach introduced in [@Kaniadakis1] through the KIP. In accordance with the arguments presented in Ref. [@Kaniadakis1], we consider the following classical Markovian process $$\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}=\int\left[\pi(t,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})-\pi(t,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}} \ ,\label{ee}$$ describing the kinetics of a system of $N$-identical interacting particles.\
For transition probability $\pi(t,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ we assume a suitable expression in terms of the populations of the initial site ${\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}$ and the final site ${\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}$.\
According to KIP we pose $$\pi(t,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})=r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}) \,\gamma(\rho,\,\rho^\prime) \ ,\label{tran}$$ where $\rho\equiv\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ and $\rho^\prime\equiv\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ are the particle density functions in the starting site ${\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}$ and in the arrival site ${\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}$ respectively, whereas $r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ is the transition rate which depends only on the starting ${\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}$ and arrival ${\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}$ sites, during particle transition ${{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}$.\
The functional $\gamma(\rho,\,\rho^\prime)$ can be factorized in $$\gamma(\rho,\,\rho^\prime)=a(\rho)\,b(\rho^\prime)\,c(\rho,\,\rho^\prime)
\ .\label{gamma}$$ The first factor $a(\rho)$ is a functional of the particle population $\rho$ of the starting site and satisfies the boundary condition $a(0)=0$, since if the starting site is empty transition probability is equal to zero. The second factor $b(\rho^\prime)$ is a functional of the particle population $\rho^\prime$ at the arrival site, and satisfies the condition $b(0)=1$, because the transition probability does not depend on the arrival site if particles are absent there. Finally, the third factor $c(\rho,\,\rho^\prime)$ takes into account that the populations of the two sites can eventually affect the transition collectively and symmetrically.\
The expression of the functional $b(\rho^\prime)$ plays a very important role in the particle kinetics because it can stimulate or inhibit the transition ${{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}$, allowing, in this way, interactions originating from collective effects.\
With the assumptions made in Eqs. (\[tran\]) and (\[gamma\]) for transition probability, according to the Kramers-Moyal expansion and assuming the first neighbor approximation, we can expand up to the second order the quantities $r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\gamma(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}))$ and $\gamma(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}))$ in Taylor series of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}$, respectively, in an interval around ${\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}$, for ${{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}\ll{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber& &r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\,\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big)\\ \nonumber&&\hspace{-5mm}=\left\{r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\,\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big)+\frac{\partial}{\partial\,y_{_i}}\left[r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\,\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big)\right]\,u_{_i} \right.\\
&&+\left.{1\over2}\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\,y_{_i}\,\partial\,y_{_j}}
\left[r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\,\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big)\right]\,u_{_i}\,u_{_j}\right\}_{{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}} \ ,\label{sv1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\hspace{-8mm}\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\Big)&
&=\Bigg\{\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})\Big)-\frac{\partial}{\partial\,y_{_i}}\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})\Big)\,u_{_i}\Bigg.\\
&
&\left.+{1\over2}\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\,y_{_i}\,\partial\,y_{_j}}
\,\gamma\Big(\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}),\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})\Big)\,u_{_i}\,u_{_j}\right\}_{{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}} \
.\label{sv2}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. (\[sv1\]) and (\[sv2\]) in Eq. (\[tran\]), from Eq. (\[ee\]) it follows $$\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}=\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_{_i}}\left[\left(
\zeta_{_i}+\frac{\partial\,\zeta_{_{ij}}}{\partial
x_{_j}}\right)\,\gamma(\rho)+\zeta_{_{ij}}\,\gamma(\rho)\,
\frac{\partial}{\partial\,x_{_j}}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\right] \
,\label{kip}$$ with $i=1,\,\cdots,\,n$ and summation over repeated indices is assumed.\
In Eq. (\[kip\]) $$\gamma(\rho)\equiv\gamma(\rho,\,\rho^\prime)\Bigg|_{\rho=\rho^\prime}
\ ,$$ and $$\kappa(\rho)=\frac{a(\rho)}{b(\rho)} \ ,\label{lambda}$$ while the coefficients $\zeta_{_i}$ and $\zeta_{_{ij}}$ are given by $$\zeta_{_i}=\int r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\,u_{_i}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}} \
,\label{eej}$$ $$\zeta_{_{ij}}=\frac{1}{2}\int r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}})\,u_{_i}\,u_{_j}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}} \ .\label{ees}$$ Defining $(u_{_i})_{\rm
drift}=-\zeta_{_i}-\partial\,\zeta_{_{ij}}/\partial\,x_{_j}$, the $i$-th component of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}$, and assuming the independence of motion in different directions of the isotropic configuration space we can pose $\zeta_{_{ij}}=D\,\delta_{_{ij}}$. It is easy to see that Eq. (\[kip\]) reduces to Eq. (\[cont2\]).
In conclusion we observe that Eq. (\[cont2\]) is a NFPE in the Smoluchowski limit since it describes a kinetic process in the position space rather than in the phase space. This is a suitable form for the quantum treatment of the following sections. The passage from the NFPE in the phase space to the NFPE in the position space was rigorously elaborated in Ref. [@Chavanis3] in the limit of strong friction, by means of a Chapman-Enskog-like expansion.
Canonical quantization
======================
Quantization in the hydrodynamic representation {#hydrodynamic}
-----------------------------------------------
In the hydrodynamic representation, the quantum mechanics formulation, can readily be obtained from the standard Schrödinger equation $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\psi}{\partial\,t}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\psi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\, \psi \ ,\label{sch}$$ where $V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ is a real external potential. The complex field $\psi\equiv\psi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ describing the quantum system is related to the hydrodynamic fields $\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ and $\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ through polar decomposition [@Bohm; @Madelung] $$\psi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=\rho^{1/2}(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\,\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\right) \
.\label{polar}$$ Eq. (\[sch\]) is separated into a couple of real equations $$\begin{aligned}
&&m\,\frac{\partial\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}}{\partial\,t}+m\,\left(\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\right)\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\left(\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\frac{\Delta\,\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}
-V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\right) \ ,\label{h1}\\
&&\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}=0 \ ,\label{h2}\end{aligned}$$ where quantum velocity $\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}$, which in the linear case coincides with quantum drift velocity $\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}$, is related to the phase $\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ through $$m\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}) \
,\label{vquant}$$ and $${{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}=\rho\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}} \ ,\label{jc}$$ is the same relationship between current and velocity of the standard hydrodynamic theory. We remark that the quantum current (\[jc\]) contains only a linear drift term.\
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics the quantity $\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=|\psi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})|^2$ represents the position probability density of the system normalized as $\int\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}=1$.
Eqs. (\[h1\])-(\[jc\]) form the basis of the hydrodynamic formulation which consists of a quasi classical approach to quantum mechanics. In this picture the evolution of the system can be interpreted in terms of a flowing fluid with density $\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ associated with a local velocity field $\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$. The dynamics of such fluid is described by the Euler equation (\[h1\]) and is governed by forces arising not only from the external field ${{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}_{\rm
ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=-{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ but also from an additional potential $U_q=-(\hbar^2/2\,m)\,\Delta\sqrt\rho/\sqrt\rho$ known as the quantum potential [@Bohm]. Remarkably, the expectation value for the quantum force vanishes at all times, i.e. $\langle-{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,U_q\rangle=0$. Finally, the continuity equation (\[h2\]) assures the conservation of the normalization of wave function $\psi$ during the evolution of the system.\
Let us remark that the quantum fluid has a very special property. Because $\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ is a potential field for the quantum velocity, the quantum fluid is irrotational. As a consequence, in the linear Schrödinger theory, a non vanishing vorticity ${\mbox{\boldmath${\omega}$}}$, defined by $${{\mbox{\boldmath${\omega}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\times\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}} \
,\label{vorticity}$$ is possible only at the nodal region where neither $\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ nor ${{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ are well defined. At such a point ${{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\times{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ does not vanish in general, thus leading to the appearance of point-like vortices.
Finally, putting Eq. (\[vquant\]) into Eq. (\[h1\]) we obtain $$\frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,t}+\frac{\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma\right)^2}{2\,m}
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=0 \ .\label{si1}$$ This equation, in the classical limit $\hbar\to0$, reduces to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the function $\Sigma$.\
Eqs. (\[h2\]) and Eq. (\[si1\]) can be obtained by means of the Hamiltonian equations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,t}=-\frac{\delta\,
H}{\delta\,\rho} \ ,\label{rhos1}\\
&&\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}=\frac{\delta\,
H}{\delta\,\Sigma} \ ,\label{rhos2}\end{aligned}$$ where the Hamiltonian $$H=\int{\cal H}(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \ ,\label{ha}$$ with $${\mathcal
H}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\rho+\frac{\hbar^2}{8\,m}
\,\frac{\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2}{\rho}+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\rho
\ .\label{ham11}$$ represents the total energy of the quantum system.
The many-body quantum system
----------------------------
Let us now generalize the method described above by replacing the linear continuity equation Eq. (\[h2\]) with the more general one obtained in analogy with the continuity equation (\[cont2\]) describing the kinetics of a classical system obeying KIP. In the following we assume that the quantum system undergoes a constant diffusion process with $D=const.$
We begin by introducing the wave function $\psi\equiv\psi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ describing, in the mean field approximation, a system of quantum interacting particles. We postulate that the following NSE describes the evolution equation of the system $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\psi}{\partial\,t}=
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\psi+\Lambda(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)\,\psi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\psi \ ,\label{schroedinger1}$$ where $\Lambda(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)=W(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)+i\,{\mathcal
W}(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)$ is a complex nonlinearity, with $W(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)$ and ${\mathcal W}(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)$ the real and the imaginary part, respectively.\
Using polar decomposition (\[polar\]), Eq. (\[schroedinger1\]) is separated into a couple of real nonlinear evolution equations for phase and amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,t}+\frac{\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma\right)^2}{2\,m}
+U_q+W(\rho,\,\Sigma)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=0 \ ,\label{s}\\
&&\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}-\frac{2}{\hbar}\,\rho\,{\mathcal W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=0 \
.\label{rho}\end{aligned}$$ We require that both Eqs. (\[s\]) and (\[rho\]) can be obtained through the Hamilton equations (\[rhos1\])-(\[rhos2\]) and, to accommodate nonlinearities $W(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ and ${\cal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)$, we introduce in the Hamiltonian density ${\cal H}$ an additional real nonlinear potential $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ which describes the collective interaction between the particles belonging to the system $${\mathcal
H}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\rho+\frac{\hbar^2}{8\,m}
\,\frac{\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2}{\rho}+U(\rho,\,\Sigma)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\rho \ .\label{ham1}$$ By means of Eqs. (\[rhos1\]) and (\[rhos2\]) it follows that the nonlinear functionals $W(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ and ${\mathcal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ are related to the nonlinear potential $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&&W(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{\delta\, }{\delta\,\rho}\int
U(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \ ,\label{c}\\ &&{\mathcal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{\hbar}{2\,\rho}\,\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\int
U(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \ .\label{cw}\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the quantum fluid satisfies a continuity equation formally equal to the classical one described by the NFPE (\[cont2\]). By matching Eq. (\[rho\]) with Eq. (\[cont2\]) we obtain the expression ${\cal W}$ and, accounting for Eq. (\[cw\]), we have the nonlinear potential $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$. Finally, the nonlinearity $W(\rho,\,\Sigma)$, which follows from Eq. (\[c\]), together with the quantum potential $U_q$ and the external potential $V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$, describes the dynamic behavior of the quantum fluid according to Eq. (\[s\]).
We observe that if the following equation holds $$\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\int U(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}(\rho,\,\Sigma) \ ,\label{uf}$$ with ${{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ an arbitrary functional, taking into account Eq. (\[cw\]), Eq. (\[rho\]) becomes $$\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left[{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}-{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}(\rho,\,\Sigma)\right]=0 \ .\label{rho1}$$ Eq. (\[uf\]) is fulfilled if functional $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ depends on phase $\Sigma$ only through its spatial derivatives [@Scarfone1].\
Introducing the quantum drift velocity $$\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}=\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m} \ ,$$ which in the linear case coincides with the quantum velocity $\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}$ given in Eq. (\[vquant\]), and by comparing Eq. (\[rho1\]) with Eq. (\[cont2\]) we have $${{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\Big[\rho-\gamma(\rho)\Big]+D\,f(\rho)\,
\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho \ .$$ By integrating Eq. (\[cw\]), the nonlinear potential assumes the expression $$U(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\Big[\gamma(\rho)-\rho\Big]
-D\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\rho\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}} \Sigma}+{\widetilde
U}(\rho) \ ,\label{u}$$ where $\widetilde U(\rho)$ is an arbitrary real potential depending only on field $\rho$. Eqs. (\[rhos1\]) and (\[rhos2\]) give the following coupled nonlinear evolution equations $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&&\frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,t}+
\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}\,\Sigma})^2}{2\,m}\,\frac{\partial\,\gamma(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\, \frac{\Delta\,\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}
+m\,D\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}}{\rho}\right)+G(\rho)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=0 \ ,\label{s1}\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot
\left[\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho)-D\,f(\rho)
\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right]=0 \ ,\label{r1}\end{aligned}$$ where $G(\rho)=\delta\,\int{\widetilde U}(\rho)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}/\delta\,\rho$.\
In the classical limit $\hbar\to0$ Eq. (\[s1\]) becomes a nonlinear Hamilton-Jacobi equation for function $\Sigma$. It differs from the classical one owing to the presence of the nonlinear term which functionally depends on both $\rho$ and $\Sigma$. We recall that such a nonlinearity was introduced consistently with the requirement of a final canonical formulation of the theory.\
We stress once again that in the approach described in this paper, we start from a nonlinear generalization of the continuity equation that gives us only information on the kinetics. This equation is not enough to completely determine the time evolution of the quantum system. As a consequence, we have ample freedom in the definition of nonlinear potential $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$. Such freedom is reflected in the arbitrary functional $\widetilde U(\rho)$ which cannot be fixed only on the basis of the kinetic equation. There are many possible dynamic behaviors, one for any choice of $\widetilde U(\rho)$, compatible with the same kinetics. The nonlinear potential ${\widetilde
U}(\rho)$ can be used to describe other possible interactions among the many particles of the system that have an origin different from the one introduced by the kinetic equation (\[r1\]).
Actually, Eq. (\[r1\]) is a quantum continuity equation for field $\rho$ with a nonlinear quantum current given by $${{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}=\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho)-D\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho \
.\label{ncurrent}$$ We observe that, differently from the hydrodynamic formulation of the linear quantum mechanics, where the Bohm-Madelung fluid is irrotational, in nonlinear quantum theory the situation can be very different. In fact, by defining quantum velocity through Eq. (\[jc\]), from Eq. (\[ncurrent\]) we have $$m\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}={\gamma(\rho)\over\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Big[\Sigma-m\,D\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\Big]
\ ,\label{vq1}$$ which states the relationship between quantum velocity $\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}$ and quantum drift velocity $\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}$ for the nonlinear case.\
Expression (\[vq1\]) can be justified in terms of Clebsh potentials. In fact, as is well known, a nonvanishing vorticity can be accounted for in the Schrödinger theory by introducing three potentials $\mu$, $\nu$ and $\lambda$ related to quantum velocity through the relation $$m\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\mu+\nu\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\lambda \
.\label{vq}$$ Vorticity ${{\mbox{\boldmath${\omega}$}}}$ assumes a nonvanishing expression given by $${{\mbox{\boldmath${\omega}$}}}={1\over
m}{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\nu\times{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\lambda \
.\label{vorticity1}$$ By comparing Eq. (\[vq\]) with Eq. (\[vq1\]) we readily obtain $\mu=const$, $\nu=\gamma(\rho)/\rho$ and $\lambda=\Sigma-m\,D\,\ln\kappa(\rho)$, respectively, and Eq. (\[vorticity1\]) becomes $${{\mbox{\boldmath${\omega}$}}}={1\over
m}{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\left(\frac{\gamma(\rho)}{\rho}\right)\times{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,
\Sigma \ ,$$ with no any contribution from the diffusive term. The irrotational case is recovered in linear drift $\gamma(\rho)=\rho$.
The final expression of the NSE (\[schroedinger1\]) is given by $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\psi}{\partial\,t}=
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\psi+\Big[W(\rho,\,\Sigma)+i\,{\mathcal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)\Big]\,\psi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\psi \
,\label{schroedinger2}$$ with the nonlinearities $$\begin{aligned}
W(\rho,\,\Sigma)={m\over2}\,
\left(\frac{\partial\,\gamma(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}-1\right)\,\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)^2+m\,D\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}}{\rho}\right)+G(\rho) \ , \label{www}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-3mm}{\mathcal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=-\frac{\hbar}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Bigg\{[\gamma(\rho)-\rho]
\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)\Bigg\}
+\frac{\hbar\,D}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left[f(\rho )
\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right] \ . \label{cwww}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[www\])-(\[cwww\]) differ from the one obtained in Ref. [@Scarfone7] where a family of NSE was derived in the stochastic quantization framework starting from the most general nonlinear classical kinetics compatible with constant diffusion coefficient $D=\hbar/2\,m$. In particular, the real nonlinearity $W$ arising in the stochastic quantization is found to depend only on field $\rho$, in contrast with expression (\[www\]), where functional $W$ depends on both fields $\rho$ and $\Sigma$.\
Remarkably, we observe that when the kinetics of the system is governed by a linear drift, with $\gamma(\rho)=\rho$, the expression of nonlinear terms (\[www\]) and (\[cwww\]) simplify to $$W(\rho,\,\Sigma)=m\,D\,\widetilde
f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}}{\rho}\right)+G(\rho) \ ,$$ and $${\mathcal W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=
\frac{\hbar\,D}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left[\widetilde
f(\rho)\,\ln\kappa(\rho) \,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right] \ ,$$ where $\widetilde f(\rho)=\rho\,(\partial/\partial\,\rho)\,\ln\kappa(\rho)$.\
They are determined only through functional $\kappa(\rho)$ which also defines the entropy (\[entropy\]) of the ancestor classical system.
Ehrenfest relations and conserved quantities
============================================
\[Ehrenfest\]
In this section we study the time evolution of the most important physical observables of the system described by the Hamiltonian density (\[ham1\]) with the nonlinear potential (\[u\]): mass center, linear and angular momentum and total energy. The proofs are given in Appendix A.\
Let us recall that, given an Hermitian operator ${\cal
O}={\cal O}^\dag$ associated with a physical observable, its time evolution is given by $$\frac{d}{d\,t}\langle{\cal O}\,\rangle={i\over\hbar}\int\left(
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\psi}\,{\cal O}\,\psi-\psi^\ast\,{\cal
O}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\psi^\ast}\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}+\Bigg\langle\frac{\partial\,{\cal O}}{\partial\,t}\Bigg\rangle
\ ,\label{ehrenfest}$$ where the mean value $\langle{\cal O}\,\rangle=\int\psi^\ast{\cal
O}\,\psi\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}$. The last term in Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) takes into account a possible explicit time dependence on the operator $\cal O$.\
Observing that the NSE (\[schroedinger2\]) can be written in $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\psi}{\partial\,t}=\textsf{H}\,\psi \
,\label{HHH}$$ where $$\textsf{H}=
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta+W(\rho,\,\Sigma)+i\,{\cal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}) \ ,\label{HHH1}$$ Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) assumes the equivalent expression $$\frac{d}{d\,t}\langle{\cal
O}\,\rangle={i\over\hbar}\,\Big\langle\Big[{\rm
Re}\,\textsf{H},\,{\cal
O}\Big]\Big\rangle+{1\over\hbar}\,\Big\langle\Big\{{\rm
Im}\,\textsf{H},\,{\cal O}\Big\}\Big\rangle
+\Bigg\langle\frac{\partial\,{\cal O}}{\partial\,t}\Bigg\rangle \
,\label{ehrenfestnew}$$ where $[\cdot,\,\cdot]$ and $\{\cdot,\,\cdot\}$ indicate the commutator and the anticommutator, respectively.
By choosing ${\cal O}={{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}$, from Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) we obtain the first Ehrenfest relation for the time evolution of the mass center of the system $${{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}_{\rm mc}\equiv\frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rangle=\Bigg\langle \frac{\gamma(\rho)}{\rho}\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}\Bigg\rangle \ .\label{prima}$$ We observe that only drift nonlinearity appears in this equation whereas the diffusion term makes no contribution. Eq. (\[prima\]) states that, quite generally, ${{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}_{\rm mc}$ is not a motion constant. This fact implies that the quantum system is not Galilei invariant. The origin of the nonconservation of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}_{\rm cm}$ can be found in the difference between quantity ${{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}_{\rm
mc}=m\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}}_{\rm mc}$ and the expectation value of the momentum operator ${{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\equiv\langle-i\,\hbar\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\rangle=\int\rho\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}$. These two quantities are equivalent only in the linear drift case. Differently from the former, the latter is in all cases conserved during the time evolution of the system, in absence of the external potential. This can be shown by means of the second Ehrenfest relation which follows from Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) by posing ${\cal
O}=-i\,\hbar\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}$ $$\frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle=\Big\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}_{\rm
ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big\rangle \ .\label{seconda}$$ The time evolution of the expectation value of momentum is governed only by external potential $V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$. On the average, the KIP introduce no effect on the dynamics of the system. This is a consequence of the invariance of nonlinearity $W[\rho,\,\Sigma]+i\,{\cal W}[\rho,\,\Sigma]$ under uniform space translation.
In the same way, accounting for the invariance of nonlinearity for uniform rotations, the third Ehrenfest relation follows $$\frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}\rangle=\Big\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${M}$}}}_{\rm
ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big\rangle \ ,\label{terza}$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath${M}$}}}_{\rm ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\times{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}_{\rm ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ is the momentum of the external force field. Eq. (\[terza\]) is obtained from Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) after posing ${\cal O}={{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\times(-i\,\hbar\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}})$. Again, the nonlinear terms introduced by KIP as well as nonlinearity $G(\rho)$ make no contribution, on the average, to angular momentum.
Finally, the last relation concerns the total energy of the system given by the Hamiltonian $E\equiv H$. By posing $${\cal
O}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta+{1\over\rho}\,U(\rho,\,\Sigma)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}) \ ,$$ we have $\langle{\cal O}\rangle\equiv E$ and from Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) we obtain $$\frac{d\,E}{d\,t}=0 \ .\label{quarta}$$
In conclusion, for a constant diffusion process we have shown that in absence of the external potential the system admits three constants of motion: total linear momentum $\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle$, total angular momentum $\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}\rangle$ and total energy $E$. Such conserved quantities, according to the Noether theorem, follow as a consequence of the invariance of the system under uniform space-time translation and uniform rotation. Moreover, the system is also invariant for global U(1) transformation which implies conservation of the normalization of field $\psi$ throughout the evolution of the system.\
In Appendix B we briefly discuss the case of a quantum system with a diffusion coefficient $D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ that depends on time and position. This space-time dependence destroys the invariance of the system under uniform space-time translation and space rotation. As a consequence, all quantities $\langle{\bf p}\rangle$, $\langle{\bf L}\rangle$ and $E$ are no longer conserved, even for a vanishing external potential.
It should be remarked that the results discussed here, although very general in that they are independent of the form of nonlinearities $W$ and $\cal W$, are valid only for the class of the canonical systems. In literature there are many noncanonical NSEs, obtained starting from certain physically motivated conditions, which are worthy of being taken into account. For these equations, the expression of $\texttt{H}$ appearing on the right hand side of the Schrödinger equation cannot be obtained from Eqs. (\[rhos1\]) and (\[rhos2\]) by means of a Hamiltonian function $H=\int{\cal H}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}$.\
Despite this, even for these noncanonical systems the time evolution of the mean values of the quantum operators associated with the observables can be derived through Eq. (\[ehrenfestnew\]), but what is important is that these operators can assume a different definition with respect to the one given in the canonical theory. For instance, in the canonical framework the energy is supplied by the Hamiltonian $H$ of the system, whereas in a noncanonical theory it is identified with the operator $i\,\hbar\,\partial /
\partial\,t\equiv\texttt{H}$. (We remark that in the canonical framework $H$ and $\texttt{H}$ are, in general, different quantities). Moreover, for a noncanonical theory, conservation of the energy and the momentum do not follow merely from the principle of invariance of the system under space-time translation. Their time evolution depends on the expression of the nonlinearities appearing in the Schrödinger equation. All of this clearly causes a profound difference in the resulting Ehrenfest relations.\
For instance, in Ref. [@Schuch1] a noncanonical Schrödinger equation with complex nonlinearity was derived starting from a Fokker-Planck equation for density field $\rho$ by assuming some physically justified separability conditions. The resulting evolution equation has the real and the imaginary nonlinearity given by $W(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\gamma\,(\Sigma-\langle\Sigma\rangle)$ and ${\cal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=(\hbar\,D/2)\,\Delta\rho/\rho$, respectively, where $\gamma$ is a constant related to diffusion coefficient $D$ and such that $D\to0$ if $\gamma\to0$. It is easy to see that such nonlinearities cannot be obtained starting from a nonlinear potential $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ through Eqs. (\[c\]) and (\[cw\]). The system described by this NSE turns out to be dumped and dissipative, even in presence of a constant diffusive process. In fact, it can be shown that, following Ref. [@Schuch1], from Eq. (\[ehrenfestnew\]) it follows $d\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle/d\,t=\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}_{\rm
ext}\rangle-\gamma\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle$ and $d\,E/d\,t\equiv d\,\langle
\texttt{H}\rangle/d\,t=-(\gamma/m)\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}^2\rangle$, which is a very different situation with respect to the one discussed in the present paper, with the exception of the trivial case $\gamma=0$.\
Gauge equivalence
=================
\[Gauge equivalence\]
We introduce a nonlinear gauge transformation of the third kind [@Scarfone1] $$\psi\rightarrow\phi=\psi\,\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\,m\,D\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\right)
\ ,\label{gauge}$$ which, being a unitary transformation, does not change the amplitude of wave function $|\psi|^2=|\phi|^2=\rho$, and transforms the phase $\Sigma$ of the old field $\psi$, into phase $\sigma$ of the new field $\phi$ according to the equation $$\sigma=\Sigma-m\,D\,\ln\kappa(\rho) \ .\label{phase}$$ Consequently, the nonlinear current (\[ncurrent\]) takes the expression $${{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}\to\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}=\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho) \ .\label{jt}$$ with only a nonlinear drift term.\
Let us observe that, at the classical level, the similar transformation $${{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}^\prime={{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}-D\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln\kappa(\rho) \ ,\label{trtr}$$ changes total current ${{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}^\prime={{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}^\prime\,\gamma(\rho)$ into another one consisting only of a nonlinear drift term.
Performing the transformation (\[gauge\]), Eq. (\[schroedinger2\]) becomes $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\phi+ \left[\widetilde
W(\rho,\,\sigma)+i\,\widetilde{\mathcal W}(\rho,\,\sigma)\right]
\,\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi \ ,\label{schroedinger31}$$ where the new nonlinearities $\widetilde W(\rho,\,\sigma)$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal W}(\rho,\,\sigma)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\widetilde W(\rho,\,\sigma)={m\over2}\,
\left(\frac{\partial\,\gamma(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}-1\right)\,\left(\frac{\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)^2+m\,D^2\,\Bigg[f_1(\rho)\,\Delta\,\rho+f_2(\rho)\,
\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2 \Bigg]+G(\rho) \ ,\\ \label{w}\end{aligned}$$ with $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0=\rho\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\sigma/m$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&f_1(\rho)=\gamma(\rho)\,\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial\,\rho}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\right]^2
\ ,\\
&&f_2(\rho)={1\over2}\,\frac{\partial\,f_{1}(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\widetilde{\mathcal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=-\frac{\hbar}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Bigg\{[\gamma(\rho)-\rho]
\left(\frac{\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)\Bigg\} \
.\label{gcw}$$ Eq. (\[schroedinger31\]) is still a NSE with a complex nonlinearity due to the presence of the nonlinear drift term in the quantum current expression (\[jt\]).
Basically, both equations (\[schroedinger2\]) and (\[schroedinger31\]) are different NSEs describing the same physical system. This is a consequence of the unitary structure of the transformation (\[gauge\]) which implies that the probability position density for field $\psi$ and field $\phi$ assumes the same value at any instant of time [@Doebner1].
In the case of $\gamma(\rho)=\rho$ expressions (\[w\]) and (\[gcw\]) can be simplified and the NSE (\[schroedinger31\]) assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\phi
+m\,D^2\,\Bigg[\widetilde
f_{1}(\rho)\,\Delta\,\rho+\widetilde f_2(\rho)\,
\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2\Bigg]\,\phi+G(\rho)\,\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi \ ,\\ \label{schroedinger3}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&&\widetilde
f_{1}(\rho)=\rho\,\,\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial\,\rho}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\right]^2 \ ,\\
&&\widetilde f_2(\rho)={1\over2}\,\frac{\partial\,\widetilde
f_{1}(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which contains a purely real nonlinearity depending only on field $\rho$.\
We observe that although Eq. (\[gauge\]) transforms the nonlinear current into another one without the diffusive term, NSEs (\[schroedinger31\]) and (\[schroedinger3\]) contain a dependence from on diffusion coefficient $D$.\
The NSE (\[schroedinger31\]) is still canonical. It can be obtained from the following Hamiltonian density $${\mathcal
H}(\rho,\,\sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\rho+\frac{\hbar^2}{8\,m}
\,\frac{\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2}{\rho}+\widehat
U(\rho,\,\sigma)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\rho \ ,\label{ht}$$ with nonlinear potential $$\widehat
U(\rho,\,\sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\Big[\gamma(\rho)-\rho\Big]-
{m\,D^2\over2}\,f_1(\rho)\,\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2+\widetilde
U(\rho) \ .\label{ut}$$ In this sense Eq. (\[gauge\]) defines a canonical transformation.
In conclusion, let us make the following observation. Eq. (\[schroedinger31\]) admits the following continuity equation $$\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot
\left[\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho)\right]=0 \
.\label{cnc}$$ A natural question is: what kind of NSE is obtained if we quantize a classical system obeying the continuity equation $\partial\,\rho/\partial\,t+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}}^\prime=0$ with the method described above?\
We easily have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=
&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\phi-{m\over2}\,
\left(\frac{\partial\,\gamma(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}-1\right)\,\left(\frac{\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)^2\,\phi\\&-&i\,\frac{\hbar}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Bigg\{[\gamma(\rho)-\rho]
\left(\frac{\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)\Bigg\}
\,\phi+G(\rho)\,\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi \
,\label{schroedinger311}\end{aligned}$$ where now $\rho $ and $\sigma$ are independent fields representing the amplitude and phase of wave function $\phi$. Eq. (\[schroedinger311\]) can be derived through the Hamiltonian density (\[ht\]) with nonlinear potential $$\widehat
U_{_1}(\rho,\,\sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\Big[\gamma(\rho)-\rho\Big]
+\widetilde U(\rho)\ .\label{utt}$$ Potentials (\[ut\]) and (\[utt\]) differ for the quantity $$\overline U(\rho)=\widehat U(\rho,\,\sigma)-\widehat
U_{_1}(\rho,\,\sigma)=-
{m\,D^2\over2}\,f_1(\rho)\,\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2 \ ,$$ which depends only on field $\rho$. This nonlinear potential $\overline U(\rho)$ does not affect the continuity equation and thus cannot be obtained starting directly from Eq. (\[cnc\]).
Some examples
=============
\[exemples\]
To illustrate the relevance and applicability of the theory described in the previous sections, we derive and discuss some different NSEs obtained starting from kinetic equations known in literature. In the following Section, for simplicity’s sake we omit the arbitrary nonlinear potential $\widetilde U(\rho)$ and focus our attention only on the effect yield through the potential introduced by the KIP.
Boltzmann-Gibbs-entropy
-----------------------
It is well known that when the many body system is governed by short-range interactions, or when interaction energy is neglecting with respect to the total energy of the system, the suitable entropic functional is given by the BG-entropy $$S_{{\rm BG}}(\rho)=-\int\rho\,\ln\left(\rho\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \
.\label{SBG}$$ This entropy arises from Eq. (\[entropy\]) by posing $\kappa(\rho)=e\,\rho$ with $a(\rho)=e\,\rho$ and $b(\rho)=1$. It is readily seen that $\gamma(\rho)=e\,\rho\,c(\rho)$.\
Among the many NFPEs compatible with entropy (\[SBG\]) we consider the simplest case of linear drift by posing $c(\rho)=1/e$. Then the continuity equation (\[r1\]) becomes the standard linear Fokker-Planck equation $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}-D\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)=0 \ ,\label{Shannon}$$ whereas the evolution equation for the quantum system is given by the following NSE $$\begin{aligned}
i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\psi}{\partial\,t}=&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\psi+
m\,D\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}}{\rho}\right)\,\psi+i\,\frac{\hbar}{2}\,D\,\frac{\Delta\,\rho}{\rho}\,\psi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\psi \ ,\label{DG}\end{aligned}$$ which is recognized as the canonical sub-family of the class of Doebner-Goldin equations parameterized by diffusion coefficient $D$. We recall that Eq. (\[Shannon\]) was obtained in the quantum mechanics theory starting from the study of the physical interpretation of a certain family of diffeomorphismin group [@Doebner1].\
By performing gauge transformation (\[gauge\]), Eq. (\[DG\]) becomes $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\phi
+m\,D^2\,\left[\frac{\Delta\,\rho}{\rho}
-{1\over2}\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho}{\rho}\right)^2\right]\,\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi \ ,\label{DG1}$$ which was studied previously in [@Guerra]. In particular, Eq. (\[DG1\]) is equivalent to the following linear Schrödinger equation $$i\,k^{\!\!\!\!\!-}\,\frac{\partial\,\chi}{\partial\,t}=-\frac{{k^{\!\!\!\!\!-}}^2}
{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\chi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\chi \ ,\label{lsch}$$ with $k^{\!\!\!\!\!-}=\hbar\,\sqrt{1-(2\,m\,D/\hbar)^2}$ and field $\chi$ is related to hydrodynamic fields $\rho$ and $\sigma$ through the relation $\chi=\rho^{1/2}\,\exp(i\,\sigma/k^{\!\!\!\!\!-})$.\
This appear to be an interesting result. By quantizing a classical system described by MB-entropy the standard linear Schrödinger equation was obtained. In this equation the nonlinear terms describing the interaction between the many particles of the quantum system are absent. This is in accordance with the general statement that MB-entropy is suitable for describing systems with no (or negligible) interaction among the particles.
Generalized entropies
---------------------
In presence of long-range interactions or memory effects persistent in time, it has been argued that MB-entropy may not be appropriate in describing such systems. For this reason, many different versions of Eq. (\[SBG\]) have been proposed in literature.\
Very recently, Ref. [@Scarfone9; @Scarfone8] introduced a bi-parametric deformation of the logarithmic function $$\ln_{_{\{\kappa,r\}}}(x)=\frac{x^{r+\kappa}-x^{r-\kappa}}{2\,\kappa}
\ ,\label{krlog}$$ which reduces, in the $(\kappa,\,r)\to(0,\,0)$ limit, to the standard logarithm: $\ln_{_{\{0,0\}}}(x)=\ln x$. By replacing the logarithmic function in Eq. (\[SBG\]) with its generalized version (\[krlog\]), we obtain a bi-parametric family of generalized entropies $$S_{_{\{\kappa,r\}}}(\rho)=-\int
\rho\,\ln_{_{\{\kappa,r\}}}\left(\rho\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \
,\label{skr}$$ introduced, for the first time, in Refs. [@Mittal; @Sharma]. Remarkably, this family of entropies includes, as special cases, some generalized entropies, well known in literature, used in the study of systems exhibiting distribution with asymptotic power law behavior. Among them we can cite Tsallis-entropy [@Tsallis] which follows by posing $r=\pm|\kappa|$ $$S_{_q}(\rho)=\int\frac{\rho^q-\rho}{1-q}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \
,\label{tsallis}$$ with $q=1\pm2\,|\kappa|$ and Kaniadakis-entropy [@Kaniadakis1], for $r=0$ $$S_{_{\{\kappa\}}}(\rho)=-\int
\frac{\rho^{1+\kappa}-\rho^{1-\kappa}}{2\,\kappa}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \
.\label{sk}$$
Both these entropies, as well as other one-parameter deformed entropies, originated from Eq. (\[skr\]) [@Scarfone8], can be employed to describe generalized statistical systems such as, for instance, charge particles in electric and magnetic fields [@Rossani], 2d-turbulence in pure-electron plasma [@Boghosian], Bremsstrahlung [@Souza] and anomalous diffusion of the correlated and Lévy type [@Borland; @Zanette].\
In addition to the many applications where Tsallis-entropy has been employed [@Tsallisbiblio], Kaniadakis-entropy (\[sk\]) has been successfully applied in the description of the energy distribution of fluxes of cosmic rays [@Kaniadakis1], whereas the entropy in (\[skr\]) with $\kappa^2=(r+1)^2-1$ has been applied in the generalized statistical mechanical study of $q$-deformed oscillators in the frame-work of quantum-groups [@Abe2].\
Despite the topics recalled above, there is currently great interest in studying quantum systems with long-range microscopic interactions. Systems such as quantum wires, which are now possible in practice thanks to recent technological advances, require on the theoretical ground, the development of a quantum (nonlinear) theory capable of capturing the emergent facts [@Nazareno].
The entropy in (\[skr\]) arises from Eq. (\[entropy\]) by posing $$\ln\kappa(\rho)=\lambda\,\ln_{_{\{{\scriptstyle
\kappa,r}\}}}\left(\frac{\rho}{\alpha}\right) \ ,\label{lk}$$ with $\lambda=(1+r-\kappa)^{(r+\kappa)/2\,\kappa}/(1+r+\kappa)^{(r-\kappa)/2\,\kappa}$ and $\alpha=[(1+r-\kappa)/(1+r+\kappa)]^{1/2\,\kappa}$.\
Among the many different possibilities, we discuss the case of linear drift with $\gamma(\rho)=\rho$. By taking into account Eq. (\[lk\]) we have continuity equation (\[r1\]) with $$f(\rho)=a_+\rho^{r+\kappa}-a_-\rho^{r-\kappa} \ ,$$ where $a_\pm=(r\pm\kappa)\,(1+r\pm\kappa)/2\,\kappa$ are constants.\
The associated NSE assumes the expression $$\begin{aligned}
i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}
\Delta\,\phi+m\,D^2\,{f(\rho)\over\rho}\,
\left[f(\rho)\,\Delta\,\rho+{\widetilde f}(\rho)
\,\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2 \right]\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi
\ , \label{krDGd}\end{aligned}$$ with $${\widetilde f}(\rho)=b_+\,
\rho^{r+\kappa-1}-b_-\,\rho^{r-\kappa-1} \ ,$$ and $b_\pm=a_\pm\,(r\pm\kappa-1/2)$.\
Eq. (\[krDGd\]) contains only a purely real nonlinearity and reduces to Eq. (\[DG1\]) in the $(\kappa,r)\to(0,\,0)$ limit, as well as Eq. (\[skr\]), which reduces to the standard BG-entropy.\
In particular, for Tsallis-entropy, the continuity equation (\[r1\]), with $$f(\rho)=q\,\rho^{q-1} \ ,\label{Tsallis1}$$ becomes the diffusive NFPE [@Compte1] while the corresponding NSE is given through Eq. (\[krDGd\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde f}(\rho)=\left(q-{3\over2}\right)\,\rho^{q-2} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and reduces to Eq. (\[DG1\]) in the $q\to1$ limit just as entropy (\[tsallis\]) reduces to BG-entropy.\
We observe that in Refs. [@Olavo1; @Olavo] the quantization of a classical system described by Tsallis-entropy has been already discussed. There, a NLS compatible with the continuity equation $\partial\,\rho^\mu/\partial\,t+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot(\rho^\mu\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{_{\rm drift}})=0$ was obtained with a different approach. The nonlinearity appearing in the NLS of Refs. [@Olavo1; @Olavo] reduces, for $\mu=1$ and $q\rightarrow2-q$, to the same one reported here.\
On the other hand, for Kaniadakis-entropy, the continuity equation is given in Eq. (\[r1\]) with $$f(\rho)={1\over2}\,\left[(\kappa+1)\,\rho^\kappa-(\kappa-1)\,\rho^{-\kappa}\right]
\ ,$$ which coincides with that proposed in Ref. [@Kaniadakis1] while the associated NSE is given in Eq. (\[krDGd\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde
f}(\rho)={1\over2\,\rho}\,\left[(\kappa+1)\,\left(\kappa-{1\over2}\right)\,\rho^{\kappa}+
(\kappa-1)\,\left(\kappa+{1\over2}\right)\,\rho^{-\kappa}\right] \
,\end{aligned}$$ and reduces to Eq. (\[DG1\]) in the $\kappa\to0$ limit just as entropy (\[sk\]) reduces to BG-entropy.
Interpolating bosons-fermions-entropy
-------------------------------------
In Ref. [@Quarati1], on the basis of the generalized exclusion-inclusion principle the authors introduced a family of NFPEs describing the evolution of a classical system of particles whose statistical behavior interpolates between bosonic and fermionic particles. The equilibrium distribution governed by the EIP can be obtained by maximizing the following entropy $$S_{\rm EIP}(\rho)=-\int\left[\rho\,\ln\rho-
{1\over\kappa}\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)\,\ln(1+\kappa\,\rho)\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \ ,\label{seip}$$ with $-1\leq\kappa\leq1$. In particular, for $\kappa=\pm1$ we recognize the well-known Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac entropies, whereas intermediary behavior follows for $-1<\kappa<1$. Entropy (\[seip\]) can be obtained from Eq. (\[entropy\]) by posing $a(\rho)=\rho$ and $b(\rho)=1+\kappa\,\rho$.
Some examples of real physical systems where EIP can be usefully applied are to be found in the Bose-Einsten condensation. Typically, the cubic NSE is used to describe the behavior of the condensate by simulating in this way the statistical attraction between the many bodies constituting the system. In spite of the simplest cubic interaction, other interactions like the one introduced by the EIP can be adopted to simulate an attraction among the particles.\
In the opposite direction, almost-fermionic systems can be found in the study of the motion of electrons and holes in a semiconductor. In fact, while if separately considered electrons and holes are fermions, together they constitute an excited state behaving differently from a fermion or a boson. The same argument can be applied to the Cooper-pair in the superconductivity theory. Such excitation differs from a pure boson state because of the spatial delocalization of the two electrons, which are not completely overlying. Deviation from Bose statistics must be taken into account.
In the following we discuss separately two different choices for functional $\gamma(\rho)$.\
In the linear drift case, with $c(\rho)=1/(1+\kappa\,\rho)$, the evolution equation for field $\rho$ assumes the expression $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}-D\,{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\over1+\kappa\,\rho}\,\right)=0 \
,\label{eip1}$$ which was proposed in Ref. [@Kaniadakis]. By means of Eq. (\[gauge\]), nonlinear current ${{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}-D\,{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho/(1+\kappa\,\rho)}\rightarrow\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}$ assumes the standard bilinear form and the corresponding NSE follows from Eq. (\[schroedinger3\]) $$\begin{aligned}
i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\phi+
\frac{m\,D^2}{(1+\kappa\,\rho)^2}\,\left[
\frac{\Delta\,\rho}{\rho}-\frac{1-3\,\kappa\,\rho}{2\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)}\,\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}
\,\rho}{\rho}\right)^2 \right]\,\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi \ .
\label{qeip1}\end{aligned}$$ We can observe that in Eq. (\[qeip1\]) the EIP is accounting through a diffusion process and its effect vanishes in the $D\to0$ limit where it reduces to the standard linear Schrödinger equation. Eq. (\[qeip1\]) has a purely real nonlinearity depending only on field $\rho$.
In a different way, by making the choice $c(\rho)=1$, the continuity equation (\[r1\]) becomes $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\Big[{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)-D\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\Big]=0 \
.\label{eip2}$$ The gauge transformation changes nonlinear current ${{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}\equiv{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)-D\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\rightarrow\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}\equiv\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)$ containing only a nonlinear drift term and Eq. (\[eip2\]) reduces to $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial
t}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left[\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)\right]=0 \ .\label{eip4}$$ This equation was introduced at the classical level in Ref. [@Quarati1] and subsequently reconsidered at the quantum level in Ref. [@Scarfone3]. The NSE associated with Eq. (\[eip4\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\phi}{\partial\,t}=&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\phi
+\frac{m\,D^2}{1+\kappa\,\rho}\left[\frac{\Delta\,\rho}{\rho} -
\frac{1+2\,\kappa\,\rho}{2\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)}\,\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}
\,\rho}{\rho}\right)^2 \right]\,\phi\\
&+&\kappa\,{m\over\rho}\,\left(\frac{\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}}{1+\kappa\,\rho}\right)^2\,\phi-i\,\kappa\,
\frac{\hbar}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}\,\rho}{1+\kappa\,\rho} \right)\,\phi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\phi \
.\label{eip3}\end{aligned}$$ We observe that Eq. (\[eip3\]) still has a complex nonlinearity due to the nonlinear structure of quantum current $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}$ and both the nonlinearities $W$ and $\cal W$ depend on fields $\rho$ and $\sigma$. Moreover, in Eq. (\[eip3\]), EIP is accounted through a nonlinear drift term and survives even in absence of a diffusion process $(D\to0)$.\
Factor $(1+\kappa\,\rho)$ in nonlinear current $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}$ takes into account the EIP in the many particle system. In fact, transition probability (\[tran\]) from site ${\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}$ to ${\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}$ is defined as $\pi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})=r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,[1+\kappa\,\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})]$. For $\kappa\not=0$ the EIP holds and parameter $\kappa$ quantifies to what extent particle kinetics is affected by the particle population of the arrival site.\
If $\kappa>0$ the $\pi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ contains an inclusion principle. In fact, the population density at arrival point ${{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}$ stimulates the particle transition and therefore transition probability increases linearly with $\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$. Where $\kappa<0$ the $\pi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ takes into account the Pauli exclusion principle. If the arrival point ${{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}}$ is empty $\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})=0$, the $\pi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ depends only on the population of the starting point. If arrival site is populated $0<\rho(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})\leq\rho_{max}$, the transition is inhibited. The range of values that parameter $\kappa$ can assume is limited by the condition that $\pi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$ be real and positive as $r(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}},\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rightarrow{{\mbox{\boldmath${y}$}}})$. We may conclude that $\kappa\geq-1/\rho_{max}$.
A physical meaning of parameter $\kappa$ can be supplied by the following considerations. We recall that Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics originate from the fundamental principle of indistinguishability in quantum mechanics which is closely related to the symmetrization of the wave function. Completely symmetric wave functions are used to describe bosons while fermions are described by completely anti-symmetric wave functions. Thus, intermediate statistics arise in presence of incomplete symmetrization or anti-symmetrization of the wave function and the concept of degree of symmetrization or degree of anti-symmetrization has been introduced [@Quarati1]. Parameter $\kappa$ has the meaning of degree of indistinguishability of fermions or bosons, corresponding to the degree of symmetrization or anti-symmetrization, respectively. Value $\kappa=-1$ corresponds to the case of fermions and denotes a complete anti-symmetric wave function whereas value $\kappa=1$ corresponds to the case of bosons and denotes a complete symmetric wave function. In addition, value $\kappa=0$ is associated with classical MB statistics and all the intermediate cases arise when $\kappa$ assumes all the values between $-1$ and $1$.
Eq. (\[eip3\]), for $D=0$, was obtained previously in Ref. [@Scarfone3], where the canonical quantization of the classical system obeying EIP was accounted for. As discussed in Section \[Gauge equivalence\], Eq. (\[eip3\]) differs from the NSE obtained in [@Scarfone3] for a real nonlinearity originated from nonlinear potential ${\widetilde
U}(\rho)=-m\,D^2\,({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho)^2/\rho\,(1+\kappa\rho)$ and depending only on field $\rho$.\
Finally, we observe that different from Eq. (\[qeip1\]), Eq. (\[eip3\]) has vorticity different from zero. The Clebsh potentials corresponding to current $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}=({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\sigma/m)\,\rho\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)$ are given by $\nu=1+\kappa\,\rho$, $\lambda=\sigma$ and $\mu=const$ and vorticity assumes the expression $${{\mbox{\boldmath${\omega}$}}}=\frac{\kappa}{m}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\times{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\sigma
\ .\label{vorteip}$$ In Ref. [@Scarfone5; @Scarfone6] localized, static, fermion-like vortex solutions ($\kappa<0$) were obtained and studied starting from Eq. (\[eip3\]) with $D=0$. We observe that in [@Scarfone5; @Scarfone6] a different definition of the Clebsh potentials corresponding to $\mu=\lambda=\sigma$ and $\nu=\kappa\,\rho$ was adopted. Despite this, vorticity assumes the same expression that is given by Eq. (\[vorteip\]) in both cases.\
EIP vortex solutions are important on the theoretical ground and for interpretation of experimental results of several applications. For instance, they can be employed in the study of fermion-like vortices observed in $^3$He-A superfluidity or in heavy fermion superconductors UPt$_3$ and U$_{0.97}$Th$_{0.03}$Be$_{13}$ [@Williams; @Matthews; @Madison].
Conclusions
===========
We have presented the quantization of a classical system of interacting particles obeying a kinetic interaction principle. The KIP both fixes the expression of the Fokker-Planck equation describing the kinetic evolution of the system and imposes the form of its entropy.\
In the framework of canonical quantization, we have introduced a class of NSEs with complex nonlinearity obtained from the classical system obeying KIP. The form of nonlinearity $\Lambda(\psi^\ast,\,\psi)$ is determined by functional $\kappa(\rho)$, which also fixes the form of the entropy of ancestor classical system.
Among the many interesting solutions of the family of NSEs (\[schroedinger2\]) we observe that for a free system with $V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=0$, and posing $G(\rho)=0$, the planar wave $$\psi(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})=A\,\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\,(\omega\,t-{{\mbox{\boldmath${k}$}}}\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\right) \ ,$$ with constant amplitude $A=const$ is the simplest solution, where the relationship between $\omega$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${k}$}}$ is given by $$\omega=\frac{\hbar^2\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${k}$}}}^2}{2\,m}\,\frac{\partial\,\gamma(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}\Bigg|_{\rho=A^2}
\ ,$$ and reduces to the standard dispersion relation for $\gamma(\rho)=\rho$.
When the quantum system is in a stationary state such that $\partial\,\rho_{\rm s}/\partial\,t=0$, the relationships between distribution $\rho_{\rm s}$ and phase $\Sigma_{\rm
s}$ follow from Eq. (\[r1\]) $$\rho_{_{\rm s}}=\kappa^{-1}\left(\exp\left(\frac{\Sigma_{\rm
s}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})}{m\,D}-\beta^\prime\right)\right) \ ,\label{equi1}$$ which mimics the classical equilibrium distribution (\[equi\]), as can be seen by replacing $\Sigma_{\rm
s}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})/m\,D$ with $-\beta\,{\cal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$. Despite this, we stress that such an analogy is purely formal. The equivalence between Eqs. (\[equi\]) and (\[equi1\]) requires that the following relation $\Sigma_{\rm s}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})/m\,D=-\beta\,{\cal E}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ must hold. In the general case the expression of stationary phase $\Sigma_{\rm s}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ must be obtained from Eq. (\[s1\]), after posing $\partial\,\Sigma_{\rm
s}/\partial\,t=0$, with $\rho$ given through Eq. (\[equi1\]).
Finally, another interesting class of possible solutions are solitons. It is well know that soliton solutions in NSE arise when the dispersive effects, principally due to term $-(\hbar^2/2\,m)\,\Delta\,\psi$, is exactly balanced by the nonlinear terms. The existence of this class of solutions depends on the particular form of functionals $\gamma(\rho)$ and $\kappa(\rho)$ which fix the expression of nonlinearities $W(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ and ${\cal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)$. A special situation, where soliton solutions are found within the NSEs derived in this paper, is given by the EIP-equation (\[eip3\]) with $D=0$ [@Scarfone3] where $\gamma(\rho)=\rho\,(1+\kappa\,\rho)$ and $\kappa(\rho)=\rho/(1+\kappa\,\rho)$.\
The study of soliton solutions for other functional choices of $\gamma(\rho)$ and $\kappa(\rho)$, like, for instance, the ones related to the generalized entropies discussed in Section VI-B, is a very important task which deserves further research. These solutions may lead to practical applications. In fact, in recent years there has been great interest in the formulation of models where solitons can interact with a long-range force [@Gaididei]. Typical nonlinear models supporting solitons, like the sine-Gordon model, arise from short-range forces. However, there is experimental evidence that most real transfer mechanisms have long-range interaction, as noted in condensed matter theory [@Scott] or in spin glasses [@Ford].
We present proof of the Ehrenfest equations discussed in Section \[Ehrenfest\]. In the following we assume uniform boundary conditions on the fields in order to neglect the surface terms.
Let us rewrite Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) in a more suitable form. Accounting for the relation $$\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\psi}=\psi^\ast\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\rho}
-\frac{i\,\hbar}{2\,\rho}\,\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\right) \
,$$ Eq. (\[ehrenfest\]) becomes $$\frac{d}{d\,t}\langle{\cal
O}\,\rangle={i\over\hbar}\Bigg\langle\left[\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho},\,{\cal
O}\right]\Bigg\rangle+{1\over2}\,\Bigg\langle\left\{{1\over\rho}\,
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma},\,{\cal
O}\right\}\Bigg\rangle+\Bigg\langle\frac{\partial\,{\cal
O}}{\partial\,t}\Bigg\rangle \ .\label{ehrenfest1}$$
Eq. (\[prima\]) can be obtained starting from Eq. (\[ehrenfest1\]) by posing ${\cal O}={{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rangle&=&{i\over\hbar}\int\left[\psi^\ast\,
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\,\psi-\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\psi\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}+\frac{1}{2}\int\left[\psi^\ast\,{1\over\rho}\,
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\,\psi+\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\,{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\psi\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber&=&\int {{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &=&-\int{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot \left[\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho)-D\,f(\rho)
\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &=&\int\left[\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho)-D\,f(\rho)
\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &=&\int\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\gamma(\rho)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-D\int
{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,F(\rho)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
&=&\Bigg\langle \frac{\gamma(\rho)}{\rho}\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}\Bigg\rangle \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$F(\rho)=\int^\rho f(\rho^\prime)\,d\rho^\prime \ .$$ To show the validity of Eq. (\[seconda\]) we pose ${\cal O}=-i\,\hbar\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}$ in Eq. (\[ehrenfest1\]) so that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle&=&\int\left[\psi^\ast\,
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi-\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\left(\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\psi\right)\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &-&i\,\frac{\hbar}{2}\int\left[\psi^\ast\,{1\over\rho}\,
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi+\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\left({1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\psi\right)\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &=&\int
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\left(\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi+
\psi\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi^\ast\right)-i\,\frac{\hbar}{2}\int
{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\left(\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi-
\psi\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi^\ast\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
&=&\int\left(\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho+
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \ ,\label{a2}\end{aligned}$$ where an integration by parts has been performed, and we have posed $$\begin{aligned}
&&\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi+\psi\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi^\ast
={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho \ ,\\
&&\psi^\ast\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi-\psi\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\psi^\ast
=i\,\frac{2}{\hbar}\,\rho\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma \ .\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the relation $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,{\cal
H}=\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho+
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma+\rho\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ from Eq. (\[a2\]) it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle&=&\int{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,{\cal H}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-\int\rho\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\&=&\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}_{\rm ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\rangle \ ,\label{sec}\end{aligned}$$
Eq. (\[terza\]) can easily be obtained following the same steps used in the proof of Eq. (\[seconda\]).
Finally, by posing ${\cal
O}=-(\hbar^2/2\,m)\,\Delta+U(\rho,\,\Sigma)/\rho+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ in Eq. (\[ehrenfest1\]), where $U(\rho,\,\Sigma)$ is given in Eq. (\[u\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{d\,E}{d\,t}&=&{i\over\hbar}\,\int\left\{\psi^\ast\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,
\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta+{U\over\rho}+V\right)\,\psi
-\psi^\ast\,\left[\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta+
{U\over\rho}+V\right)\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\psi\right]\right\}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &+
&{1\over2}\int\left\{\psi^\ast\,{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,
\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta+{U\over\rho}+V\right)\,\psi
+\psi^\ast\,\left[\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta+
{U\over\rho}+V\right)\,{1\over\rho}\,
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\psi\right]\right\}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &+
&\int\rho\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,t}\left(\frac{U}{\rho}+V\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber
&=&-\frac{i\,\hbar}{2\,m}\,\int\left[\psi^\ast\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,
\Delta\,\psi-\psi^\ast\,\Delta\left(\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\psi\right)\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber &+
&{i\over\hbar}\int\left[\psi^\ast\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,
\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)\,\psi
-\psi^\ast\,\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\psi\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\ \nonumber
&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{4\,m}\int\left[\psi^\ast\,{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,
\Delta\,\psi+\psi^\ast\,\Delta\left({1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\psi\right)
\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber&+&{1\over2}\int\left[\psi^\ast\,{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,
\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)\,\psi
+\psi^\ast\,\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)\,{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}
\,\psi\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}+\int\rho\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,t}\left({U\over\rho}\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber&=&-\frac{i\,\hbar}{2\,m}\,\int\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,\left(\psi^\ast\,
\Delta\,\psi-\psi\,\Delta\,\psi^\ast\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-\frac{\hbar^2}{4\,m}\int{1\over\rho}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,
\left(\psi^\ast\,
\Delta\,\psi+\psi\,\Delta\,\psi^\ast\right)\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
&+&\int\left[\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)+
\frac{\partial\,U}{\partial\,t}-{U\over\rho}\,\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \ ,\label{a4}\end{aligned}$$ where a double integration by parts has been performed. Taking into account $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\frac{i\,\hbar}{2\,m}\,\left(\psi^\ast\,\Delta\,\psi-\psi\,\Delta\,\psi^\ast\right)=
{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\rho\right) \ ,\\
&&\psi^\ast\,\Delta\,\psi+\psi\,\Delta\,\psi^\ast=2\,\rho\,\left[\frac{\Delta\,\sqrt{\rho}}
{\sqrt{\rho}}-\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{\hbar}\right)^2\right]
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ which follow from Eq. (\[polar\]), and the relation $$\frac{\partial\,U}{\partial\,t}=\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\rho}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\right)\,
\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}+\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\right)\, \frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,t} \ ,$$ Eq. (\[a4\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{d\,E}{d\,t}&=&\int\left\{\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,
{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\rho\right)-
\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\left[\frac{\Delta\,\sqrt{\rho}}
{\sqrt{\rho}}-\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{\hbar}\right)^2\right]\right\}\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber
&+&\int\left[\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)+
\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\rho}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-{U\over\rho}\right)\,\frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t}
+\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\right)\,
\frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,t}\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}} \
.\\\label{a5}\end{aligned}$$ By using the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\left[\frac{\Delta\,\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}-
\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{\hbar}\right)^2
\right]=\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\rho}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\rho}+V \ ,\\
&&{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma}{m}\,\rho\right)=
\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\Sigma} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which follow from Eqs. (\[ha\]), (\[ham1\]) and (\[u\]), and motion equations (\[rhos1\]) and (\[rhos2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{d\,E}{d\,t}&=&\int\left[\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\rho}\,
\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\Sigma}\right)-
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\rho}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}- \frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\rho}+V\right)\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
\nonumber
&+&\int\left[\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\,\Sigma}\,\left({U\over\rho}+V\right)+
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\Sigma}\,\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\rho}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}-{U\over\rho}\right) -
\frac{\delta\,H}{\delta\rho}\,\left(\frac{\delta}{\delta\,\Sigma}\int\,U\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\right)\right]\,d{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\\
&=&0 \ .\end{aligned}$$
We briefly discuss the generalization of the theory for quantum systems obeying the KIP and undergoing a diffusive process with a diffusion coefficient $D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})$ depending both on time and space position.\
Given the following Hamiltonian density $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {\cal
H}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma)^2}{2\,m}\,\gamma(\rho)+\frac{\hbar^2}{8\,m}
\,\frac{\left({{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\rho\right)^2}{\rho}-D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\gamma(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}
\Sigma}+{\widetilde U}(\rho)+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\rho \ ,\\ \label{hh}\end{aligned}$$ from the Hamilton equations (\[rhos1\])-(\[rhos2\]) we obtain the NSE $$i\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\,\psi}{\partial\,t}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m}\,\Delta\,\psi+
\Big[W(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,+i\,{\cal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)\Big]\,\psi+G(\rho)\,\psi+V({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\Psi \ ,$$ with nonlinearities $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-3mm}W(\rho,\,\Sigma)={m\over2}\,
\left(\frac{\partial\,\gamma(\rho)}{\partial\,\rho}-1\right)\,\left(\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_0}{\rho}\right)^2+m\,\gamma(\rho)\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,\rho}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\,
{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left(D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${j}$}}}_{_0}}{\rho}\right)+G(\rho) \ ,\label{b1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal
W}(\rho,\,\Sigma)=-\frac{\hbar}{2\,m\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Big\{[\gamma(\rho)-\rho]
\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma\Big\}
+\frac{1}{2\,\rho}\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\cdot\left[D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,\gamma(\rho ) \,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\right] \
.\label{b2}\end{aligned}$$ The system described by Hamiltonian (\[hh\]) is dissipative since $d\,E/d\,t\not=0$. This is a consequence of the time dependence of $D$ which breaks the invariance of Eq. (\[hh\]) under uniform time translation. In the same way, linear momentum as well as angular momentum are no longer conserved, even in absence of the external potential, as a consequence of the position dependence of $D$ which breaks the invariance of Eq. (\[hh\]) under uniform space translation and uniform space rotation. This can also be seen from the Ehrenfest relations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\rangle=\Bigg\langle
\frac{\gamma(\rho)}{\rho}\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm
drift}\Bigg\rangle-\Bigg\langle D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln\rho\Bigg\rangle \
,\label{dprima}\\
&&\frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}}\rangle=-m\,\Big\langle
A(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big\rangle+\Big\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}}_{\rm
ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big\rangle \ ,\label{dseconda}\\
&&\frac{d}{d\,t}\,\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}\rangle=-m\,\Big\langle
A(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,\Big({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}}\times{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big)\Big\rangle+\Big\langle{{\mbox{\boldmath${M}$}}}_{\rm
ext}({{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big\rangle \ ,\label{dterza}\\
&&\frac{d\,E}{d\,t}=-m\,\Big\langle
A(\rho,\,\Sigma)\,{\partial\over\partial\,t}\,D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\Big\rangle \ ,\label{dquarta}\end{aligned}$$ where $A(\rho,\,\Sigma)=f(\rho)\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln
\rho\cdot\,\widehat{{\mbox{\boldmath${u}$}}}_{\rm drift}$.
Finally, the gauge transformation described in Section V cannot be performed, in general, when the diffusion coefficient has spatial dependence. In fact, the transformation in (\[gauge\]) is well defined only if the following condition is fulfilled $${{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\times\Big[D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln\kappa(\rho)\Big]=0 \ ,\label{b9}$$ as can be seen by applying the curl operator to both sides of equation $${{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\sigma={{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\Sigma-m\,D(t,\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}})\,{{\mbox{\boldmath${\nabla}$}}}\,\ln\kappa(\rho) \ ,$$ which follows from Eqs. (\[ncurrent\]) and (\[jt\]). We remark that if the dynamics of the system evolves in one spatial dimension, Eq. (\[b9\]) is trivially verified and the transformation in (\[gauge\]) can in all cases be accomplished.
[99]{}
S.R. de Groot, and P. Mazur, [*Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam 1962).
I. Prigogine, [*Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes*]{}, (Interscience, New York 1967).
P. Glansdorff, I. Prigogine, [*Thermodynamic Theory of Stability, Structure and Fluctuations*]{} (Wiley, New York 1971).
T.D. Frank, Physica A [**310**]{}, 397 (2002).
T.D. Frank, and A. Daffertshofer, Physica A [**272**]{}, 497 (1999).
P.H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 036108 (2003).
P.H. Chavanis, J. Sommeria, and R. Robert, Astrophys. J. [**471**]{}, 385 (1996).
P.H. Chavanis, Physica A [**340**]{}, 57 (2004).
, edited by S. Abe, Y. Okamoto, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol 560, (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001).
Special issue of Physica A , Nos. 1/2 (2002), edited by G. Kaniadakis, M. Lissia, and A. Rapisarda.
Special issue of Physica A , Nos. 1/3 (2004), edited by G. Kaniadakis, and M. Lissia.
A. Ott, J.P. Bouchaud, D. Langevin, and W. Urbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2201 (1990).
O.V. Bychuk, and B. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1795 (1995).
T.H. Solomon, E.R. Weeks, and H.L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3975 (1993).
A. Caspi, R. Granek, and M. Elbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5655 (2000).
H. Scher, and E.W. Montroll, Phys. Rev. B [**12**]{}, 2455 (1975)
F. Bardou, J.P. Bouchaud, O. Emile, A. Aspect, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 203 (1994).
A. Mauger, and N. Pottier, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, 056107 (2002).
M.D. Kostin, J. Chem. Phys. [**57**]{}, 3589 (1972).
D. Schuch, K.-M. Chung, and H. Hartmann, J. Math. Phys. [**24**]{}, 1652 (1983).
D. Schuch, Phys. Rev. A [**55**]{}, 935 (1997).
G. Kaniadakis, Physica A [**307**]{}, 172 (2002).
H.-D. Doebner and G.A. Goldin, Phys. Lett. , 397 (1992); J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , 1771 (1992); Phys. Rev. A , 3764 (1996).
G. Kaniadakis, P. Quarati, and A.M. Scarfone, Physica A, [**255**]{}, 474 (1998); Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 5574 (1998).
G. Kaniadakis, and A.M. Scarfone, Rep. Math. Phys. [**51**]{}, 225 (2003).
G. Kaniadakis, Physica A [**296**]{}, 405 (2001); Phys. Lett. A [**288**]{}, 282 (2001); Phys. Rev. E , 056125 (2002).
E. Madelung, Z. Physik [**40**]{}, 332 (1926).
L. de Broglie, Comp. Rend. [**183**]{}, 447 (1926); [**184**]{}, 273 (1927); [**185**]{}, 380 (1927).
D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. [**85**]{}, 166 (1952); [**85**]{}, 180 (1952).
G. Kaniadakis, and A.M. Scarfone, Rep. Math. Phys. [**46**]{}, 113 (2000); Rep. Math. Phys. [**48**]{}, 115 (2001); J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**35**]{}, 1943 (2002).
G. Kaniadakis, E. Miraldi, and A.M. Scarfone, Rep. Math. Phys. [**49**]{}, 203 (2002).
C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. [**52**]{}, 479 (1988).
G. Kaniadakis, and P. Quarati, Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, 4263 (1993); Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, 5103 (1994).
P.H. Chavanis, P. Laurençot, and M. Lemou, Physica A [**341**]{}, 145 (2004).
F. Guerra, and M. Pusterla, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**34**]{}, 351 (1982).
G. Kaniadakis, M. Lissia, and A.M. Scarfone, Physica A [**340**]{}, 41 (2004).
G. Kaniadakis, M. Lissia, and A.M. Scarfone, “Two-parameter deformations of logarithm, exponential, and entropy: a consistent framework for generalized statistical mechanics”, arXiv:cond-math/0409683 (submitted).
D.P. Mittal, Metrika [**22**]{}, 35 (1975).
B.D. Sharma, and I.J. Taneja, Metrika [**22**]{}, 205 (1975); Elec. Inform. Kybern. [**13**]{}, 419 (1977).
A. Rossani, A.M. Scarfone, Physica A [**282**]{}, 212 (2000).
B.M. Boghosian, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 4754 (1996).
C. Tsallis, A.M.C. de Souza, Phys. Lett. A [**235**]{}, 444 (1994).
L. Borland, Phys. Rev E [**57**]{}, 6634 (1998).
P.A. Alemany, D.H. Zanette, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, R956 (1994).
The updated bibiliography can be obtained from the following URL\
http://www.cbpf.br/GrupPesq/StatisticalPhys/biblio.htm
S. Abe, Phys. Lett. A [**244**]{}, 229 (1998).
H.N. Nazareno, and P.E. de Brito, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 4629 (1999).
A. Compte, D. Jou, and Y. Katayama, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**30**]{}, 1023 (1997).
L.S.F. Olavo, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 036125 (2001).
L.S.F. Olavo, A.F. Bakuszis, and R.Q. Amilcar, Physica A [**271**]{}, 303 (1999).
G. Kaniadakis, and A.M. Scarfone, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 026106 (2001).
G. Kaniadakis, P. Quarati, and A.M. Scarfone, Theor. Math. Phys. [127]{}, 760 (2001).
J.E. Williams, and M.J. Holland, Nature [**401**]{}, 568 (1999).
M.R. Matthews, B.P. Anderson, P.C. Haljan, D.S. Hall, C.E. Wieman, and E.A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2498 (1999).
K.W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 806 (2000).
Yu.B. Gididei, S.F. Mingaleev, P.L. Christiansen, and K.[Ø]{}. Rasmussen, Phys. Lett. A [**222**]{}, 152 (1996).
A. Scott, Phys. Rep. [**217**]{}, 1 (1992).
P.J. Ford, Contemp. Phys. [**23**]{}, 141 (1982).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A new tuning-free subgrid-scale model, termed ‘locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic’ (LASDD) model, is developed and implemented in large-eddy simulations (LESs) of stable boundary layers. The new model dynamically computes the Smagorinsky coefficient and the subgrid-scale Prandtl number based on the local dynamics of the resolved velocity and temperature fields. Overall, the agreement between the statistics of the LES-generated turbulence and some well-established empirical formulations and theoretical predictions (e.g., Nieuwstadt’s local scaling hypothesis) is remarkable. The results show clear improvements over most of the traditional subgrid-scale models in the surface layer. Moreover, in contrast to previous large-eddy simulations of stable boundary layers that have strong dependence on grid resolution, the simulated statistics obtained with the LASDD model show relatively little resolution dependence for the range of grid sizes considered here. In essence, we show that the new LASDD model is a robust subgrid-scale parameterization for reliable, tuning-free simulations of stable boundary layers, even with relatively coarse resolutions.'
author:
- 'Sukanta Basu and Fernando Porté-Agel'
bibliography:
- 'SBL\_JAS.bib'
title: 'Large-Eddy Simulation of Stably Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layer Turbulence: A Scale-Dependent Dynamic Modeling Approach'
---
Introduction
============
Atmospheric boundary layers (ABLs) are usually classified into three types: neutral, convective and stable, based on atmospheric stability (buoyancy effects) and the dominant mechanism of turbulence generation (@stul88 [-@stul88]; @arya01 [-@arya01]). The boundary layer becomes stably stratified whenever the underlying surface is colder than the air. Under this atmospheric condition, turbulence is generated by shear and destroyed by negative buoyancy and viscosity. Because of this competition between shear and buoyancy effects, the strength of turbulence in the stable boundary layer (SBL) is much weaker in comparison to the neutral and convective boundary layers. As a result, the stable boundary layer is also much shallower and characterized by smaller eddy motions. Stable boundary layer turbulence has not received much attention despite its scientifically intriguing nature and practical significance (e.g., numerical weather prediction – NWP, and pollutant transport). This might be attributed to the lack of adequate field or laboratory measurements, to the inevitable difficulties in numerical simulations (arising from small scales of motion due to stratification) and to the intrinsic complexity in its dynamics (e.g., occurrences of intermittency, Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, gravity waves, low-level jets, meandering motions etc.) (@hunt96 [-@hunt96]; @mahr98a [-@mahr98a]; @derb99 [-@derb99]). Not surprisingly, today, there is a general consensus among researchers that our understanding of the stable boundary layer (especially the very stable regime) is quite poor (@mahr98a [-@mahr98a]; @derb99 [-@derb99]; @holt03 [-@holt03]) and ‘even small future advances justify more work’ [@mahr98a].
In order to improve our understanding of SBL turbulence and to explore some of its inherent characteristics, in this study we make use of a contemporary numerical modeling approach, known as large-eddy simulation. Following the pioneering works of Deardorff [@dear70b; @dear72; @dear74; @dear80] over the years LES has become an indispensable tool to study the ABL (e.g., @moen84 [-@moen84]; @nieu91 [-@nieu91]; @andr94 [-@andr94]; @maso94 [-@maso94]; @sull94 [-@sull94]; @koso97 [-@koso97]; @albe99 [-@albe99]; @port00 [-@port00]; @bear04b [-@bear04b]). However, until now LES models have not been sufficiently faithful in reproducing the characteristics of moderately and strongly stable atmospheric boundary layers (@saik00 [-@saik00]; @holt03 [-@holt03]). The main weakness of LES is associated with our limited ability to accurately account for the dynamics that are not explicitly resolved in the simulations. Under stable conditions – due to flow stratification – the characteristic size of the eddies becomes increasingly smaller with increasing atmospheric stability, which eventually imposes an additional burden on the LES subgrid-scale (SGS) models. The recent GABLS (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Atmospheric Boundary Layer Study) LES intercomparison study [@bear04b] highlights that LESs of moderately stable BLs are quite sensitive to SGS models at a relatively fine resolution of 6.25 m. At a coarser resolution (12.5 m), a couple of commonly used SGS models even laminarized spuriously. Occasionally, laminarization was manifested by a near-linear (without any curvature) temperature profile; at times the SGS contributions to the total momentum or heat fluxes were larger than fifty percent in the interior of the boundary layer. This breakdown of traditional SGS models undoubtedly calls for improved SGS parameterizations in order to make LES a more reliable tool to study stable boundary layers. The present study is devoted towards this goal.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we briefly describe the basic philosophy of large-eddy simulation. The newly developed locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic (LASDD) SGS modeling approach is presented in Section 3. Simulations of stably stratified atmospheric boundary layers are presented in Section 4. Lastly, in Section 5, we summarize our research and elaborate on the prospects for future research in this subject area.
Subgrid-Scale Modeling and SGS Parameter Estimation
===================================================
In rotation-influenced ABLs, the equations governing the conservation of momentum (using the Boussinesq approximation) and temperature are: $$\label{NSa}
\frac{\partial \tilde{u}_i}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial
(\tilde{u}_i\tilde{u}_j)}{\partial x_j} = -\frac{\partial
\tilde{p}}{\partial x_i} - \frac{\partial\tau_{ij}}{\partial x_i}
+\delta_{i3}g\frac{(\tilde{\theta} - \langle \tilde{\theta} \rangle
)}{\theta_0} + f_c\epsilon_{ij3}\tilde{u}_j + F_i$$ $$\label{NSb}
\frac{\partial\tilde{\theta}}{\partial t} +
\frac{\partial(\tilde{u}_j\tilde{\theta})}{\partial x_j} = -
\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial x_j},$$ where $t$ is time, $x_j$ is the spatial coordinate in the $j$-direction, $u_j$ is the velocity component in that direction, $\theta$ is potential temperature, $\theta_0$ is reference surface potential temperature, $p$ is dynamic pressure, $\delta_{i3}$ is the Kronecker delta, $\epsilon_{ij3}$ is the alternating unit tensor, $g$ is the gravitational acceleration, $f_c$ is the Coriolis parameter and $F_i$ is a forcing term (e.g., Geostrophic wind or imposed mean pressure gradient). Molecular dissipation and diffusion have been neglected since the Reynolds number of the ABL is very high and no near-ground viscous processes are resolved. The $\langle~\rangle$ is used to define a horizontal plane average. The $\widetilde{(\cdots)}$ denotes a spatial filtering operation, using a filter of characteristic width $\Delta_f$. These filtered equations are now amenable for numerical solution (LES) on a grid of mesh size $\Delta_g$, considerably larger than the smallest scale of turbulent motion (the so-called Kolmogorov scale). It is common practice to use the ratio of filter-width to grid-spacing, $\Delta_f/\Delta_g = 1$ or 2 \[see the Chapter 9 of @geur03 ([-@geur03]) for detailed discussion on this ratio and its impact on error dynamics\]. In this study, we use a ratio of 2.
The effects of the unresolved scales (smaller than $\Delta_f$) on the evolution of $\tilde{u}_i$ and $\tilde{\theta}$ appear in the SGS stress $\tau_{ij}$ (see Equation \[NSa\]) and the SGS flux $q_i$ (see Equation \[NSb\]), respectively. They are defined as $$\label{SGSa}
\tau_{ij} = \widetilde{u_i u_j}-\tilde{u}_i \tilde{u}_j$$ and $$\label{SGSb}
q_i = \widetilde{u_i\theta} - \tilde{u}_i\tilde{\theta}.$$ Note that the SGS stress and flux quantities are unknown and must be parameterized (using a SGS model) as a function of the resolved velocity and temperature fields.
Eddy-viscosity models, the most popular SGS models, use the ‘gradient hypothesis’ and formulate the $ij$-component of the SGS stress tensor (the deviatoric part) as follows (@smag63 [-@smag63]; @geur03 [-@geur03]): $$\label{EddyVisc}
\tau_{ij} -\frac{1}{3}\tau_{kk}\delta_{ij} = -2\nu_t\tilde{S}_{ij},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde {S}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}\left( {\frac{\partial \tilde {u}_i
}{\partial x_j } + \frac{\partial \tilde {u}_j }{\partial x_i
}}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is the resolved strain rate tensor and $\nu_t$ denotes the eddy-viscosity. It is well-known that the eddy-viscosity SGS models give a poor prediction of the SGS stresses on a local level (see @sarg99 [-@sarg99]; @mene00 [-@mene00]; @geur03 [-@geur03].) Their underlying assumption of strain rates being aligned with the SGS stress tensor is unrealistic (see @higg03 [-@higg03] and the references therein). Furthermore, these SGS models are purely dissipative, i.e., they do not allow local reverse energy transfer (known as ‘backscatter’) [@sarg99]. Despite all these deficiencies, without any doubt, the eddy-viscosity models are the most commonly used SGS models in the atmospheric boundary layer community.
From dimensional analysis, the eddy-viscosity ($\nu_t$) can be interpreted as the product of a characteristic velocity scale and a characteristic length scale [@geur03]. Different eddy-viscosity formulations basically use different velocity and length scales. The most popular eddy-viscosity formulation is the Smagorinsky model [@smag63]: $$\nu_t = (C_S\Delta_f)^2 \left|\tilde{S}\right|,$$ where $C_S$ is the so-called Smagorinsky coefficient, which is adjusted empirically or dynamically to account for shear, stratification and grid-resolution, and $$\begin{aligned}
| \tilde {S}| = \left({2\tilde {S}_{ij} \tilde {S}_{ij}
}\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is the magnitude of the resolved strain rate tensor. In contrast to the Smagorinsky-type eddy-viscosity model, the turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) based eddy-viscosity model utilizes (@moen84 [-@moen84]; @sull94 [-@sull94]; @sull03 [-@sull03]): $$\nu_t = C_K l E_{SGS}^{1/2},$$ where $C_K$ is a modeling coefficient, $l$ is a length scale and $E_{SGS}$ is the SGS turbulence kinetic energy. This modeling approach involves solving an extra prognostic equation for the SGS TKE. Based on the Kolmogorov’s scaling laws, @wong94 ([-@wong94]) proposed yet another eddy-viscosity model: $$\nu_t = C^{2/3}\Delta_f^{4/3}\epsilon^{1/3} = C_\epsilon\Delta_f^{4/3},$$ where $\epsilon$ is the dissipation rate of energy and $C_\epsilon$ is a model coefficient to be specified (or determined dynamically). There are numerous other formulations for eddy-viscosity existing in the literature (e.g., the Structure Function model of @meta92 [-@meta92]). An extensive review of these formulations is given by @saga01 ([-@saga01]).
Similar to the SGS stresses, the SGS heat fluxes are modeled with the eddy-diffusivity models as: $$q_i=-\nu_{ht}\frac{\partial \tilde{\theta}}{\partial x_i} =
-\frac{\nu_t}{Pr_{SGS}}\frac{\partial \tilde{\theta}}{\partial x_i},$$ where $Pr_{SGS}$ is the SGS Prandtl number.
The values of the Smagorinsky-type SGS model parameters $C_S$ and $Pr_{SGS}$ are well established for homogeneous, isotropic turbulence [@lill67]. However, the value of $C_S$ is expected to decrease with increasing mean shear and stratification. This has been confirmed by various recent field studies (@port01 [-@port01]; @klei03 [-@klei03]; @sull03 [-@sull03]; @klei04a [-@klei04a]). In order to account for this, application of the traditional eddy-viscosity model in LES of ABL flows (with strong shear near the ground and temperature-driven stratification) has traditionally involved the use of various types of wall-damping functions and stability corrections, which are either based on the phenomenological theory of turbulence or empirically derived from observational data [@maso94]. For example, recently, based on the HATS (Horizontal Array Turbulence Study) field campaign data @klei03 ([-@klei03], [-@klei04a]) proposed the following empirical form for $C_S$: $$(C_S)_{\Delta_f} =
c_0\left[1+R\left(\frac{\Delta_f}{L}\right)\right]^{-1}
\left[1+\left(\frac{c_0}{\kappa}\frac{\Delta_f}{z}\right)^n\right]^{1/n},$$ where $L$ is the Obukhov length, $\kappa$ is the von Karman constant, $R$ is the ramp function, $n$ = 3 and $c_0 \approx 0.135$. Another example would be Smagorinsky-type SGS models that impose both the wall-damping and stability corrections based on the Kansas field experiment data (see @brow94 [-@brow94]; @maso94 [-@maso94]; @maso99 [-@maso99]; @bear04a [-@bear04a]). In the case of TKE-based eddy-viscosity models, the length scale $l$ is usually set equal to the filter width $\Delta_f$ for unstable and neutral stratifications and equal to $C_l \sqrt{E_{SGS}} /N$ for stable stratification (@sull94 [-@sull94]; @saik00 [-@saik00]; @sull03 [-@sull03]), following the suggestion of @dear80 ([-@dear80]). Here, $C_l$ is a coefficient to be prescribed and $N$ is the Brunt-Väisälä frequency. When using this approach, the SGS model coefficients are often ‘tuned’ for different ABL flow conditions (@sull94 [-@sull94]; @saik00 [-@saik00]; @sull03 [-@sull03]). There also have been a few elegant attempts to derive shear and stability dependent length-scales directly from the phenomenological theory of turbulence (@hunt88 [-@hunt88]; @schu91 [-@schu91]; @canu97 [-@canu97]). ‘The adequacy of all these parameterizations for SGS fluxes remains relatively untested however’ [@sull03].
In the case of eddy-diffusivity SGS models, one needs to prescribe the stability dependence of the SGS Prandtl number ($Pr_{SGS}$). In general, $Pr_{SGS}$ is found to increase under stable stratification, which is reflected in different SGS modeling approaches. For example, in a widely used Smagorinsky-type SGS model, the Prandtl number is increased from 0.44 in the free convection limit to 0.7 in neutral condition to 1.0 in the very stable regime [@maso99]. In contrast, the TKE-based SGS model uses (@moen84 [-@moen84]; @sull94 [-@sull94]; @saik00 [-@saik00]; @sull03 [-@sull03]): $Pr_{SGS} =
\Delta_f/(\Delta_f+2l)$, where $l$ is defined as before. This implies that the $Pr_{SGS}$ is 0.33 under convective and neutral conditions and varies from 0.33 (weakly stable) to 1.0 (very stable) in the stably stratified regime.
In summary, most of the conventional eddy-viscosity and eddy-diffusivity SGS modeling approaches involve parameter tuning or [*a priori*]{} prescription in one way or another. An alternative approach is to use the ‘dynamic’ SGS modeling approach of Germano (@germ91 [-@germ91]; @germ92 [-@germ92]; @lill92 [-@lill92]). In this approach, one computes the value of the unknown SGS coefficient (e.g., the coefficient $C_S$ in the Smagorinsky-type eddy-viscosity models) dynamically at every time and position in the flow. By looking at the dynamics of the flow at two different resolved scales and assuming scale similarity as well as scale invariance of the model coefficient, one can optimize its value. Thus, the dynamic model avoids the need for [*a priori*]{} specification and tuning of the coefficient because it is evaluated directly from the resolved scales in an LES. In @moin91 ([-@moin91]), a similar dynamic procedure was applied to estimate the SGS scalar flux in compressible flows. In essence this procedure not only eliminates the need for any ad-hoc assumption about the SGS Prandtl number ($Pr_{SGS}$) but also completely decouples the SGS flux estimation from SGS stress computation, which is highly desirable.
Locally-Averaged Scale-Dependent Dynamic Modeling Approach
==========================================================
In the previous section, we mentioned that the SGS stress tensor ($\tau_{ij}$) at the filter scale ($\Delta_f$) is defined as: $\tau_{ij} = \widetilde{u_i u_j} - \widetilde{u_i} \widetilde{u_j}$. In a seminal work, Germano (@germ91 [-@germ91]; @germ92 [-@germ92]) proposed to invoke an additional explicit test filter of width $\alpha \Delta_f$ in order to dynamically compute the SGS coefficients. Consecutive filtering at scales $\Delta_f$ and at $\alpha \Delta_f$ leads to a SGS turbulent stress tensor ($T_{ij}$) at the test filter scale $\alpha \Delta_f$: $$T_{ij} = \overline{\widetilde{u_i~u_j}} - \overline{\widetilde{u}_i}
~\overline{\widetilde{u}_j},$$ where an overline $\overline{(\cdots)}$ denotes filtering at a scale of $\alpha \Delta_f$. From the definitions of $\tau_{ij}$ and $T_{ij}$ an algebraic relation can be formed, known in the literature as the Germano identity: $$L_{ij} = \overline{\widetilde{u}_i\widetilde{u}_j} -
\overline{\widetilde{u}_i}~\overline{\widetilde{u}_j} = T_{ij} -
\overline{\tau_{ij}}.$$ This identity is then effectively used to dynamically obtain unknown SGS model coefficients. In the case of the Smagorinsky model, this identity yields[^1]: $$L_{ij} - \frac{1}{3}L_{kk}\delta_{ij} =
\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}M_{ij},$$ where $M_{ij} = 2\Delta_f^2\left(\overline{\left|\widetilde{S}\right|
\widetilde{S_{ij}}} - \alpha^2
\frac{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha\Delta_f}}
{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}}\left|\overline{\widetilde{S}}\right|
\overline{\widetilde{S_{ij}}}\right)$. If one assumes scale invariance, i.e., $\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha \Delta_f} =
\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}$ [@germ91], then the unknown coefficient $\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}$ can be easily determined following the error minimization approach of @lill92 ([-@lill92]): $$\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f} = \frac{\langle L_{ij}M_{ij}\rangle}
{\langle M_{ij}M_{ij}\rangle}.
\label{EqLijMij}$$ Here the angular brackets $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denote spatial averaging (@germ91 [-@germ91]; @lill92 [-@lill92]; @zang93 [-@zang93]; @ghos95 [-@ghos95]; @port00 [-@port00]) or averaging over fluid pathlines [@mene96].
In a recent study, @port00 ([-@port00]) found that in a simulation of neutral boundary layer the scale-invariant dynamic model is not dissipative enough in the near-ground region. It underestimates shear in that region and also yields excessively flat spectra [@port00]. Moreover, the dynamically computed coefficient $C_S^2$ show clear scale-dependence near the surface, i.e., $\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f} \neq \left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha
\Delta_f}$. Similar inferences are also obtained in the case of passive scalars [@port04]. Field observations by @klei04a ([-@klei04a]) also support these results.
This prompted @port00 ([-@port00]) to propose the scale-dependent dynamic SGS model. In this case, the scale-dependence parameter $\beta = \frac{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha\Delta_f}}
{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}}$ is not assumed to be equal to one, rather it is determined dynamically. In order to implement this procedure, one needs to employ a second test filtering operation at a scale of $\alpha^2 \Delta_f$ \[denoted by $\widehat{(\cdots)}$\]. Invoking the Germano identity for the second time leads to: $$Q_{ij} - \frac{1}{3}Q_{kk}\delta_{ij} =
\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}N_{ij},
\label{EqQij}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{ij} = \widehat{\widetilde{u_i}\widetilde{u_j}} -
\widehat{\widetilde{u_i}}\widehat{\widetilde{u_j}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
N_{ij} = 2\Delta_f^2\left(\widehat{\left|\widetilde{S}\right|
\widetilde{S_{ij}}} - \alpha^4
\frac{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha^2\Delta_f}}
{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}}\left|\widehat{\widetilde{S}}\right|
\widehat{\widetilde{S_{ij}}}\right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This results in: $$\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f} = \frac{\langle Q_{ij}N_{ij}\rangle}
{\langle N_{ij}N_{ij}\rangle}.
\label{EqQijNij}$$ In the scale-dependent dynamic modeling approach, the following assumption is made: $$\beta = \frac{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha\Delta_f}}
{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}} =
\frac{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha^2\Delta_f}}
{\left(C_S^2\right)_{\alpha\Delta_f}},$$ which is a much weaker assumption than the scale-invariance modeling assumption of $\beta = 1$. Now, from Equations \[EqLijMij\] and \[EqQijNij\], one solves for the unknown parameter $\beta$, which in turn is used to compute $\left(C_S^2\right)_{\Delta_f}$ utilizing Equation \[EqLijMij\]. Further technical details on this model could be found in @port00 ([-@port00]). In @port04 ([-@port04]), similar formulations were derived for scalars. In this case, the lumped SGS coefficient $C_S^2Pr_{SGS}^{-1}$ was determined dynamically and the scale-dependent parameter was termed as $\beta_\theta$. In the simulations of neutral boundary layers, the scale-dependent SGS model was found to exhibit ‘right’ dissipation behavior and more accurate spectra in the case of momentum [@port00], as well as for passive scalars [@port04].
In the present study we found that the original formulation of @port00 ([-@port00]) which involves (horizontal) planar averaging in Equation \[EqLijMij\], suffers from an insufficient SGS dissipation problem in the outer layers in simulations of stable boundary layers. This could be attributed to decoupling between horizontal planes under stratification. Intermittent, patchy turbulence in the strongly stable outer layers might be another cause. This issue was resolved by using a local formulation of the scale-dependent modeling approach, named as the locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic (LASDD) model. The model coefficients ($C_S^2$ and $C_S^2 Pr_{SGS}^{-1}$) are obtained dynamically by averaging locally on the horizontal plane with a stencil of three by three grid points. @zang93 ([-@zang93]) followed a similar approach in the scale-invariant dynamic (i.e., $\beta = 1$) modeling of turbulent recirculating flows. To avoid numerical instabilities the coefficients $C_S^2$ and $C_S^2
Pr_{SGS}^{-1}$ are set to zero whenever the dynamic procedure yields negative values. This commonly used procedure is known as ‘clipping’ [@geur03]. The scale-dependence parameters ($\beta$ and $\beta_\theta$) are determined dynamically over horizontal planes to avoid the computational burden of computing them at every grid point in the flow. Solving for $\beta$ or $\beta_\theta$ involves a fifth-order polynomial. Instead of the Newton-Raphson method used by @port00 ([-@port00]) and @port04 ([-@port04]), we use a more robust eigenvalue based method [@pres92] to obtain the roots of this polynomial. In the infrequent events that an appropriate real root in the range of 0 to 1.2 is not found, we chose to invoke the scale-invariance assumption of $\beta$ (or, $\beta_\theta$) = 1.
Please note that, mathematically more rigorous (and computationally more expensive) local models are also proposed in the literature (@ghos95 [-@ghos95]; @piom95 [-@piom95]; @mene96 [-@mene96]). Their capabilities in the stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer simulations have yet to be tested.
LES of Stably Stratified Boundary Layers
========================================
The first LES of a stable boundary layer was performed by @maso90 ([-@maso90]). They used the traditional Smagorinsky-type SGS model with a constant SGS Prandtl number ($Pr_{SGS} = 0.5$). Their results broadly supported the local scaling hypothesis of Nieuwstadt (@nieu84a [-@nieu84a]; @nieu84b [-@nieu84b]; @nieu85 [-@nieu85]; @derb90 [-@derb90]). However, one of their simulations showed the run-away cooling problem. The simulated surface temperature fell more than 30 K over 90 minutes. @brow94 ([-@brow94]) repeated these simulations with their stochastic backscatter SGS model (with stability corrections). Their results definitely showed some improvements (especially in the surface layer properties) when compared with the Mason and Derbyshire’s simulations.
@andr95 ([-@andr95]) simulated weakly stable boundary layers with the TKE-based SGS model of @moen84 ([-@moen84]) and also with the two-part eddy-viscosity model developed by @sull94 ([-@sull94]). The two-part eddy-viscosity model, which is a modified version of the TKE-based SGS model, was in better agreement with the surface-layer similarity theory.
Recently, @saik00 ([-@saik00]) attempted to simulate a moderately stable boundary layer with Sullivan et al.’s two-part eddy-viscosity model [@sull94]. Although, this particular SGS scheme has been previously used by Andrén for weakly stable BLs [@andr95], in the case of moderately stable boundary layers it led to development of unphysical profiles of various turbulent quantities [@saik00]. The failure was due to the collapse of SGS vertical heat flux near the surface. This prompted them to propose a two-part SGS model to represent the SGS heat flux similar to the SGS momentum flux model of @sull94 ([-@sull94]). However, even after the modifications, the simulations were found to be too sensitive to rapid cooling [@saik00].
@koso00 ([-@koso00]) simulated a clear-air, moderately stable boundary layer as it approaches quasi-steady state using the nonlinear SGS model of @koso97 ([-@koso97]). Initial conditions consistent with the Beaufort Sea Arctic Stratus Experiment (BASE) observations were used. The first intercomparison study of LES-SGS models for stable boundary layer (@holt03 [-@holt03]; @bear04b [-@bear04b]), as part of the GABLS initiative, also used this case (slightly modified). Eleven different models with very different SGS modeling options and different grid-resolutions (from 1 m to 12.5 m) were run [@bear04b]. In this paper, we also simulate this particular case with our newly proposed locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic (LASDD) SGS model. We compare our results with theoretical predictions by Nieuwstadt [@nieu84a; @nieu84b; @nieu85], field observations, as well as with well-established empirical formulations.
Description of the Simulations
------------------------------
The GABLS LES intercomparison case study is described in detail in @bear04b ([-@bear04b]). The boundary layer is driven by an imposed, uniform geostrophic wind ($G = 8$ m s$^{-1}$), with a surface cooling rate of $0.25$ K per hour and attains a quasi-steady state in $\sim$ 8-9 hours with a boundary layer depth of $\sim 200$ m. The initial mean potential temperature is $265$ K upto $100$ m with an overlying inversion of strength $0.01$ K m$^{-1}$. The Coriolis parameter is set to $f_c = 1.39 \times 10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$, corresponding to latitude $73^\circ$ N. Our domain size is: ($L_x =
L_y = L_z = 400$ m). This domain is divided into: (1) $N_x \times N_y
\times N_z = 32 \times 32 \times 32$ nodes (i.e., $\Delta_x = \Delta_y
= \Delta_z = 12.5$ m); (2) $N_x \times N_y \times N_z = 64 \times 64
\times 64$ nodes (i.e., $\Delta_x = \Delta_y = \Delta_z = 6.25$ m); and (3) $N_x \times N_y \times N_z = 80 \times 80 \times 80$ nodes (i.e., $\Delta_x = \Delta_y = \Delta_z = 5$ m). One of the objectives behind these simulations was to investigate the sensitivity of our results to grid resolution.
A Galilean transformation is used to weaken the stability constraints on the time step. The grid moves with ($U_{Gal},V_{Gal}) = (5.5,0)$ m/s in the $32^3$ and $64^3$ nodes cases. In the case of $80^3$ simulation, we have used $(U_{Gal},V_{Gal}) = (5,0)$ m/s. The time steps ($\Delta t$) for our $32^3$, $64^3$, and $80^3$ simulations are 0.4, 0.2 and 0.14 seconds, respectively.
Description of the LES Code
---------------------------
In this work, we have used a modified version of the LES code described in @albe99 ([-@albe99]), @port00 ([-@port00]), and @port04 ([-@port04]). The salient features of this code are as follows:
- It solves the filtered Navier-Stokes equations written in rotational form [@orsz74].
- Derivatives in the horizontal directions are computed using the Fourier Collocation method, while vertical derivatives are approximated with second-order central differences [@canu88].
- Dealiasing of the nonlinear terms in Fourier space is done using the $3/2$ rule [@canu88].
- Explicit second-order Adams-Bashforth time advancement scheme is used [@canu88].
- Explicit spectral cutoff filtering is used. The ratio between the filter-width ($\Delta_f$) and grid-spacing ($\Delta_g$) is set to 2. Here $\alpha$ is taken to be equal to $\sqrt{2}$.
- Only Coriolis terms involving horizontal wind are considered.
- Forcing is imposed by Geostrophic wind.
- Staggered vertical grid is used.
The lower boundary condition is based on the Monin-Obukhov similarity theory with a surface roughness length $z_\circ$. The instantaneous components of surface shear stresses $\tau_{xz}$ and $\tau_{yz}$ are represented as functions of the resolved velocities $\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{v}$, at the grid point immediately above the surface (i.e., at a height of $z = \Delta_z/2$ in our case): $$\tau_{xz} = -u_*^2\left[\frac{\tilde{u}(z)}{U(z)}\right]$$ $$\tau_{yz} = -u_*^2\left[\frac{\tilde{v}(z)}{U(z)}\right],$$ where $u_*$ is the friction velocity, which is computed from the mean horizontal wind speed $U(z) = \langle (\tilde{u}^2 +
\tilde{v}^2)^{1/2} \rangle$ at the first vertical model level ($z =
\Delta_z/2$) as follows: $$u_* = \frac{U(z)\kappa}{\log(\frac{z}{z_\circ})+b_m \frac{z}{L}}.$$ In a similar manner, the surface heat flux is computed as: $$\left\langle{w\theta}_s \right\rangle =
\frac{u_* \kappa \left[\theta_s -
\Theta(z)\right]}{\log(\frac{z}{z_\circ})+b_h \frac{z}{L}},$$ where $\theta_s$ and $\Theta(z)$ denote the surface temperature and the mean resolved potential temperature at the first model level, respectively. Following the recommendations of the GABLS intercomparison study, the constants $b_m$ and $b_h$ were set to 4.8 and 7.8, respectively.
The upper boundary consists of a zero stress condition, whereas the lateral boundary condition assumes periodicity. A Rayleigh damping layer at 300 m is used following the GABLS case description.
Results
-------
In this section we report the results of our tuning-free simulations and attempt to evaluate them against the theoretical predictions and well established observations-based formulations. Our results show clear improvements over most of the traditional models in the surface layer. We would like to emphasize that in the surface layer the relative contribution of the SGS to the overall turbulent fluxes is very large. This is also the location where gradients are much stronger. Hence, simulation results become very sensitive to SGS formulations near the ground. The comparisons we perform are extensive and address: (1) temporal evolution of simulated statistics, (2) various first order statistics of turbulent velocity and temperature fields, (3) second order statistics of turbulent velocity and temperature fields, and (4) characteristics of dynamically estimated SGS coefficients. Details of these comparisons are provided below.
The boundary layer height ($H$), Obukhov length ($L$) and other characteristics of the simulated SBLs using the locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic SGS model (averaged over the final hour of simulation) are given in Table \[TBasic\]. Following @koso00 ([-@koso00]) and @bear04b ([-@bear04b]), the boundary layer height ($H$) is defined as $(1/0.95)$ times the height where the mean local stress falls to five percent of its surface value. From this table, it is apparent that the simulated (bulk) boundary layer parameters are quite insensitive to the grid resolution. In LES this behavior is always desirable and its existence is usually attributed to the strength of a SGS model.
Grid Points $H$ (m) $L$ (m) $u_*$ (ms$^{-1}$) $\theta_*$ (K)
------------------------ --------- --------- ------------------- ----------------
$32\times 32\times 32$ 205 113 0.283 0.047
$64\times 64\times 64$ 185 114 0.276 0.045
$80\times 80\times 80$ 192 122 0.285 0.045
: Basic characteristics of the simulated SBLs during the last hour of simulation.[]{data-label="TBasic"}
### Temporal Evolution
In Figures \[FigStableMomHeatFluxTime\] and \[FigStableMOHTime\] the time series of surface momentum flux, surface buoyancy flux, Obukhov length ($L$) and boundary layer height ($H$) are shown. The surface momentum flux reaches quasi-equilibrium after 4 hours of simulation. On the other hand the Obukhov length and boundary layer height equilibrate well before 2 hours of simulation. Since the surface boundary condition is prescribed by a fixed cooling rate rather than a fixed flux, it is anticipated that the surface buoyancy flux will keep on evolving with time.
### First-order Statistics
The mean profiles of wind speed, wind angle and potential temperature averaged over the final hour (8-9 hours) of simulation, are shown in Figures \[FigStableMX\] and \[FigStableT\]. The super-geostrophic nocturnal jet near the top of the boundary layer, is in accordance with Nieuwstadt’s theoretical model for ‘stationary’ stable boundary layers \[see Equation 17 of @nieu85 ([-@nieu85])\]. However, the angle between the surface wind direction and the geostrophic wind simulated by our LES is $\sim 35$ degrees. This is much smaller than Nieuwstadt’s prediction of 60 degrees. The second-order closure model of @bros78 ([-@bros78]) also predicts a value of $\sim 58$ degrees. In contrast, the results from the GABLS study [@bear04b] and @koso00 ([-@koso00]) are in agreement with our results.
Nieuwstadt also derived the following mean temperature profile \[Equation 21 of @nieu85 ([-@nieu85])\]: $$\label{NieuwTemp}
\frac{\Theta-\theta_s}{\theta_*} = -\frac{Ri_g}{\kappa
Ri_f^2}\frac{H}{L} \ln\left(1-\frac{z}{H}\right),$$ where $Ri_f$ and $Ri_g$ denote the flux and the gradient Richardson numbers, respectively. $\theta_*
\left(=-\frac{\left\langle{w\theta}\right\rangle}{u_*}\right)$ signifies the surface layer temperature scale. Equation \[NieuwTemp\] implies that the temperature profile exhibits positive curvature ($\sim
\partial^2\Theta/\partial z^2$), which is clearly visible in Figure \[FigStableT\].
We would like to point out that Nieuwstadt’s analytical model is based on the hypothesis that the gradient Richardson number ($Ri_g$) and the flux Richardson number ($Ri_f$) are constant with height inside the stable boundary layer. Nieuwstadt was aware of the fact that this hypothesis does not hold for the lower part of the boundary layer [@nieu85]. In fact, $Ri_g$ and $Ri_f$ should go to zero near the surface [@nieu85], as can be seen from our simulations (Figure \[FigStableRi\]). The violation of the basic assumption in the proximity of the land surface might explain some of the discrepancies between the LES results and Nieuwstadt’s predictions.
The Richardson numbers represent the ratio of the amount of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) destroyed by buoyancy forces to the amount of TKE generated by wind shear [@stul88]. The values of $Ri_f$ are consistently higher than the corresponding $Ri_g$ values, which is expected (see below). In the interior part of the boundary layer, $Ri_g$ is more or less constant ($\sim 0.2$), in accord with Nieuwstadt’s assumption. However, $Ri_f$ increases monotonically and is higher than 0.2 in the upper part of the boundary layer. The magnitudes of both these Richardson numbers increase sharply near the top of the boundary layer and become more than 1 in the inversion layer.
It is straightforward to show that the ratio between $Ri_g$ and $Ri_f$ is the turbulent Prandtl number ($Pr_t$) [@derb99; @howe99]: $$Pr_t = \frac{K_M}{K_H} = \frac{Ri_g}{Ri_f},$$ where $K_M$ and $K_H$ represent eddy diffusivities for momentum and heat flux, respectively. The dependence of $Pr_t$ on atmospheric stability is not strong [@derb99; @howe99]. Inside the boundary layer (up to $\sim$ 150 m), (almost) all our simulated results yield $\frac{Ri_g}{Ri_f} = Pr_t \sim 0.7$ (not shown here). Based on phenomenological theories of turbulence @town76 ([-@town76]) and @yakh86 ([-@yakh86]) also derived $Pr_t = 0.7$. However, in the surface layer our results show that the values of $Pr_t$ increase to $\sim 1$. This is consistent with ‘Microfronts’ field experimental data analyzed by @howe99 ([-@howe99]). They found on average, the estimates of $Pr_t$ at 3 m level are higher than at the 10 m level, indicating that the relative efficiency of turbulent momentum transfer with respect to heat transfer increases in the proximity of the land surface [@howe99].
In SBL simulations, one can test the performance of a SGS model by plotting a local nondimensional shear: $$\Phi_{ML} = \frac{\kappa z}{u_{*L}} \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial
U}{\partial z} \right)^2 + \left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial
z}\right)^2}$$ and nondimensional temperature gradient: $$\Phi_{HL} = \frac{\kappa z}{\theta_{*L}} \frac{\partial
\Theta}{\partial z}$$ as a function of local stability parameter ($z/\Lambda$) and comparing with field-observations-based formulations. Here, $\Lambda$ denotes the local Obukhov length. In this work, a subscript ‘$_L$’ on the turbulence quantities (e.g., $u_{*L}$) will be used to specify evalutation using local turbulence quantities - otherwise, surface values are implied. Recently, @mahr03 ([-@mahr03]) called this type of similarity theory ‘hybrid similarity theory’, since it approaches Monin-Obukhov similarity as $z$ decreases and also conforms to z-less stratification as $z \rightarrow \infty$. In Figure \[FigStablePhiL\] we plot the ‘hybrid’ nondimensionalized gradients and compare them with the formulations by @busi71 ([-@busi71]): $$\Phi_{ML} = 1+4.7\frac{z}{\Lambda}$$ $$\Phi_{HL} = 0.74+4.7\frac{z}{\Lambda},$$ and by @belj91 ([-@belj91]): $$\Phi_{ML} = 1+\frac{z}{\Lambda}\left[a+be^{-d\frac{z}{\Lambda}}
\left(1+c-d\frac{z}{\Lambda}\right) \right]$$ $$\Phi_{HL} = 1+\frac{z}{\Lambda}\left[a\left(1+\frac{2}{3}
\frac{az}{\Lambda}\right)^{1/2}+be^{-d\frac{z}{\Lambda}}
\left(1+c-d\frac{z}{\Lambda}\right) \right],$$ where the suggested values of the coefficients are [@belj91]: $a =
1, b = 2/3, c = 5$ and $d = 0.35$. Interestingly, both these simulated gradients plotted against $z/\Lambda$ show slopes slightly smaller than the widely used Businger et al.’s formulations. Based on CASES99 field observations data, @mahr03 ([-@mahr03]) found a slope of $3.7$ \[in contrast to $4.7$ as proposed by @busi71 ([-@busi71])\], which also fits our LES results remarkably well. Previous studies, such as @belj91 ([-@belj91]) also found that $\Phi_{ML}$ and $\Phi_{HL}$ increase slower than Businger et al.’s formulations and they proposed the aforementioned nonlinear formulation [@belj91].
There exists another representation for the nondimensional gradients in terms of local gradient Richardson number ($Ri_g$). Figure \[FigStablePhiRi\] once again shows that the agreement between our LES results and established formulations are quite satisfactory. In the literature, usually the critical gradient Richardson number ($Ri_{gc}$) is considered to be around 0.25. For $Ri_{gc} > 0.25$ turbulence is very weak (@stul88 [-@stul88]; @brow94 [-@brow94]), which is also noticeable in Figure \[FigStablePhiRi\].
### Second-order Statistics
The mean profiles of vertical momentum flux and buoyancy flux averaged over the final hour (8-9 hours) of simulation are given in Figure \[FigStableFlux\]. The dashed lines show the resolved flux, and the dotted lines denote the SGS contribution to the flux. As would be anticipated, near the ground the SGS contribution is much larger than its resolved counterpart. In the GABLS intercomparison study, there is a significant spread between the total momentum and buoyancy flux profiles simulated with different models. In particular at the surface the mean momentum and buoyancy fluxes range from 0.06 to 0.08 m$^2$s$^{-2}$ and -3.5 to -5.5 $\times 10^{-4}$ m$^2$s$^{-3}$, respectively [@bear04b]. Our simulated results also fall in these ranges.
Perhaps more interesting is to explore the normalized flux profiles shown in Figure \[FigStableNormFlux\]. Nieuwstadt’s analytical model predictions are as follows [@nieu85]: $$\frac{u_{*L}^2}{u_*^2} = \left( 1 - z/H \right)^{3/2}$$ $$\frac{\left\langle{wb}_L\right\rangle}{\left\langle{wb_s}\right\rangle}
= \left( 1 - z/H \right).$$ Our model simulated results are in close agreement with Nieuwstadt’s predictions.
Figures \[FigStableVarU\] and \[FigStableVarT\] show the (resolved) variances of velocity components and temperature. In the surface layer, the normalized resolved velocity variances are smaller than Nieuwstadt’s field observations [@nieu84a; @nieu84b]. This is expected as the SGS contributions to these variances have not been added here. This will be done while studying Nieuwstadt’s local scaling hypothesis and will be shown to be in excellent agreement with Nieuwstadt’s observations (see below). We would like to point out that in contrast to our simulated results, the nonlinear SGS model simulations by @koso00 ([-@koso00]) surprisingly yielded surface layer velocity variances (resolved plus SGS) which were $\sim 40$ percent smaller than Nieuwstadt’s observations.
In his local scaling hypothesis, Nieuwstadt [@nieu84a; @nieu84b; @nieu85] conjectured that under stable stratification, the local Obukhov length ($\Lambda$) based on local turbulent fluxes should be considered as a more fundamental length scale. Then, according to this hypothesis, dimensionless combinations of turbulent variables \[gradients, fluxes, (co-)variances etc.\] which are measured at the same height ($z$) could be expressed as ‘universal’ functions of the stability parameter, $\zeta~
(=z/\Lambda)$. Exact forms of these functions could be predicted by dimensional analysis only in the asymptotic very stable case ($\zeta
\to \infty$), as discussed below. In the very stable regime (z-less condition), since any explicit dependence on $z$ disappears, local scaling predicts that dimensionless turbulent quantities asymptotically approach constant values [@nieu84a; @nieu84b; @nieu85]. Local scaling could be viewed as a generalization of the well established Monin-Obukhov (M-O) similarity theory [@moni71; @sorb89]. M-O similarity theory is strictly valid in the surface layer (lowest 10[%]{} of the ABL), whereas local scaling describes the turbulent structure of the entire SBL [@nieu84a; @nieu84b; @nieu85].
Whether or not our LES-generated statistics support the local scaling hypothesis was studied extensively in our recent work [@basu05]. In that study, we also performed rigorous statistical analyses of field observations and wind-tunnel measurements in order to verify the validity of local scaling hypothesis under very stable conditions. An extensive set of turbulence statistics, computed from field and wind-tunnel measurements and also from LES-generated datasets, supported the validity of the local scaling hypothesis (in the cases of traditional bottom-up as well as upside-down stable boundary layers over homogeneous, flat terrains). We demonstrated that non-turbulent effects need to be removed from field data while studying similarity hypotheses, otherwise the results could be misleading [@basu05]. For completeness of the present paper, we decided to include some key local scaling results. For ease in representation, we categorize our LES-generated database based on local stabilities ($z/\Lambda$) (see Table \[LocSc\_T2\]). The class S1 represents near neutral stability; while S5 corresponds to the very stable regime.
Class Stability ($\zeta$) $32^3$ $64^3$ $80^3$
------- --------------------- -------- -------- --------
S1 0.00-0.10 0 1 2
S2 0.10-0.25 1 2 3
S3 0.25-0.50 2 3 3
S4 0.50-1.00 1 4 6
S5 $>$ 1.00 8 11 14
: Number of samples in each stability class.[]{data-label="LocSc_T2"}
In Figures \[LocSc\_sigVel\] and \[LocSc\_sigT\] we plot the normalized standard deviation of velocity components and temperature, respectively. The results are presented using standard boxplot notation with marks at 95, 75, 50, 25, and 5 percentile of an empirical distribution. The SGS contributions to the total standard deviations are estimated following the approach of Mason [@maso89; @maso90].
It is quite evident from Figures \[LocSc\_sigVel\] and \[LocSc\_sigT\] that the normalized standard deviation of the turbulence variables closely follows the local scaling predictions and also z-less stratification. In Table \[LocSc\_T3\] we further report the median values of the turbulence statistics corresponding to the category S5. Loosely, these median values could be considered as the asymptotic z-less values, which are found to be remarkably close to Nieuwstadt’s analytical predictions and also field observations (see Table \[LocSc\_T3\]). For an example, Nieuwstadt’s theory predicts that the normalized vertical velocity standard deviation asymptotically approaches $\sim1.4$ in the z-less regime. In @basu05 ([-@basu05]), we observed this value to be in the narrow range of 1.4 to 1.6. Recently, @hein04 ([-@hein04]) compiled a list (see Table 2 of their paper) of turbulence statistics under very stable conditions ($\zeta_{max} \sim$ 25) reported by various researchers. They found an asymptotic value of $\sim1.6$ for $\sigma_w/u_{*L}$, in accord with @sorb86 ([-@sorb86]).
In Figure \[LocSc\_r\], we report the mutual correlations between $u$, $w$ and $\theta$. The z-less values are also reported in Table \[LocSc\_T3\]. Once again, these values are very similar to the ones compiled by @hein04 ([-@hein04]), our previous study [@basu05], results of @sorb86 ([-@sorb86]) and theoretical predictions of @nieu84b ([-@nieu84b]). As a note, @kaim94 ([-@kaim94]) also report that for $0 <
\zeta < 1$, $r_{u\theta}$ = 0.6, which is close to the values found in the present study.
----------------------------- ------------- --------------- --------- -- --
Turbulence Large-eddy Nieuwstadt Sorbjan
Statistics Simulations (1984b, 1985) (1986)
$\sigma_u/u_{*L}$ 2.3 2.0 2.4
$\sigma_v/u_{*L}$ 1.7 1.7 1.8
$\sigma_w/u_{*L}$ 1.4 1.4 1.6
$\sigma_\theta/\theta_{*L}$ 2.4 3.0 2.4
$r_{uw}$ -0.32 - -
$r_{u\theta}$ 0.56 - 0.50
$r_{w\theta}$ -0.30 -0.24 -
----------------------------- ------------- --------------- --------- -- --
: z-less values of turbulence statistics.[]{data-label="LocSc_T3"}
In light of the foregoing analyses it is certain that the local scaling hypothesis of Nieuwstadt, which has survived the last two decades, still holds for a wide range of stabilities and is well reproduced by our LES model.
### SGS Coefficients
Figures \[FigStableSGS\] and \[FigStableBeta\] show the SGS coefficients: $C_S$, $Pr_{SGS}$, and the averaged scale-dependent parameters: $\beta$, $\beta_\theta$, dynamically obtained using the locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic model. $\beta$ and $\beta_\theta$ are found to be significantly smaller than $1$ in the entire boundary layer. This stresses the fact that the assumption of scale-invariance in anisotropic stably stratified flows is not appropriate. Indeed, both $C_S$ and $Pr_{SGS}$ are found to be scale dependent. The scale-dependent parameters are also expected to depend on local stability as they decrease significantly in the strongly stratified inversion layer. $C_S$ is found to decrease with increasing atmospheric stability, consistent with recent field observations (@port01 [-@port01]; @klei03 [-@klei03]). The SGS Prandtl number ($Pr_{SGS}$) is more or less constant inside the boundary layer and gradually increases to $\sim 1$ in the inversion layer, as commonly assumed. Moreover, the values of $Pr_{SGS}$ increase in the surface layer. Earlier, we described very similar behavior in the case of turbulent Prandtl number ($Pr_t$).
Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives
==========================================
One of the contributions of this research is the development and implementation of a new-generation subgrid-scale model, termed as the locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic (LASDD) model. This SGS model shares most of the desirable characteristics of the plane-averaged scale-dependent dynamic models, originally proposed by @port00 ([-@port00]) for the SGS stresses, and @port04 ([-@port04]) for SGS fluxes. For example, it does not require any [*a priori*]{} specification of SGS coefficients since they are computed dynamically in a self-consistent manner. The dynamically estimated coefficients are found to strongly depend on filter scale and atmospheric stability, in close agreement with [*a priori*]{} field studies (@port01 [-@port01]; @klei03 [-@klei03]). However, in contrast to the original plane-averaged version, the LASDD model does not suffer from the insufficient SGS dissipation problem in simulations of stable boundary layers.
The potential of our SGS model is made clear in coarse-resolution large-eddy simulations of moderately stable boundary layers. Overall, the agreements between our LES-generated turbulence statistics and observations, as well as some well-established empirical formulations and theoretical predictions are remarkable. The results also show clear improvements over most of the traditional SGS models in the surface layer. In essence, we showed that tuning-free simulations of stable atmospheric boundary layers are feasible even with relatively coarse resolutions if one uses a robust and reliable SGS scheme.
The next logical step would be to check the performance of this new-generation SGS scheme in simulating very stable boundary layers. This would of course require extensive validation against existing profiles of various turbulence statistics measured during different field campaigns (e.g, Cooperative Atmosphere-Surface Exchange Study 1999 - CASES99; Beaufort Sea Arctic Stratus Experiment - BASE; Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean - SHEBA). One of the characteristics of strongly stratified boundary layers is the existence of global intermittency (turbulent burstings in the midst of a laminar flow). In contrast to the traditional SGS models, the locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic LES model has the correct behavior in laminar and transitional flows. This makes us believe that this model will be able to model the complex intermittency behavior of the very stable boundary layer flows.
Contemporary SBL research has revealed that in very stable regimes the relative importance of radiative cooling and heat exchange with the underlying soil becomes as significant as turbulent mixing [@vand02]. This means that radiation and soil physics should also be included in LES models before attempting very stable simulations. Another interesting feature of this type of boundary layer flows is the presence of gravity waves. Conceptually, LES is capable of simulating gravity waves, provided the domain size is large enough. Unfortunately, the present computational power dictates that in such cases one must have a relatively coarse resolution making thus the locally-averaged scale-dependent dynamic model more desirable than the laminarization-prone traditional SGS models. These issues will be addressed in our future research.
The authors are grateful to Rob Stoll for his generous help during the course of this work. We thank Efi Foufoula-Georgiou for many thought provoking discussions. This work was partially funded by NSF and NASA grants. All the computational resources were kindly provided by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
[^1]: Please note that here the variation of $C_S^2$ over the test filter scale has been implicitly neglected [@germ91; @lill92; @vrem94].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Due to the co-evolution of supermassive black holes and their host galaxies, understanding the mechanisms that trigger active galactic nuclei (AGN) are imperative to understanding galaxy evolution and the formation of massive galaxies. It is observationally difficult to determine the trigger of a given AGN due to the difference between the AGN lifetime and triggering timescales. Here, we utilize AGN population synthesis modeling to determine the importance of different AGN triggering mechanisms. An AGN population model is computed by combining an observationally motivated AGN triggering rate and a theoretical AGN light curve. The free parameters of the AGN light curve are constrained by minimizing a $\chi^2$ test with respect to the observed AGN hard X-ray luminosity function. The observed black hole space density, AGN number counts, and X-ray background spectrum are also considered as observational constraints. It is found that major mergers are not able to account for the entire AGN population. Therefore, non-merger processes, such as secular mechanisms, must also trigger AGN. Indeed, non-merger processes are the dominant AGN triggering mechanism at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1–1.5. Furthermore, the shape and evolution of the black hole mass function of AGN triggered by major mergers is intrinsically different from the shape and evolution of the black hole mass function of AGN triggered by secular processes.'
author:
- 'A. R. Draper and D. R. Ballantyne'
title: 'A Tale of Two Populations: The Contribution of Merger and Secular Processes to the Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei'
---
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
In less than a decade it was determined that not only do all massive galaxies harbor a supermassive black hole at their center [@KR95], but also that the evolution of the galaxy is intrinsically linked to the growth of the central black hole [e.g., @M98; @T02]. However, the mechanism responsible for the co-evolution of a supermassive black hole and its host galaxy is still under investigation. As accreting supermassive black holes, generally referred to as active galactic nuclei (AGN), can, over their lifetime, radiate an amount of energy comparable to the binding energy of their host galaxy [e.g., @SR98; @F99; @A10], it is believed that this AGN feedback will affect star formation in the host galaxy [e.g., @F99; @H06; @Lag08; @Tri09; @B10; @H11; @HS11]. Galaxy wide processes can also affect the central supermassive black hole. For example, theoretical and observational evidence suggests that AGN can be triggered by major mergers of massive gas rich galaxies [e.g., @S88; @H89; @C90; @KH00; @H06] or by secular processes not connected to major mergers, such as supernova winds, stellar bars, cold-flow accretion, interactions with other massive galaxies or satellite galaxies, or minor mergers [e.g., @C03; @KK04; @V05; @D07; @P07; @C09; @KJ10; @Bo11; @O11].
Simulations show that mergers of gas rich galaxies cause gas and dust to lose angular momentum and fall into the central regions of the galaxy [e.g., @BH96]. The resulting nuclear gas reservoir will be consumed by star formation in the host bulge and accretion flows onto the resident supermassive black hole [@H06; @H06b]. According to the galaxy evolution model explored by @H09, AGN feedback will then evolve the AGN host galaxy across the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) from the massive end of the blue cloud, through the green valley, and onto the red sequence (but see Schawinski et al. 2009 and Cardamone et al. 2010). Secular processes, such as supernova explosions, stellar bars, minor mergers and interactions, will also release angular momentum from gas and dust leading to a similar reservoir of gas in the central region of the galaxy [e.g., @C03; @D07; @C09; @O11]. Despite mergers and secular mechanisms both leading to the accumulation of gas and dust deep in the galactic potential well, mergers and secular processes have very different galaxy wide effects and roles in galaxy evolution. Major mergers are violent processes which, as with the Antennae galaxies, can destroy galactic structure, causing the merger remnant to relax into a bulge-dominated system [e.g., @HH06]. Secular evolution, however, is not likely to disturb the morphology or large-scale structure of the host galaxy [see @G09]. Despite the systemic differences between galaxy evolution and AGN activity due to major mergers and secular processes, it is difficult to observationally determine which mechanism is responsible for a given AGN; tidal tails are often faint, bulge-dominated systems can be re-triggered by secular processes, and the timescales for AGN activity tend to be longer than the timescales for a merger remnant galaxy to dynamically relax [@S10a].
Despite the observational difficulties in determining how a particular AGN has been triggered, there is observational evidence that major mergers are not the dominant AGN triggering mechanism, at least not at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2. By determining the Sérsic indices of massive galaxies at $z$ = 2–3, @Wein11 found that $\sim$65$\%$ of AGN hosts at this redshift range have Sérsic indices indicative of disky morphologies. Observations also show that in the redshift ranges $z$ = 1.5–3 [@S11] and $z$ = 1.5–2.5 [@K12], the majority of moderate luminosity AGN are hosted by disk galaxies. By considering galaxy pairs at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2, @W11 find that the wet major merger rate is too low to account for the majority of AGN activity at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2. When investigating AGN in zCOSMOS, @Sil11 found that $\sim$20$\%$ of moderate luminosity AGN at 0.25 $<$ $z$ $<$ 1.05 are in close pairs, and thus were likely triggered by galaxy interactions. @C11 argue that AGN are as likely as quiescent galaxies to show signs of a recent merger at $z$ $<$ 1, and thus mergers cannot be connected to AGN activity at this redshift range. @G09 investigate the morphology of AGN hosts and find that AGN hosted by disk galaxies contribute $\sim$25$\%$ of the AGN luminosity density at $z$ $\approx$ 0.8. They conclude, therefore, that a large fraction of $z$ $\sim$ 1 AGN are triggered by mechanisms unrelated to major mergers. @C10 found that when AGN host galaxy colors are corrected for dust extinction, there is a bi-modality of AGN host galaxy colors at $z$ $\sim$ 1, suggesting that there are two modes of AGN activity at this redshift range. When modeling the AGN population by considering mergers of massive dark matter halos, @Shen09 find that secular AGN activity is necessary at $z$ $<$ 0.5 to account for the observed AGN population. @K10 recently found that $\sim$20$\%$ of [*Swift*]{}/BAT AGN at $z$ $<$ 0.05 are hosted by galaxies with disturbed morphologies indicative of a recent major merger and an additional 6$\%$ of [*Swift*]{}/BAT AGN are in close pairs suggesting these AGN were triggered by galaxy interactions. Thus, it appears that both major mergers and secular processes must contribute to the AGN activity observed at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2. If secular triggers dominate the AGN population at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2, current understanding of the stochastic fueling of secular mechanisms is insufficient to explain the high luminosity of quasars observed at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2 [@HH06]. However, @Bo11 recently showed that, at least at high redshift, it is possible for cold-flow accretion to trigger moderate luminosity AGN with occasional bright episodes. Thus, phenomenological models of the AGN population may provide an important tool for understanding the importance of merger and secularly triggered AGN at various redshift and luminosity ranges.
Here, a model of the AGN population is calculated using an empirically motivated space density of AGN triggered at each redshift and a theoretical AGN light curve. We consider whether major mergers or secular mechanisms alone can account for the observed AGN hard X-ray luminosity function (HXLF), AGN number counts, black hole space density, and the X-ray background (XRB) spectrum. In Section \[sect:model\] the details of the AGN model, including the triggering rate, light curve, and black hole mass functions utilized, are described. Section \[sect:calc\] explains the calculations completed to compare the model against observations. We then consider the model results if AGN are a single population (Section \[sect:one\]) or two populations (Section \[sect:two\]). The results are discussed and summarized in Sections \[sect:disc\] and \[sect:sum\]. A $\Lambda$CDM cosmology is assumed with H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 1.0 - $\Omega_{M}$ = 0.7.
The AGN Population Model {#sect:model}
========================
In order to model the evolution of the AGN HXLF, three ingredients are necessary. To determine the space density of triggered AGN, an empirically based major merger rate is used. Once triggered, the AGN Eddington ratio, $\lambda$ = $L_{bol}/L_{Edd}$, where $L_{bol}$ is the bolometric luminosity and $L_{Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity, is evolved using a theoretically motivated light curve. The active black hole mass function (ABHMF) and the @M04 bolometric correction are then used to convert from Eddington ratio to 2–10 keV luminosity, $L_X$. These three ingredients are described in detail below.
Triggering Rate {#sub:trigger}
---------------
In order to determine the space density of AGN triggered at each redshift, the space density of gas rich massive galaxies at redshift $z$ must be calculated. First, the minimum stellar mass of a massive galaxy, $M_*^{min}$, at $z$ is derived by parametrizing the median mass of ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGS) as a function of redshift [@T10], which gives $$M_*^{min}(z) = 5 \times 10^{11} (1.0+z)^{-1.5} M_{\odot}.
\label{eq:Mmin}$$ The space density of massive galaxies at $z$, $N_{gal}(M_*>M_*^{min}(z))$, in Mpc$^{-3}$, can then be calculated by integrating the stellar mass function from $M_*^{min}(z)$ to $M_*^{max}$ = 10$^{12.5}$ M$_{\odot}$, such that $$N_{gal}(M_*>M_*^{min}(z)) = \int_{M_*^{min}(z)}^{M_*^{max}} \frac{d\Phi_{gal}(M_*,z)}{d\log M_*}d \log M_*,
\label{eq:Ngal}$$ where $d\Phi_{gal}/d\log M_*$ is the stellar mass function (SMF) of @PG08 for $z$ $\lesssim$ 4. The dependence of the results on the SMF is considered in Sections \[sub:merg\] and \[sub:sec\]. To determine the space density of gas rich massive galaxies, the fraction of gas rich galaxies at $z$, $f_g(z)$, must be determined. Considering observations of the GOODS fields [@Dah07], @T10 find that $f_g(z)$ can be parametrized as $$f_g(z) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l}
0.11(1+z)^{2.0} & z\leq 2 \\
1 & z>2
\end{array}\right..
\label{eq:fg}$$ Thus the space density, in Mpc$^{-3}$, of potential AGN host galaxies at redshift $z$ is $f_g(z)N_{gal}(M_*>M_*^{min}(z))$.
The space density of AGN triggered by a merger at redshift $z$ is then calculated by multiplying the space density of potential AGN host galaxies at $z$ by the fraction of massive galaxies which will undergo a merger at $z$. Following @H10, who derive the major merger rate per galaxy per Gyr, $d^2\Psi$/$dt$ $dN$, from simulations and observational constraints, we parametrize $d^2\Psi$/$dt$ $dN$ as $$\frac{d^2 \Psi}{dt\,dN} = A(M_*^{min})(1.0+z)^{\beta(M_*^{min})},
\label{eq:dmerg}$$ where $$A(M_*) = 0.02\left[1+\left(\frac{M_*}{2\times 10^{10} M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/2}\right] \textnormal{Gyr}^{-1}
\label{eq:A}$$ and $$\beta(M_*) = 1.65 - 0.15\log\left(\frac{M_*}{2\times 10^{10} M_{\odot}}\right).
\label{eq:beta}$$ Here the major merger is said to occur upon the coalescence of the two similarly massive galaxies [@H10b]. By assuming that every major merger leads to an AGN event, with a negligible time delay between the merger and the triggering of the AGN activity, the space density of AGN triggered by major mergers, $dN_{merg}$, at redshift $z$ is $$dN_{merg} (z) = \frac{d^2 \Psi}{dN dt} \,N_{gal}(M_* > M_*^{min}(z)) \,f_{g}(z)\, dt \, \textnormal{Mpc}^{-3}.
\label{eq:mergrate}$$
The rate at which AGN are triggered through secular processes, such as galaxy interactions, cold gas accretion, and internal disk instabilities, is calculated in a similar manner. For AGN triggered by secular processes, $M_*^{min}(z)$ = 5 $\times$ 10$^9$ M$_{\odot}$, in agreement with the findings of @S10. The fractional rate of massive gas rich galaxies which are triggered through secular processes every Gyr, $f_{sec}$, is assumed to be constant with redshift. @Y09 found that the fraction of galaxies with $M_*$ $>$ 10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$ hosting AGN, which are triggered through both secular processes and mergers, is $\sim$0.3. As the fraction of AGN triggered by secular processes is poorly constrained observationally, and we are considering galaxies with $M_*$ $>$ 5 $\times$ 10$^9$ M$_{\odot}$, the constraint $f_{sec}$ $\ll$ 0.3 Gyr$^{-1}$ is used. The specific value of $f_{sec}$ is set by calculating the predicted AGN HXLF and minimizing a $\chi^2$ test which compares against the observed HXLF. The space density of AGN triggered by secular mechanisms, $dN_{sec}$, at redshift $z$ is then $$dN_{sec} (z) = f_{sec} \,N_{gal}(M_* > M_*^{min}(z)) \,f_{g}(z)\, dt \, \textnormal{Mpc}^{-3}.
\label{eq:secrate}$$
AGN Light Curve {#sub:lc}
---------------
Once the AGN has been triggered, its Eddington ratio is used to parametrize the accretion as a function of time since the AGN was triggered. While there is evidence that AGN are an intermittent phenomenon, @T10 show that quasars can grow most of their black hole mass in a single, merger triggered event. Therefore, a single-peaked light curve is assumed.
Based on hydrodynamical simulations, @HH09 suggest $$\lambda(t) = \left[1+\left(\vert t\vert/t_Q\right)^{1/2}\right]^{-2/\beta},
\label{eq:lc}$$ where $t = t_{on} - t_Q$, where $t_{on}$ is the time since the AGN was triggered, $t_Q$ = $t_0 \eta^{\beta}/(2\beta \ln 10)$, and $t_0$, $\eta$, and $\beta$ are fitting parameters which describe the quasar lifetime, maximum Eddington ratio, and light curve slope, respectively[^1].
Active Black Hole Mass Function and Its Evolution {#sub:abhmf}
-------------------------------------------------
By combining the triggering rate and light curve, the space density of AGN with Eddington ratio $\lambda$ can be calculated at any redshift $z$ $\lesssim$ 4. However, to compute model predictions that can be compared to observational constraints, the black hole mass must be used to convert Eddington ratios into bolometric luminosities. Once the bolometric luminosity is computed, the @M04 bolometric correction is used to determine $L_X$. The distribution of black hole masses is determined by the fractional active black hole mass function (ABHMF) at $z$, which describes the fraction of active black holes at redshift $z$ with black hole mass $M_{\bullet}$.
Two ABHMFs are considered. The first ABHMF is a Gaussian fit to the combined type 1 and type 2 AGN ABHMF at $z$ $\sim$ 0.15 observed by @N09. The second ABHMF considered is a Schechter function with the same slope and critical mass, $M_{crit}$, as the black hole mass function described by @MH08. Both ABHMFs are considered over the range $\log (M_{\bullet}^{min}/M_{\odot})$ = 5.95 and $\log (M_{\bullet}^{max}/M_{\odot})$ = 10.55. A black hole with $M_{\bullet}$ $<$ $M_{\bullet}^{min}$ would need to accrete at Eddington ratio $\lambda$ $\gtrsim$ 0.1 to achieve $\log L_X$ $\gtrsim$ 41.5. According to the light curve used here, the vast majority of the AGN lifetime is spent at $\lambda$ $<$ 0.1. Therefore, black holes with $M_{\bullet}$ $<$ $M_{\bullet}^{min}$ are expected to only make a very small contribution to the observed AGN population [@M04; @MH08]. Black holes with $M_{\bullet}$ $>$ $M_{\bullet}^{max}$, correspond to $\ll$ 0.1$\%$ of all active black holes according to both the @MH08 and @N09 ABHMFs, in agreement with the maximum black hole mass derived by @NT09.
Both the @MH08 and @N09 ABHMFs are derived using scaling relationships to determine black hole masses. These scaling relationships have an intrinsic scatter of $\sim$0.3 dex [@PB06; @MH08; @N09]. This leads to an uncertainty in the calculated $L_X$ of a factor $\sim$ 2 $\times$ $\lambda$. For the majority of sources, $\lambda$ $<$ 0.1, thus the uncertainty introduced by the ABHMF is a smaller part of the error budget than the uncertainty in the major merger rate, which is a factor $\sim$2.
For both ABHMFs two redshift evolutions are investigated. The first ABHMF evolution uses the continuity equation [@SB92; @MH08] $$\frac{\partial n_M(M_{\bullet},t)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial[n_M(M_{\bullet},t)\langle\dot{M}(M_{\bullet},t)\rangle]}{\partial M}=0,
\label{eq:coneq}$$ where $n_M$ is the ABHMF and $\langle\dot{M}(M_{\bullet},t)\rangle$ is the average accretion rate of black holes with mass $M_{\bullet}$ at time $t$. By integrating this conservation equation forward and backward in time, using the observed ABHMF as the boundary condition, the ABHMF can be evolved to any redshift $z$. This evolution assumes that black hole growth occurs through accretion and that binary mergers are not the primary mechanism of black hole growth [e.g., @V03]. The second ABHMF evolution considered is based on the observations of @L09 who found that the maximum black hole mass of the quasar population increases with redshift. Thus, $M_{\bullet}^{crit}(z)$ = $M_{\bullet}^{crit}(0)(1.0+z)^{1.64}$. In order to compare the two considered evolutions, a power law is fit to $M_{\bullet}^{crit}(z)$ of the @MH08 ABHMF evolved with the continuity equation and it is found that $M_{\bullet}^{crit}(z)$ $\approx$ $M_{\bullet}^{crit}(0)(1.0+z)^{0.5}$. For both ABHMFs, the ABHMF is re-normalized at each redshift so that integrating over all black hole masses gives 1.
With the observationally determined AGN triggering rate, theoretical Eddington ratio evolution, and the ABHMF in place, the AGN population at $z$ $<$ 4 can be fully modeled[^2]. To determine the light curve fitting parameters, $t_0$, $\beta$, and $\eta$, the AGN population model must be compared to observational constraints.
Calculations and Observational Constraints {#sect:calc}
==========================================
In order to constrain the light curve parameters, the AGN population model is compared against the HXLF at five different redshifts, the black hole mass density as a function of redshift, the [*Swift/BAT*]{} 15–55 keV AGN counts, the 2–10 keV AGN counts, and the XRB spectrum. The methods used to calculate these quantities are described below.
AGN HXLF {#sub:HXLF}
--------
The HXLF, $d\Phi_X (L_X,z)/d\log L_X$, is computed at five different redshifts, $z$ = 2.3, 1.2, 0.6, 0.3, and 0.1. The HXLFs observed by @U03, @LF05, @S08, @Aird10, and @U11 are each presented in different redshift bins. Therefore, we compute the predicted HXLF at the central redshift of each of the @U03 redshift bins.
The bolometric AGN luminosity function at redshift $z$, $d\Phi (L_{bol},z)/d\log L$, is computed by integrating over the space density of AGN triggered at redshift $z_t$ and, at redshift $z$, have black hole mass $M_{\bullet}$ and Eddington ratio $\lambda$ such that the bolometric luminosity is $L_{bol}$. Thus, $$\frac{d\Phi(L_{bol}, z)}{d\log L} = \int_{M_{\bullet}^{min}}^{M_{\bullet}^{max}} n_{M}(M_{\bullet},z) d\log M_{\bullet} \int^4_z \Phi_{\lambda}(M_{\bullet},z) dz_t,
\label{eq:blf}$$ where $\log (M_{\bullet}^{min}/M_{\odot})$ = 5.95, $\log (M_{\bullet}^{max}/M_{\odot})$ = 10.55, $z_t$ is the triggering redshift, and $$\Phi_{\lambda}(M_{\bullet},z) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l}
\frac{dN(z_t)}{d\log L} & \lambda(z,z_t) L_{Edd}(M_{\bullet}) = L_{bol} \\
0 & \textnormal{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.,
\label{eq:philambda}$$ where $dN$ is either $dN_{merg}$ or $dN_{sec}$. The @M04 luminosity dependent bolometric correction is then used to convert $L_{bol}$ to $L_X$.
As the observed HXLF only includes Compton thin AGN, the Compton thick AGN are removed from the calculated HXLF by assuming that one-third of all obscured AGN are Compton thick in agreement with the fraction of Compton thick AGN necessary for the @U03 observed HXLF to be in agreement with the peak of the XRB at $\sim$ 30 keV [@DB09; @DB10; @B11]. The fraction of Compton thin obscured sources, $f_2$, is assumed to be a function of luminosity and redshift such that $f_2 \propto (1+z)^a(\log L_X)^{-b}$, where $a$ = 0.4 [@B06; @TU06] and $b$ = 4.7. The normalization factor is determined by assuming the type 2 to type 1 AGN ratio is 4:1 at $z$ = 0 and $\log L_X$ = 41.5. Thus, the space density of Compton thick AGN also depends on $L_X$ and, in Mpc$^{-3}$ dex$^{-1}$, is $(f_2/2)$ $d\Phi_X/d\log L_X$.
According to both the @M04 and @V09 bolometric corrections, to achieve $L_X$ = 10$^{46.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$ it is necessary to have a black hole with mass $\approx$10$^{10.7}$ – 10$^{10.9}$ M$_{\odot}$ accreting at its Eddington rate. Both the Gaussian fit to the @N09 and the @MH08 ABHMF, predict the fraction of active black holes with mass $\sim$10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$ is $\sim$ 0, in agreement with the black hole mass upper limit derived by @NT09. This strongly suggests that AGN with $L_X$ $\gtrsim$ 10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are accreting at super-Eddington rates. The light curve model used allows for 0 $\lesssim$ $\lambda$ $\lesssim$ 1. Therefore, super-Eddington accretion cannot be taken into account. Thus, the models presented here will necessarily under-predict the $L_X$ $>$ 10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ observed HXLF data points. For completeness, the HXLF data points at $L_X$ $>$ 10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are still taken into account when performing the $\chi^2$ fitting[^3].
Black Hole Mass Density {#sub:massden}
-----------------------
To calculate the black hole mass density, the @S82 argument is used. Thus, the black hole mass density at redshift $z$, $\rho_{\bullet}(z)$, is calculated as $$\rho_{\bullet} (z) = \int_z^{\infty}\frac{dt}{dz}dz\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon c^2}L_{bol}\frac{d\Phi(L,z)}{d\log L}d\log L
\label{eq:soltan}$$ where $\epsilon$ = 0.1 is the radiative efficiency, $c$ is the speed of light, and $d\Phi(L,z)/d \log L$ is the AGN luminosity function [@YT02; @M04; @T11] [^4]. The contribution of Compton thick AGN to the black hole mass density is included. The predicted black hole mass density is compared to the local black hole mass density observed by @S09 and the $z$ $\sim$ 2 black hole mass density observed by @T10b.
X-ray Background Spectrum {#sub:xrb}
-------------------------
The XRB spectrum model closely follows that described by @DB09. Instead of inputting the observed luminosity function, the HXLF calculated as described in Section \[sub:HXLF\] is used. Also, a torus reflection component [@G07] is included which is computed using “reflion” [@RF05]. The Type 2 fraction, $f_2$, is determined as in Section \[sub:HXLF\]. The Compton thick fraction, $f_{CT}$, is defined as the ratio of the number of Compton thick AGN to the number of Compton thin type 2 AGN, and is set to $f_{CT}$ = 0.5, in agreement with the $f_{CT}$ necessary for the @U03 HXLF to be in agreement with the XRB spectrum and the local Compton thick AGN space density [@DB09; @DB10; @B11]. The unabsorbed type 1 sources are evenly distributed over column densities $\log N_{H}$ = 20.0, 20.5, 21.0, and 21.5. The Compton thin type 2 sources are distributed equally over $\log N_{H}$ = 22.0, 22.5, 23.0, and 23.5. The contribution of Compton thick AGN to the XRB is included. To do so, it is assumed that Compton thick sources evolve similarly to less obscured AGN and are evenly distributed over $\log N_{H}$ = 24.0, 24.5, and 25.0.
The AGN number counts in the 2–10 keV and 15–55 keV bands are also calculated. This is done by using the same AGN spectra, $f_2$, and $f_{CT}$ as in the XRB model described above, including the contribution of Compton thick AGN, and by using the HXLF calculated as in Section \[sub:HXLF\].
Summary of Free Parameters {#sub:freeparam}
--------------------------
The light curve fitting parameters— $t_0$, which is related to the AGN lifetime, $\eta$, which is related to the peak Eddington ratio, and $\beta$, which determines the slope of the light curve— are determined by comparing the resulting models against the observed HXLF, evolving black hole space density, XRB spectrum, and AGN number counts. The fractional rate of massive galaxies which are triggered by secular processes each Gyr, $f_{sec}$, is also determined by comparing against observational constraints.
The focus of this study is not to fit the AGN light curve parameters, but to investigate the contribution to the AGN population of AGN triggered by major mergers and AGN triggered by secular processes. Therefore, a minimization algorithm is not used. Instead, the best fit parameters for the AGN light curve are determined by considering models with $t_0$ = 1.0 $\times$ 10$^7$, 5.0 $\times$ 10$^7$, 1.0 $\times$ 10$^8$, 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$, 5.0 $\times$ 10$^8$, 7.5 $\times$ 10$^8$, and 1.0 $\times$ 10$^9$ yrs. @HH06 found that their model results were not very dependent on $\eta$, so the values $\eta$ = 0.2, 0.4, 1.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are considered. Steps of 0.05 in the range from 0.05 to 1.0 are used to determine $\beta$. For $f_{sec}$ the values 0.0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 Gyr$^{-1}$ are investigated. The best fit parameters for each model are determined by minimizing a $\chi^2$ test which takes into account the 127 HXLF data points for $z$ = 2.3, 1.2, 0.6, 0.3, and 0.1 presented by @U03, @LF05, @S08, @Aird10, and @U11. By comparing against the observed AGN HXLF, black hole mass density, XRB spectrum, and AGN number counts, the model is fully constrained, allowing for some conclusions to be reached about the AGN light curve parameters. The model sensitivity to the light curve parameters is discussed in Section \[sub:lcm\].
One Population {#sect:one}
==============
Major Merger Triggered Quasars {#sub:merg}
------------------------------
First, it is assumed that all AGN are triggered by major mergers, thus, $f_{sec}$ = 0.0. The best fit to the HXLF is found using the @MH08 ABHMF with the @L09 evolution, $t_0$ = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ yrs, $\beta$ = 0.7, and $\eta$ = 2.5, similar to that found by @Cao10. When compared to the 127 data points from the @U03, @LF05, @S08, @Aird10, and @U11 observed HXLFs in the 5 redshift ranges considered, this model has a reduced $\chi^2$, $\chi^2_{red}$ = 2.4. If $t_0$ is changed by 0.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ yrs, $\beta$ is changed by 0.05, or $\eta$ is changed by 0.5, the resulting $\chi^2_{red}$ will increase by $\sim$ 0.1 – 0.2. The light curve fitting parameters are summarized in Table \[modelparam\]. As shown by the dot-dashed red lines in Figure \[fig:one\], this model provides a relatively good fit to the observed HXLF at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1; however, at $z$ $<$ 1, this model has $\chi^2_{red}$ = 2.6 for 85 data points. The space density of major mergers at $z$ $<$ 1 is too low to explain the space density of observed AGN in this redshift range. This model is in agreement with the observed local black hole mass density [@S09] and the $z$ $\sim$ 2 observed black hole mass density [@T10b]. However, this model significantly under-predicts the XRB spectrum as well as the 2–10 keV and 15–55 keV AGN number counts. Thus, despite major merger triggered AGN being able to account for the integrated black hole growth, merger triggered AGN cannot account for the space density of the entire AGN population. Specifically, major mergers cannot account for the $z$ $\lesssim$ 1 AGN population.
The finding that major mergers are not capable of accounting for the $z$ $\lesssim$ 1 AGN population is robust against several assumptions. To test the dependence of the merger triggered AGN only model on the SMF, the $z$ = 1.3–3 SMF presented by @March09 and the $z$ = 0.1 SMF presented by @C01 are used to define an evolving SMF. When using the combined @C01 and @March09 SMF, the merger triggered AGN only model is not able to account for the space density of AGN at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1, with minimum $\chi^2_{red}$ = 3.6. Similarly, if the minimum mass of a potential AGN host galaxy ($M_*^{min}$) is reduced, the merger only model cannot supply a decent fit to the observational constraints.
Secularly Triggered AGN {#sub:sec}
-----------------------
Next, we consider the scenario where all AGN are triggered by secular processes. For this model, the best fit to the HXLF is found when using the @N09 ABHMF with the continuity equation evolution, $t_0$ = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ yrs, $\beta$ = 0.8, $\eta$ = 0.4, and $f_{sec}$ = 0.02 Gyr$^{-1}$. This model has $\chi^2_{red}$ = 2.1 for 127 data points. If $t_0$ is changed by $\sim$ 0.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ yrs,$\beta$ is changed by 0.05, or $f_{sec}$ is changed by 0.01 Gyr$^{-1}$, the resulting $\chi^2_{red}$ will change by $\sim$ 0.2. If $\eta$ is changed by $\sim$ 0.5 the resulting $\chi^2_{red}$ will increase by $\sim$ 0.1. As shown by the blue dashed lines in Figure \[fig:one\], this model under-predicts the space density of low $L_X$ AGN at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1 and under-predicts high $L_X$ sources at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1. Furthermore, this model significantly under-predicts the local black hole mass density, the XRB, and the 2–10 keV number counts. This model slightly over-predicts the [*Swift*]{}/BAT 15–55 keV number count and is inconsistent with the findings of @K10 that $\sim$20$\%$ of [*Swift*]{}/BAT AGN host galaxies have disturbed morphology indicative of a recent major merger. Thus, secular processes alone are not sufficient to account for the entire AGN population. Specifically, secular processes are not able to account for the AGN population at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 0.5. When the minimum mass of a potential AGN host galaxy is reduced or the evolving SMF defined by combining the @C01 and @March09 SMFs is used, the secular evolution only model still cannot account for the $z$ $\gtrsim$ 0.5 AGN population, with minimum $\chi^2_{red}$ = 2.0. It is found that AGN triggered by secular mechanisms alone cannot explain the observed AGN population.
Neither merger triggered AGN nor secularly triggered AGN alone are able to account for the entire AGN population. Reducing the minimum mass of potential AGN host galaxies and using the combined @C01 and @M09 SMF does not change this result. The space density of major mergers at $z$ $<$ 1 is too low to account for the low redshift AGN population but can account for the local space density of black holes. In contrast, AGN triggered by secular mechanisms are not able to account for the build up of the black hole mass density over cosmic time. Thus, we consider the possibility that AGN are triggered by both major mergers and secular processes.
Two Populations {#sect:two}
===============
As neither the major merger triggered AGN nor the secularly triggered AGN can alone account for the entire AGN population, we now consider a two population model in which AGN are assumed to be triggered by both secular processes and major mergers. First, the major merger triggered AGN light curve is determined by finding the lowest $\chi^2$ fit to the $z$ = 2.3 HXLF using only the major merger triggered portion of the AGN population. Thus, the maximum possible contribution from major mergers is assumed[^5]. The light curve of the secularly triggered AGN is constrained by the minimum total $\chi^2$ fit to all 127 HXLF data points. Both the @MH08 and @N09 ABHMFs and the @L09 and continuity equation (Eq. \[eq:coneq\]) ABHMF evolutions are considered. It is assumed that merger triggered and secularly triggered AGN may have different light curves; thus, the light curve parameters for AGN triggered by mergers and AGN triggered by secular processes are considered separately.
We started by attempting to model both the AGN triggered by major mergers and AGN triggered by secular processes using the same ABHMF and evolution for both populations of AGN. The best fit parameters for these models are summarized by the middle section of Table \[modelparam\]. Despite these models providing decent fits to the observed HXLF data points, the models were not in agreement with the other observational constraints, as summarized by the middle section of Table \[modelfit\]. However, this exercise did demonstrate that the $z$ $\lesssim$ 0.5 AGN population is fairly well described using the @N09 ABHMF with the continuity equation evolution (Eq. \[eq:coneq\]) and the $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1 AGN population can be described by using the @MH08 ABHMF with the @L09 evolution. Therefore, a mixed ABHMF and evolution model was investigated.
Since the @N09 ABHMF with continuity equation evolution works well at low redshift, where secular evolution is expected to dominate, and the @MH08 ABHMF with @L09 evolution works well at high redshift, where major merger triggered AGN are expected to dominate, a hybrid model is calculated. Using the @MH08 ABHMF with the @L09 evolution, the best fit parameters for the merger triggered AGN in this model are $t_0$ = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ yrs, $\beta$ = 0.7, and $\eta$ = 2.5. Using the @N09 ABHMF with the continuity equation evolution (Eq. \[eq:coneq\]), the AGN triggered by secular mechanisms are best described by the parameters $t_0$ = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ yrs, $\beta$ = 0.8, $\eta$ = 0.4, and $f_{sec}$ = 0.01 Gyr$^{-1}$. This model does moderately well at describing the AGN HXLF, with $\chi^2_{red}$ = 1.4, as shown in Figure \[fig:mixedlf\]. Also, this model is in agreement with the local black hole mass density observed by @S09 and the $z$ $\sim$ 2 black hole mass density observed by @T10b, which, as shown in Figure \[fig:mass\], is dominated by black hole growth triggered by major mergers. Figure \[fig:xrb\] shows that this model is also in agreement with the observed XRB spectrum. The mixed ABHMF model is in decent agreement with the 2–10 keV AGN number counts as shown in Figure \[fig:2to8\]. Figure \[fig:bat\] shows that the mixed ABHMF model is in good agreement with the [*Swift*]{}/BAT 15–55 keV AGN number count observed by @A09. Furthermore, at the [*Swift*]{}/BAT survey flux limit of 7.6 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, we find that merger triggered AGN account for $\sim$20$\%$ of 15–55 keV number count, in agreement with the findings of @K10. Thus, this mixed ABHMF model provides the best overall fit to the observational constraints. The largest discrepancy between the mixed ABHMF model and the observational constraints, is the HXLF at $L_X$ $\lesssim$ 10$^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, specifically at $z$ = 0.6. Due to the tendril nature of cosmic structure, narrow fields, which tend to provide the high $z$, low $L_X$ AGN detections, will observe over dense regions when one of these tendrils passes through the observed field. This cosmic variance may cause the number counts and HXLFs observed in different fields to vary slightly [@BH05]. Observations of AGN with $L_X$ $\lesssim$ 10$^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $z$ $\sim$ 0.6 can only be conducted in the [*Chandra*]{} deep fields, which are known to have significant field-to-field variation [@Cowie02]. As the slope of the low $L_X$ end of the HXLF is still fairly uncertain, cosmic variance is most likely to affect the low $L_X$ end of the observed HXLF.
When both merger triggered and secularly triggered AGN are considered, models which use the @N09 ABHMF are in agreement with observations at $z$ $<$ 0.5, but not at high redshift. In contrast, models which use the @MH08 ABHMF for both merger and secularly triggered AGN over-predict the black hole mass density. In order to explain both high and low redshift observations, it is necessary that merger triggered and secularly triggered AGN have different ABHMFs which evolve differently with redshift. The mass distribution of black holes triggered by secular processes is, therefore, intrinsically different than the mass distribution of black holes triggered by mergers, in agreement with the findings of @S10.
Discussion {#sect:disc}
==========
An observationally based AGN triggering rate and a theoretical AGN light curve is used to model the AGN population. By considering the HXLF at five different redshifts, the black hole mass density, the XRB spectrum, and the AGN number counts in the 2–10 and 15–55 keV bands, it is determined that neither merger triggered AGN nor AGN triggered by secular processes can alone account for the entire AGN population. Two populations are necessary to describe the observed evolution and space density of AGN. Furthermore, it is found that the ABHMF of merger triggered AGN evolves more rapidly and has a higher average black hole mass than the ABHMF of secularly triggered AGN.
AGN Light Curve Model {#sub:lcm}
---------------------
The AGN light curve model used has three parameters, $t_0$, $\beta$, and $\eta$. The $\eta$ parameter is related to the peak Eddington ratio of the light curve. The AGN population model is least sensitive to $\eta$, however, it is found that $\eta$ $\gtrsim$ 1.0 provides the best fit to the observational constraints, suggesting that short periods of super-Eddington accretion are likely in a significant fraction of the AGN population. The AGN population model is moderately dependent on the time scale parameter, $t_0$. If this time scale is too short, the AGN fade too quickly, and the space density of low luminosity AGN is severely under-predicted. Thus, $t_0$ is most important for the normalization of the AGN HXLF. The shape of the HXLF is primarily controlled by the slope of the light curve, which is controlled by the $\beta$ parameter. The AGN population model is most sensitive to $\beta$. Changing $\beta$ by 0.1 can cause the resulting HXLF shape to change substantially. The primary goal of this study is to investigate if it is necessary that AGN be triggered by both mergers and secular processes or if a single mechanism can account for the entire AGN population, not to determine the best fit AGN light curve parameters. However, the observational constraints used in this study do provide interesting restrictions on the AGN light curve parameters.
@HH09 point out that different models of the AGN light curve predict different light curve slopes, $\beta$. Therefore, the AGN light curve fit provides information about the physical conditions in the vicinity of the accretion disk. For example, self-regulated models, where the black hole accretion is feedback limited, predict $\beta$ = 0.3 – 0.8. Meanwhile, if AGN are fueled by mass loss from a nuclear star cluster, $\beta$ = 0.9 – 1.0. Models in which the fuel supply of a @SS73 accretion disk is suddenly cut off, predict $\beta$ = 0.80 – 0.84. In all of the best fit merger triggered AGN models presented here, $\beta$ = 0.7, suggesting that for merger triggered AGN, the accretion is feedback limited. Also, for the best fit model presented here, $\eta$, the parameter related to light curve peak Eddington ratio, is much smaller for AGN triggered by secular mechanisms than for AGN triggered by major mergers.
Two Populations of AGN
----------------------
Here, it is assumed that every major merger triggers an AGN and major mergers can account for the AGN population at $z$ = 2.3, thus this analysis is an upper limit for the contribution of major merger triggered AGN. Still, it is found that at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2, a significant fraction of all AGN are triggered through secular mechanisms. Figure \[fig:den\] shows the space and luminosity density of AGN with $\log L_X$ $>$ 42, 43, and 44, which are triggered by mergers and secular processes as a function of redshift for the mixed ABHMF model. At all three luminosity ranges, the luminosity density and space density of AGN is dominated by major merger triggered AGN at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1.5 and secularly triggered AGN at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1.5. By varying model parameters, we find the minimum redshift at which major mergers can dominate AGN trigger is $z$ $\sim$ 1. This finding is in agreement with @G09, who found that $\sim$30$\%$ of the AGN space density and $\sim$25$\%$ of the AGN luminosity density at $z$ $\sim$ 1 is due to AGN hosted by disk dominated hosts, implying that secular processes are responsible for at least one quarter of the AGN luminosity density at $z$ $\sim$ 1. It is found that merger triggered AGN account for $\sim$20$\%$ of the space density of $\log L_X$ $>$ 43 AGN at $z$ $<$ 0.05, consistent with findings of @K10. Thus, AGN hosted by disk dominated galaxies are a significant fraction of the AGN population by $z$ $\sim$ 1, indicating that secular evolution is an important mode of galaxy evolution at this redshift.
Similarly, @DB11b found that for AGN at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1 the host galaxies of obscured and unobscured AGN are, on average, the same, suggesting that at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1 AGN and galaxy evolution is controlled by secular processes. However, at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1, the host galaxies of unobscured AGN are intrinsically less dusty than the host galaxies of obscured AGN at similar redshifts, suggesting a fundamental change in the mechanisms which control AGN activity at $z$ $\sim$ 1 [@DB11b]. Indeed, Figure \[fig:mixedlf\] shows that, at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1, AGN triggered through secular processes dominate even the high $L_X$ end of the HXLF, while fading major merger triggered AGN dominate the low $L_X$ end of the HXLF. These findings are also in agreement with the conclusions of a variety of recent observational studies which found that secular processes are an important form, and possibly the dominate form, of galaxy evolution at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2 [@G09; @A11; @C11; @S11; @W11]. Indeed, according to the HXLF, we find that AGN triggered by secular processes can account for the entire AGN population with $\log L_X$ $>$ 43 at $z$ $\lesssim$ 0.5. @HH06 suggest that secularly triggered AGN are not cosmologically important; however, the findings of this study illustrate that AGN triggered by secular mechanisms are necessary to describe the AGN population and dominate the space density of AGN with $\log L_X$ $>$ 43 at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1.5.
The findings of @S10 suggest that this fundamental change in AGN activity at $z$ $\sim$ 1.5 is due to cosmic downsizing. By studying AGN black hole masses as a function of host galaxy morphology for AGN observed by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), @S10 find that it is preferentially the least massive black holes in less massive early type galaxies (stellar mass $M_*$ $\sim$ 10$^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$) which are currently active. In contrast, the black holes which are currently active in late type galaxies are preferentially the most massive black holes hosted by more massive late type host galaxies ($M_*$ $\sim$ 10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$). A stellar disk generally indicates that a galaxy has not undergone a major merger or that the last major merger experienced by the galaxy was long enough ago that a disk had time to reform, $\gtrsim$ 500 Myr [@Ho11]. We can therefore assume that, for AGN hosted by late type galaxies, the current episode of AGN activity was triggered by secular processes. @S10 suggest that the early type galaxy hosts in their sample may be smaller versions of the mode of galaxy evolution experienced by massive ellipticals at high redshift. Thus, the early type host galaxies in the sample of @S10 may host downsized versions of major merger triggered AGN. Thus, it appears that the dominance of major mergers in galaxy evolution began to decline by $z$ $\sim$ 2 and is continuing to decline, in agreement with the theory of cosmic downsizing. Meanwhile, the importance of secular evolution increased as the importance of major mergers decreased, until secular evolution became the dominate form of galaxy evolution at $z$ $\sim$ 1.5. Since we are still early in the era of secularly dominated galaxy evolution, it is the more massive systems which are currently undergoing secularly triggered AGN activity. Cosmic downsizing would therefore predict that as the era of secular dominance continues, AGN triggered through secular processes will become more common in lower mass systems.
ABHMF and Evolution
-------------------
It is found that AGN triggered by major mergers at $z$ $<$ 4 have, on average, more massive central black holes than AGN triggered by secular processes, at least at high redshift. Locally, it appears that merger triggered AGN and secularly triggered AGN have similar black holes masses [@S10], necessitating that the ABHMF of merger triggered AGN evolves differently than the ABHMF of secularly triggered AGN. The ABHMF of AGN triggered by secular mechanisms appears to evolve in a manner consistent with the continuity equation (Eq. \[eq:coneq\]), which describes the evolution of the combined active and quiescent black hole mass function [e.g., @SB92; @MH08]. However, if the ABHMF of merger triggered AGN evolves following the continuity equation, then at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1 the average active black hole mass is too small to account for the high $L_X$ end of the HXLF. In contrast, if the @L09 ABHMF evolution is used to evolve the ABHMF of secularly triggered AGN, then the low $L_X$ end of the $z$ $\lesssim$ 1 HXLF is significantly under-predicted. Thus, it appears that not only are both secular processes and major mergers important mechanisms for triggering the $z$ $<$ 2 AGN population, but these two mechanisms trigger different populations of black holes and these two populations have different redshift evolution.
It is not surprising that the ABHMF of merger triggered AGN evolves differently from the secularly triggered ABHMF and the quiescent black hole mass function. The major merger rate evolves strongly with redshift and galaxy mass [@H10]. Thus, it is expected that the ABHMF of AGN triggered by major mergers would also evolve strongly with redshift [e.g., @T11]. In contrast, the rate of AGN being triggered by secular evolution, $f_{sec}$, is assumed to be constant with redshift. Therefore, it is expected that the ABHMF for AGN triggered by secular processes will be less redshift dependent than the ABHMF for merger triggered AGN. Also, as the majority of supermassive black holes at any redshift are quiescent, the combined quiescent and active black hole mass function evolves more slowly with redshift than the merger triggered ABHMF. Thus, it is expected that the merger triggered ABHMF will evolve more strongly with redshift than the ABHMF of secularly triggered AGN or of the combined active and quiescent black hole mass function.
The Connection Between Compton Thick AGN and Mergers {#sub:ct}
----------------------------------------------------
Observational and theoretical evidence suggests that Compton thick AGN are AGN which were recently triggered by a mechanism which has caused a large amount of gas and dust to be funneled into the nuclear regions of the host galaxy [e.g., @F99; @P04; @F08; @F09; @DB10; @T10; @DB11b]. Due to the large amount of gas and dust required for the rapid AGN fueling and high column density necessary for an AGN to be Compton thick, the most likely triggering process is a wet major merger [@S88; @H06], though @Wein11 argue that Compton thick levels of obscuration are also possible in instances of clumpy cold-flow accretion onto the host galaxy. Here, we set $f_{CT}$ = 0.0 for the secularly triggered AGN and calculate $f_{CT}$ for the merger triggered AGN as described in Section \[sub:HXLF\]. If it is assumed that Compton thickness is an evolutionary phase which only merger triggered AGN experience, the $\chi_{red}^2$ of the mixed ABHMF increases by 0.1 and the model is still in agreement with the observed black hole space density, XRB spectrum, and the 2–10 keV and 15–55 keV number counts. Therefore, the hypothesis that Compton thick AGN are an evolutionary stage of merger triggered AGN is fully consistent with the model presented here.
Summary {#sect:sum}
=======
By combining an observationally motivated AGN triggering rate and a theoretically motivated AGN light curve, an AGN population synthesis model is developed which can track the evolution of AGN triggered by mergers and secular processes. The light curve parameters are constrained by comparing model predictions against the observed AGN HXLF. The observed space density of supermassive black holes, AGN number counts, and XRB spectrum are also considered. The results of this study are summarized below.
$\bullet$ Neither AGN triggered by major mergers nor AGN triggered by secular mechanisms alone are capable of accounting for the entire observed AGN population at $z$ $\lesssim$ 2. This finding is independent of the SMF used or the potential AGN host galaxy minimum mass.
$\bullet$ The dominant AGN triggering mechanism switches from major mergers at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1.5 to secular mechanisms by $z$ $\sim$ 1. This is a natural consequence of both the major merger rate and fraction of gas rich galaxies increasing with redshift. However, both major mergers and secular processes are important triggering mechanisms for AGN over the entire redshift range considered, especially at moderate luminosities. .
$\bullet$ The black hole mass density is dominated by black hole growth triggered by major mergers over the entire redshift range considered.
$\bullet$ The space density and luminosity density of AGN with $\log L_X$ $>$ 42, 43, and 44 is dominated by AGN triggered by major mergers at $z$ $\gtrsim$ 1.5 and by AGN triggered by secular processes at $z$ $\lesssim$ 1.5.
$\bullet$ The XRB is dominated by emission from AGN triggered by secular mechanisms.
$\bullet$ The ABHMF of AGN triggered by major mergers is different from the ABHMF of AGN triggered by secular mechanisms. At high redshift, the average black hole triggered by major mergers is more massive than the average black hole triggered by secular processes, which is consistent with cosmic downsizing.
$\bullet$ The evolution of the ABHMF of AGN triggered by major mergers is also different from the evolution of the ABHMF of AGN triggered through secular mechanisms, with the ABHMF of major merger triggered AGN evolving more rapidly with redshift than the ABHMF of AGN triggered by secular processes. The observed evolution of @L09 appears to describe the evolution of the merger triggered AGN ABHMF well. In contrast, the continuity equation (Eq. \[eq:coneq\]) describes the evolution of the ABHMF for secularly triggered AGN. This finding is consistent with the strong redshift evolution of the major merger rate.
$\bullet$ The findings of this study are not changed if Compton thick AGN are an evolutionary stage only experienced by major merger triggered AGN.
This work was supported by NSF award AST 1008067. The authors thank the referee for helpful comments which improved this paper.
Ajello, M., Greiner, J., Sato, G., [et al.]{}2008, , 689, 666 Ajello, M., Costamante, L., Sambruna, R.M., [et al.]{}2009, , 699, 603 Alexander, D.M., Swinbank, A.M., Smail, I., McDermid, R., Nesvadba, N.P.H. 2010, , 402, 2211 Allevato, V., Finoguenov, A., Cappelluti, N., [et al.]{}2011, , 736, 99 Aird, J., Nandra, K., Laird, E.S., [et al.]{}2010, , 401, 2531 Ballantyne, D.R., Draper, A.R., Madsen, K.K., Rigby, J.R., & Treister, E. 2011, , 736, 56 Ballantyne, D.R., Everett, J.E., Murray, N. 2006, , 639, 740 Barnes, J.E. & Hernquist, L. 1996, , 471, 115 Bertone, S., Schaye, J., Booth, C.M., [et al.]{}2010, , 408, 1120 Bournaud, F., Dekel, A., Teyssier, R., [et al.]{}2011, , 741, L33 Brandt, W.N. & Hasinger G. 2005, , 43, 827 Brunner, H., Cappelluti, N., Hasinger, G., [et al.]{}2008, , 479, 283 Brusa, M., Fiore, F., Santini, P., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1277 Cao, X. 2010, , 725, 388 Cao, X. & Xu, Y.-D. 2007, , 377, 425 Cappelluti, N., Brusa, M., Hasinger, G., [et al.]{}2009, , 497, 635 Cardamone, C.N., Urry, C.M., Schawinski, K., [et al.]{}2010, , 721, L38 Carlberg, R.G., 1990, , 350, 505 Chen, Y.-M., Wang, J.-M., Yan, C.-S., Hu, C., & Zhang, S. 2009, , 695, L130 Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., Revnivtsev, M., [et al.]{}2007, , 467, 529 Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Inskip, K.J., [et al.]{}2011, , 726, 57 Cole, S., Norberg, P., Baugh, C.M., [et al.]{}2001, , 326, 255 Cowie, L.L., Garmire, G.P. Bautz, M.W., [et al.]{}2002, , 566, L5 Crenshaw, D.M., Kraemer, S.B., & Gabel, J.R. 2003, , 126, 1690 Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Dickinson, M., [et al.]{}2007, , 654, 172 Davies, R.I., Müller Sánchez, F., Genzel, R., [et al.]{}2007, , 671, 1388 De Luca, A. & Molendi, S. 2004, , 419, 837 Draper, A.R. & Ballantyne, D.R., 2009, , 707, 778 Draper, A.R. & Ballantyne, D.R., 2010, , 715, L99 Draper, A.R. & Ballantyne, D.R., 2011a, , 729, 109 Draper, A.R. & Ballantyne, D.R., 2011b, , 740, 57 Elvis, M., Civano, F., Vignali, C., [et al.]{}2009, , 184, 158 Fabian, A.C. 1999, , 308, L39 Fabian, A.C., Vasudevan, R.V., & Gandhi, P. 2008, , 385, L43 Fabian, A.C., Vasudevan, R.V., Mushotzky, R.F., Winter, L.M., & Reynolds, C.S. 2009, , 394, L89 Gendreau, K.C., Mushotzky, R., Fabian, A.C., [et al.]{}1995, , 47, L5 Georgakakis, A., Coil, A.L., Laird, E.S., [et al.]{}2009, , 397, 623 Gilli, R., Comastri, A., Hasinger, G. 2007, , 463, 79 Gruber, D.E., Matteson, J.L., Peterson, L.E., & Jung, G.V. 1999, , 520, 124 Hambrick, D.C., Ostriker, J.P., Naab, T., Johansson, P.H. 2011, , 738, 16 Hernquist, L. 1989, Nature, 340, 687 Hickox, R., Jones, C., Forman, W.R., [et al.]{}2009, , 696, 891 Hocuk, S. & Spaans, M. 2011, , in press (arXiv:1109.6593) Hopkins, P.F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., [et al.]{}2010a, , 715, 202 Hopkins, P.F., Croton, D., Bundy, K., [et al.]{}2010b, , 724, 915 Hopkins, P.F. & Hernquist, L. 2009, , 298, 1550 Hopkins, P.F. & Hernquist, L. 2006, , 166, 1 Hopkins, P.F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.J., [et al.]{}2006a, , 163, 1 Hopkins, P.F., Somerville, R.S., Hernquist, L. 2006b, , 652, 864 Hota, A., Sirothia, S.K., Ohyama, Y., [et al.]{}2011, , 417, L36 Kauffmann, G. & Haehnelt, M. 2000, , 311, 576 Kocevski, D.D., Faber, S.M., Mozena, M., [et al.]{}2012, , 744, 148 Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, R.C. 2004, , 42, 603 Kormendy, J. & Richstone, D. 1995, , 33, 581 Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., & Winter, L. 2010, , 716, L125 Kumar, P. & Johnson, J.L. 2010, , 404, 2170 Kushino, A., Ishisaki, Y., Morita, U., [et al.]{}, 2002, , 54, 327 Labita, M., Decarli, R., Treves, A., & Falomo, R. 2009, , 399, 2099 La Franca, F., Fiore, F., Comastri, A., [et al.]{}2005, , 635, 864 Lagos, C.D.P., Cora, S.A., & Padilla, N.D. 2008, , 388, 587 Lumb, D.H., Warwick, R.S., Page, M., & De Luca, A. 2002, , 389, 93 Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., [et al.]{}1998, , 115, 2285 Malizia, A., Stephen, J.B., Bassani, L., [et al.]{}2009, , 399, 944 Marchesini, D., van Dokkum, P.G., Förster Schreiber, N.M., [et al.]{}2009, , 701, 1765 Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., [et al.]{}2004, , 351, 169 Mateos, S., Warwick, R.S., Carrera, F.J., [et al.]{}2008, , 492, 51 Merloni, A. & Heinz, S. 2008, , 308, 1011 Moretti, A., Pagani, C., Cusumano, G., [et al.]{}2009, , 493, 501 Natarajan, P. & Treister, E. 2009, , 393, 838 Netzer, H. 2009, , 695, 793 Orban de Xivry, G., Davies, R., Schartmann, M., [et al.]{}2011, , 417, 2721 Page, M.J., Stevens, J.A., Ivison, R.J., & Carrera, F.J. 2004, , 611, L85 Pérez-González, P.G., Rieke, G.H., Villar, V., [et al.]{}2008, , 675, 234 Pierce, C.M., Lotz, J.M., Laird, E.S., [et al.]{}2007, , 660, L19 Peterson, B.M. & Bentz, M.C. 2006, New Astronomy Reviews, 50, 796 Puccetti, S., Capalbi, M., Giommi, P., [et al.]{}2011, , 528, 122 Revnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., Sunyaev, R., Jahoda, K., & Markwardt, C., 2003, , 411, 329 Ross, R.R. & Fabian, A.C. 2005, , 358, 211 Sanders, D.B., Soifer, B.T., Elias, J.H., [et al.]{}1988, , 325, 74 Schawinski, K., Treister, E., Urry, C.M., [et al.]{}2011, , 727, L31 Schawinski, K., Dowlin, N., Thomas, D., Urry, C.M., & Edmondson, E. 2010a, , 714, L112 Schawinski, K., Urry, C.M., Virani, S., [et al.]{}2010b, , 711, 284 Schawinksi, K., Virani, S., Simmons, B., [et al.]{}2009, , 692, L19 Shakura, N.I. & Sunyaev, R.A. 1973, , 24, 337 Shankar, F., Weinberg, D.H., & Miralda-Escudé, J. 2009, , 690, 20 Shen, Y. 2009, , 704, 89 Silk, J. & Rees, M.J. 1998, , 331, L1 Silverman, J.D., Green, P.J., Barkhouse, W.A., [et al.]{}2008, , 679, 118 Silverman, J.D., Kampczyk, P., Jahnke, K., [et al.]{}2011, , 743, 2 Small, T.A. & Blandford, R.D. 1992, , 259, 725 Sołtan, A. 1982, , 200, 115 Treister, E., Natarajan, P., Sanders, D.B., [et al.]{}2010a, Science, 328, 600 Treister E., Schawinski, K., Volonteri, M., Natarajan, P., & Gawiser, E. 2011, Nature, 474, 356 Treister, E., Urry, C.M., Schawinski, K., [et al.]{}2010b, , 722, L238 Treister, E., Urry, C.M., Virani, S. 2009, , 696, 110 Treister, E. & Urry, C.M. 2006, , 652, L79 Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., [et al.]{}2002, , 574, 740 Trichas, M., Georgakakis, A., Rowan-Robinson, M., [et al.]{}2009, , 399, 663 Türler, M., Chernyakova, M., Courvoisier, T. J.-L., [et al.]{}2010, , 512, 49 Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M., Ohta, K., & Miyaji, T. 2003, , 598, 886 Ueda, Y., Hiroi, K., Isobe, N., [et al.]{}2011, , in press (arXiv:1109.0852) Vasudevan, R.V., Mushotzky, R.F., Winter, L.M., & Fabian, A.C. 2009, , 399, 1553 Vecchi, A., Molendi, S., Guainazzi, M., Fiore, F., & Parmar, A. 1999, , 349, L73 Vittorini, V., Shankar, F. & Cavaliere, A. 2005, , 363, 1376 Volonteri, M., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2003, , 582, 559 Weinzirl, T., Jogee, S., Conselice, C.J., [et al.]{}2011, , 743, 87 Williams, R.J., Quadri, R.F., & Franx, M. 2011, , 738, L25 Yamada, T., Kajisawa, M., Akiyama, M., [et al.]{}2009, , 699, 1354 Yu, Q. & Tremaine, S. 2002, , 335, 965
[lccc|cccc]{}
Mergers only & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.7 & 2.5 & - & - & - & 0.0\
Secular only & - & - & - & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.8 & 0.4 & 0.02\
N09 w/ Eq. \[eq:coneq\] & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.7 & 0.4 & 5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.5 & 2.5 & 0.005\
N09 w/ L09 & 1 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.5 & 1.0 & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.6 & 2.5 & 0.005\
MH08 w/ Eq. \[eq:coneq\] & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.8 & 2.5 & 5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.7 & 2.5 & 0.01\
MH08 w/ L09 & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.7 & 2.5 & 5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.8 & 2.5 & 0.005\
Mixed ABHMF & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.7 & 2.5 & 2.5 $\times$ 10$^8$ & 0.8 & 2.5 & 0.01\
\[modelparam\]
[lcccccc]{} Mergers only & 123 & 2.4 & $\sqrt{}$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
Secular only & 122 & 2.1 & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
N09 w/ Eq. \[eq:coneq\] & 119 & 1.5 & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\sqrt{}$ & $\sqrt{}$\
N09 w/ L09 & 119 & 1.4 & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\sqrt{}$ & $\sqrt{}$\
MH08 w/ Eq. \[eq:coneq\] & 119 & 1.7 & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
MH08 w/ L09 & 119 & 1.5 & $\sqrt{}$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
Mixed ABHMF & 119 & 1.4 & $\sqrt{}$ & $\sqrt{}$ & $\sqrt{}$ & $\sqrt{}$\
\[modelfit\]
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
[^1]: For completeness, a wide variety of light curves were tested, including a constant $\lambda$, a monotonic linearly increasing or decreasing $\lambda$, a monotonic exponentially increasing or decreasing $\lambda$, a linearly increasing followed by a linearly decreasing $\lambda$, and an exponentially increasing followed by an exponentially decreasing $\lambda$. However, these light curve models were unable to match the shape of the AGN HXLF.
[^2]: AGN triggered at $z$ $>$ 4 make only a minor contribution to the $z$ $\lesssim$ 2 AGN population. Therefore, if the AGN triggered at $z$ $>$ 4 are included, the results of this study do not change.
[^3]: Exclusion of the three data points at $L_X$ $>$ 10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ changes the reduced $\chi^2$ values by $\lesssim$ 0.1 and does not affect the determination of the light curve parameters.
[^4]: It is expected that at Eddington ratios $\lambda$ $\lesssim$ 10$^{-2}$, AGN accretion flows become radiatively inefficient and the radiative efficiency decreases with $\lambda$ [e.g., @CX07]. If Equation 1 of @MH08 is used to characterize $\epsilon$, the calculated local black hole mass density changes by $<$ 5$\%$ since the majority of black hole growth occurs during radiatively efficient accretion.
[^5]: If the maximum contribution from secularly triggered AGN is assumed, an appropriate fit to the HXLF can be found ($\chi^2_{red}$ = 1.7), but this model cannot account for the observed local black hole mass density.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this short note we address the problem of integrability of a double pendulum in the constant gravity field. We show its non-integrability using the combination of algebraic and numerical approaches, namely we compute the non-commuting generators of the monodromy group along a particular solution obtained numerically.'
author:
- Vladimir Salnikov
title: 'Integrability of the double pendulum – the Ramis’ question'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
A double pendulum is a system that is often modeled as two mass points connected between themselves by weightless inextensible rods. Mathematically this corresponds to considering the motion of two points ${\bf r}_1$ and ${\bf r}_2$ subject to the following constraints: $$\varphi_1 \equiv ({\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_0)^2 - l_1^2 = 0, \quad
\varphi_2 \equiv ({\bf r}_2 - {\bf r}_1)^2 - l_2^2 = 0,$$ the point ${\bf r}_0$ being fixed.
![ \[2pen\] Double pendulum – angle parametrization](fig1.eps){height="0.3\linewidth"}
A convenient approach for the integrability analysis would be resolving this constraints, i.e. introducing the generalized coordinates automatically taking the constraints into account. As it can be seen from the figure \[2pen\] the system can be parametrized by two angles. That is for Liouville integrability one needs two independent first integrals. The free flat motion of a double pendulum is a classical example of an integrable system: the corresponding first integrals are the energy and the component of the angular momentum orthogonal to the plane of the motion. But already in the presence of the gravity field the situation is less clear. It has been shown (mainly using the techniques like the Poincaré sections) that the system might possess some chaotic behaviour. The question of Jean-Pierre Ramis sounds roughly as: “Can one rigorously prove non-integrability?”
In this note we discuss meromorphic non-integrability of the double pendulum within the framework of the algebraic approach inspired by the results related to analysis of the monodromy group ([@ziglin]) and the differential Galois group ([@ramis]). As a mechanical system the double pendulum in the constant gravity field $g$ can be described by the following Lagrange function: $$\label{lagr}
{ L} = \dot{\alpha}_1^2 + \dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2 \cos(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)
+ \frac{1}{2}\dot{\alpha}_2^2 + 2g \cos(\alpha_1) + g \cos(\alpha_2).$$ Here and in what follows we assume all the masses as well as all the lengths of the constraints to be equal to $1$, this is done to simplify the formula, but certainly the analysis can be carried out with arbitrary values of these parameters.
Description of the method
=========================
The standard procedure of application of the methods of Ziglin or Morales–Ramis for recovering the obstructions to integrability consists of complexifying the equations and analyzing the monodromy group or respectively, the differential Galois group, of the system of variational equations along an explicitly known particular solution of the initial dynamical system. The idea is that for an integrable system the obtained group should not be too complicated, i.e. up to some very special cases should be (virtually) abelian (see [@audin] for details and examples of application).
The key difficulty is that the particular solution should on one hand be rather “nice” so that one would be able to compute the corresponding monodromy or differential Galois group, and on the other hand not trivial so that the computed group would contain a sufficient amount of sources of non-commutativity. For example for the system of Euler–Lagrange equations governed by the Lagrangian $L$ (eq. \[lagr\]), that interests us, there are no obvious particular solutions except the equilibria.
To handle this difficulty we have suggested ([@ziglin_num]) a method of computing the generators of the monodromy group based on a particular solution obtained numerically. It consists of basically searching for the paths in the complex plane that correspond to finite order branching points of the solution of the initial system. Having found several of them we solve the system of variational equations in parallel with reconstructing the Riemann surface of the particular solution and obtain the corresponding monodromy matrices. If among them we see non-commuting ones it permits to conclude meromorphic non-integrability.
Results of the computation
==========================
We are thus solving the system of differential equations $$\label{syst}
\dot {\bf x} = {\bf v}({\bf x}), \quad \dot \Xi = A({\bf x}) \Xi,$$ where “$\dot {\,\,\,\,\,}$” denotes the derivative with respect to the complex time. The first equation defines the evolution of ${\bf x} = (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dot {\alpha}_1, \dot {\alpha}_2)^T$ with the right-hand-sides obtained from the Euler–Lagrange equations governed by $L$ (equation \[lagr\]); the second one is the matrix system of variational equations with $A(x) = \frac{\partial {\bf v}}{\partial {\bf x}}$.
Starting from $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dot {\alpha}_1, \dot {\alpha}_2) = (0.1, -0.3, 0.2, 0.4)$ and following the paths $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ encircling the points $t_1 = 0.5 + 0.9i$ and $t_2 =0.5 - 0.9i$ (three times each of them – see fig. \[loops\]) one obtains respectively the monodromy matrices $M_1$ and $M_2$.
![ \[loops\] Loops in the complex plane corresponding to the obtained monodromy matrices](loops.eps){height="0.4\linewidth"}
$$M_1 = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
20.72 - 17.12i & & 15.79 - 1.34i & & 4.94 + 29.46i & & -14.55 + 10.90i \\
-17.67 + 12.78i & & -12.24 - 0.06i & & -1.93 - 24.87i & & 12.91 - 7.99i \\
12.28 + 6.91i & & 3.55 + 7.78i & & -13.07 + 7.86i & & -8.18 - 5.42i \\
-11.84 - 12.56i & & -1.31 - 10.39i & & 19.32 - 4.06i & & 8.59 + 9.31i
\end{array} \right),$$ $$M_2 = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
-18.72 - 17.12i & & -15.79 - 1.34i & & -4.94413 + 29.46i & & 14.55 + 10.90i \\
17.67 + 12.78i & & 14.24 - 0.06i & & 1.92944 - 24.87i & & -12.91 - 7.99i\\
-12.28 + 6.91i & & -3.55 + 7.78i & & 15.0698 + 7.86i & & 8.18 - 5.42i \\
11.84 - 12.56i & & 1.31 - 10.39i & & -19.319 - 4.06i & & -6.59 + 9.31i
\end{array} \right).$$ One easily checks that these matrices do not commute, that shows meromorphic integrability.
It is worth noting that all the computations are done with a controlled precision, so the result is certainly more than just a numerical evidence. One should also make a remark that the computation passes some obvious compatibility tests. For instance if one continues integrating (\[syst\]) along $\gamma_1$ or $\gamma_2$ for three more loops, one obtains the corresponding matrices squared. The eigenvalues are also coherent with their symplectic nature. Moreover one can notice, that the obtained matrices can be written in the form $$M_1 = Id + A +iB, \quad M_2 = Id - A + iB,$$ for some real matrices $A$ and $B$, and their commutator $[M_1, M_2] = 2i[A, B]$. This observation also simplifies the precision control.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
As we have seen in this note the (computer assisted) proof of non-integrability of the system describing the motion of a double pendulum is possible. It would be interesting to see if the difficulty of the procedure depends on parameters of the system and in particular if it is related to the value of the energy first integral.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank the participants of the workshop on Integrability in Dynamical Systems and Control – DISCo–2012 for inspiring discussions related to the subject of this note, and in particular Jean-Pierre Ramis for drawing the author’s attention to this concrete problem.
[00]{}
Audin M, [*Les systèmes hamiltoniens et leur intégrabilité*]{}, Cours Spécilisés, SMF et EDP Sciences, 2001.
Salnikov V, Effective algorithm of analysis of integrability via the Ziglin’s method, preprint math.DS/1208.6252. Ziglin S L, [*Fun. Anal. Appl*]{}, [**16**]{} and [**17**]{}, 1982. Morales-Ruiz J J, Ramis J-P, [*Meth. Appl. Anal.*]{} [**8(1)**]{}, 33-95, 97-111, 2001.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present measurements of branching fractions of $B^0$ decays to multi-body final states containing protons, based on 232 million $\Upsilon(4S)\to
B\overline{B}$ decays collected with the detector at the SLAC 2 asymmetric-energy $B$ factory. We measure the branching fractions ${\cal B}(\bdz)=(1.13\pm0.06\pm0.08)\times 10^{-4}$, ${\cal B}(\bdsz)=(1.01\pm0.10\pm0.09)\times 10^{-4}$, ${\cal B}(\bd)=(3.38\pm0.14\pm0.29)\times 10^{-4}$, and ${\cal B}(\bds)=(4.81\pm0.22\pm0.44)\times 10^{-4}$ where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. We present a search for the charmed pentaquark state, $\Theta_c(3100)$ observed by H1 and put limits on the branching fraction ${\cal B}
(\Bz \to \Theta_c \antiproton\pi^+)\times{\cal B}(\Theta_c \to \Dstarm\proton)<14\times10^{-6}$ and ${\cal B}
(\Bz \to \Theta_c \antiproton\pi^+)\times{\cal B}(\Theta_c\to D^-\proton)<9\times10^{-6}$. Upon investigation of the decay structure of the above four $B^{0}$ decay modes, we see an enhancement at low $p\overline{p}$ mass and deviations from phase-space in the $\overline{D}\overline{p}$ and $\overline{D}p$ invariant mass spectra.
title: '[**Measurements of the Decays $\bdz$, $\bdsz$, $\bd$, and $\bds$**]{}'
---
-PUB-[06]{}/[13]{}\
SLAC-PUB-[11933]{}\
hep-ex/[xxxxxxx]{}\
pubboard/authors\_feb2006.tex
The observations of the $\bds$[@chconj] and $\ensuremath{B^{0}
\to D^{*-} p \overline{n}}$ decays by CLEO [@prl_86_2732], and the $\bdz$ and $\bdsz$ decays by Belle [@prl_89_151802] suggest the dominance of multi-body final states in decays of mesons into baryons [@cheng] compared to two-body decays. In this paper we present measurements of the branching fractions for the following four decay modes: $\bdz$, $\bdsz$, $\bd$, and $\bds$. The study of the modes presented here can help clarify the dynamics of weak decays of mesons involving baryons [@Hou].
Since the branching fractions of multi-body decays are large [@dunietz], it is natural to ask whether such final states are actually the products of intermediate two-body channels. If this is the case, then these initial two-body decays could involve proton-antiproton bound states ($p\overline{p}$) [@yang; @rosner], or charmed pentaquarks [@jaffe; @wu], or heavy charmed baryons. Motivated by these considerations, in particular the claim of a charmed pentaquark at 3.1 by the H1 collaboration[@H1_collab], the invariant mass spectrum of the proton-antiproton and the invariant mass spectra of the charmed meson and proton are investigated. Throughout this paper, we shall use the terms “exotic” and “non-exotic” to refer to the “$Dp$” pair with total quark content $\overline{c}quud$ and $\overline{c}q\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{d}$ respectively (where $q$ is $u$ or $d$). Specifically, the “exotic” combinations refer to $D^{(*)-}p$ and $\overline{D}^{(*)0}p$ while the “non-exotic” combinations are $D^{(*)-}\overline{p}$ and $\overline{D}^{(*)0}\overline{p}$.
The data used in this analysis were accumulated with the detector [@bib:babarNim] at the 2 asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ storage ring at SLAC. The data sample consists of an integrated luminosity of $212\pm2\invfb$ collected at the resonance corresponding to $(232\pm3)\times10^{6}$ $\B\Bbar$ pairs. The detector consists of a silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a drift chamber (DCH) used for track and vertex reconstruction, an electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) for detecting photons and electrons, a Cherenkov detector (DIRC) and an instrumented flux return (IFR) used for particle identification (PID). The efficiency of the selection criteria is determined with large samples of [GEANT]{}-based [@geant] Monte Carlo (MC) simulated signal decays.
We select $\overline{D}^0$ decays to $K^+\pi^-$, $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$, and $K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ and $D^-$ decays to $K^+\pi^-\pi^-$. We select $\overline{D}^{*0}$ decays to $\overline{D}^0\pi^0$ and $D^{*-}$ decays to $\overline{D}^0\pi^-$. The $B$ candidates are reconstructed from $D$ or $D^{*}$ candidates combined with a proton and an antiproton track and a pion track if appropriate. The $D$ candidates are required to have a mass within $\pm3\sigma$ of the $D$ meson mass, $\widehat{m_D}$ [@pdg]. The mass resolution, $\sigma(m_{D})$, ranges from 5.1 to 13.0 for different $D$ decay channels, the worst resolution corresponding to the mode with a $\pi^0$ in the final state. The $D^{*}$ candidates are selected by requiring the mass difference $\Delta M= (m_{D\pi}- m_{D})$ to be within $3\sigma$ of the nominal value, $\widehat{\Delta M}$, where $\sigma \sim$ 1.0 . Particle identification is required on the proton, antiproton, and pion from the $B$, and on the kaon from the $D$ decay, using combined information from the energy loss, , in the SVT and the DCH and the Cherenkov angle in the DIRC. The proton identification efficiency is roughly 90% with a mis-identification rate of less than 2%. To suppress backgrounds of all kinds, vertexing probability requirements are imposed on the $D$ and $B$ candidates. In order to reduce background from $e^+e^-\to q\overline{q}$ events (where $q$ is a $u$,$d$,$s$, or $c$ quark), the cosine of the angle between the thrust axis of the $B$ candidate and that of the rest of the event $|\cos{(\theta_{BT})}|$ is required to be less than 0.9 and the ratio of the second to the zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments [@prl_41_1581] is required to be less than 0.35.
We select events in the region 5.2 $<m_{ES}<$ 5.3 and $|\Delta E|<$0.1 , where $m_{ES} = \sqrt{(s/2+\textbf{p}_{\Upsilon}\cdot\textbf{p}_{B})^{2}/E_{\Upsilon}^{2}-\textbf{p}_{B}^{2}}$ ($\sqrt{s}$ is the total center-of-mass energy, $\textbf{p}_{B}$ is the $B$ meson momentum and ($E_{\Upsilon}$, $\textbf{p}_{\Upsilon}$) is the $\Upsilon(4S)$ 4-momentum, defined in the laboratory frame), while $\Delta E = p_{\Upsilon}\cdot p_{B}/\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s}/2$ ($p_{\Upsilon}$ = ($E_{\Upsilon}$, $\textbf{p}_{\Upsilon}$), $p_{B}$ = ($E_{B}$, $\textbf{p}_{B}$)). The selection is kept loose because these two variables are used in a maximum likelihood fit to extract the signal and background yields simultaneously. If there is more than one $B$ candidate passing these criteria for an event, the candidate is chosen that minimizes $\chi^{2} = (m_{D}-\widehat{m}_{D})^2/\sigma(m_{D})^2 + (\Delta M - \Delta \widehat{M})^2/\sigma(\Delta M)^2$ for the modes $\bdsz$ and $\bds$, and the candidate that minimizes $\chi^{2} = (m_{D}-\widehat{m}_{D})^2/\sigma(m_{D})^2$ for the modes $\bdz$ and $\bd$.
The background for these modes comes from $e^+e^-\rightarrow q\overline{q}$ events and from $B$ decays other than those under consideration. In both of these cases, the background comes from selecting random combinations of tracks and thus does not peak in either $\Delta E$ or $\mes$. The one exception is in the case of $\bdsz$, where there is a possibility of events such as $B^0\rightarrow \overline{D}^0 p\overline{p}\pi^0$ that peak at the $B$ mass in $\mes$. However, since the $\pi^0$ comes from the other B decay in the event, the $\Delta E$ distribution does not peak strongly in the signal region.
4.5cm 4.5cm
4.5cm 4.5cm
We perform an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to extract the yields. The variables $\mes$ and $\de$ are used as discriminating variables to separate signal from background. The data sample is assumed to consist of two components: signal events and combinatorial background events due to random combinations of tracks from both $q\overline{q}$ and $\bb$ events. For the decay $\bdszshort$, a peaking component is added to account for $B^0\rightarrow \overline{D}^0 p\overline{p}\pi^0$ events.
In addition, the signal is split into correctly reconstructed events (Class I) and mis-reconstructed events (Class II). The Class II events are signal events where one or more of the tracks from the signal B decay is lost and a track from the other $B$ decay is included in the reconstruction. The fraction of Class II events is determined from MC and varies from nearly 0 for $\bdz\to\Kp\pi^- p\overline{p}$ to almost 50% for $\bds\to\pi^-\Kp\pi^-\pi^0 p\overline{p}\pi^+$.
In the maximum likelihood fit, each component is modeled by a probability density function (PDF) of the two variables $\mes$ and $\de$, $${\cal P} = {\cal P}(\mes, \de).
\label{eqn:pdf}$$ The likelihood for the $N$ candidates in the event sample is given by: $$\mathcal{L}=e^{-N^{\prime}}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{N}\lbrace
N_{\rm sig}\cdot\lbrack f_{I} \cdot {\cal P}^i_{I}
+ f_{II}\cdot {\cal P}^i_{II} \rbrack
+N_{\rm bkg}\cdot {\cal P}^i_{\rm bkg}\rbrace,
\label{eqn:likelihood}$$ where $N^{\prime}$ is the sum of the fitted number of signal ($N_{\rm sig}$) and background ($N_{\rm bkg}$) events. The background PDF is given by ${\cal P}_{\rm bkg}$, ${\cal P}_{I}$ and ${\cal P}_{II}$ are the PDFs of Class I and II events in signal respectively, and $f_{I}$ and $f_{II}$ are their corresponding fractions.
The Class I signal events are parameterized with a double Gaussian for both $\mes$ and $\de$. For Class II events, $\mes$ is parameterized with the correlated function $P_{II}(\mes,
\de)=G(\mes)G_1(\de)+P(\mes)G_2(\de)$ where $G$ represents a Gaussian and $P$ a polynomial function. All parameters for the signal PDFs are obtained from signal MC and fixed in the fit with the exceptions of the means of the narrow components of the double-Gaussian distributions for both $\mes$ and $\de$ for Class I events, which are allowed to vary. The combinatorial background is parameterized with a threshold function[@argus] in $\mes$ and a second-order polynomial in $\de$, and all of the parameters are varied in the fit. The peaking background component coming from $B$ decays in the $\bdsz$ modes is modeled with a non-parametric 2-dimensional PDF in $\mes$ and $\de$ and the yield is free in the fit. The $\mes$ distributions for the data and the fit, after selecting events with $|\de|<20\mev$, are shown in Figure \[fig:Proj\_B2\] for the $\overline{D}^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $\Dm\to \Kp\pi^-\pi^-$ decays.
For each event a signal weight is defined as follows: $$W^i_{\rm sig} =
\frac{ \sigma^2_{\rm sig} {\cal P}_{\rm sig}^{i}
+ \rm cov(\rm sig,\rm bkg) {\cal P}_{\rm bkg}^{i}}
{N_{\rm sig}{\cal P}_{\rm sig}^{i} +
N_{\rm bkg} {\cal P}_{\rm bkg}^{i}},
\label{eqn:br4}$$ following the method described in Reference [@splots]. In Equation \[eqn:br4\], ${\cal P}_{\rm sig}^{i}$ (${\cal P}_{\rm bkg}^{i}$) is the value of the signal (background) PDF for event $i$; $\sigma_{\rm sig}$ is the standard deviation of the signal yield; and $\rm cov(\rm sig,\rm bkg)$ denotes the covariance between $N_{\rm sig}$ and $N_{\rm bkg}$, as obtained from the fit. The normalization of $W^i_{\rm sig}$ is such that their sum equals the total number of signal events, $N_{\rm sig}$. The sum of $W^i_{\rm sig}$ over a small area of phase space gives the correct distribution of signal in that area.
The branching fraction is obtained as: $${\cal B} = \sum_{i} \frac{W^i_{\rm sig}}{N_{\bb} \cdot
\epsilon_i
\cdot {\cal B}_{\rm sub}},
\label{eqn:br3}$$ where the sum is over all events $i$, $N_{\bb}$ is the number of $\bb$ pairs in the sample, $\epsilon_i$ is the efficiency for event $i$, which depends on its position in phase space, and ${\cal B}_{\rm sub}$ is the product of the branching fractions of the charmed meson decays [@pdg; @cleoD]. We assume that the $\Upsilon(4S)$ decays with equal probability to $\BzBzb$ and $B^+B^-$. The statistical error on the branching fraction is obtained from the fractional error on the signal yield as calculated from the fit.
The largest source of systematic error arises from the uncertainty in the charged track reconstruction efficiency determined from the MC. This systematic error ranges from 3.3% to 8.8% depending on the number of charged tracks in the decay mode. In addition there is a systematic error due to the modeling of the PID efficiency for the protons and kaons of 4.5% for all modes and an additional error of 2% for the pion identification for the modes $\bd$ and $\bds$. The uncertainty due to ignoring correlations between $\mes$ and $\de$ is estimated to be a few percent by performing fits to Monte Carlo samples that consist of fully simulated signal events embedded with parameterized background events. The uncertainties related to modeling of the signal PDFs are calculated by allowing the $\de$ and $\mes$ signal shape parameters for the $\bd$ mode to vary in the fit and then varying the fixed parameters in the other modes by the differences observed between data and MC in this mode. This error ranges from 0.2% to 2.8%. The fraction of Class II events is varied by $5\%$ per $\pi^0$, or $5\%$ for modes with no $\pi^0$, to account for the uncertainty due to mis-reconstructed events and the difference observed is 1% to 5%. The uncertainty arising from binning the efficiency in phase space gives a typical error of 3%. Finally, the errors on the branching fractions of $D$ and $D^*$ decays are included in the systematic uncertainty and range from 2.4% (for $\bdz, \dkp$) to 6.2% (for $\bdsz, \dkppz$). The total systematic error ranges from 6.3% to 13.3%.
$\Bz$ decay $D$ decay $N_{\rm sig}$ ${\cal B}(10^{-4})$
-------------------------- ----------------------- --------------- ---------------------
$K^+\pi^-$ 214$\pm$16
$\bdzshort,$ $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ 514$\pm$38
$ K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ 320$\pm$26
$K^+\pi^-$ 57$\pm$9
$\bdszshort$ $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ 104$\pm$19
$\Dstarzb\to\Dzb\pi^{0}$ $ K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ 46$\pm$12
$\bdshort$ $ K^+\pi^-\pi^-$ 1166$\pm$47
$K^+\pi^-$ 241$\pm$18
$\bdsshort,$ $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ 522$\pm$32
$\Dstarm\to\Dzb\pi^{-}$ $ K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ 311$\pm$24
: The branching fractions (in units of $10^{-4})$ for the $\Bz$ decays considered here. The first error is statistical and the second systematic.[]{data-label="tab:branching"}
The fitted signal yield and the measured branching fraction for each decay mode is given in Table \[tab:branching\]. Averaging the branching fractions of the different $D$ decays weighted by their errors and accounting for correlations, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal B}(\bdzshort)&=&(1.13\pm0.06\pm0.08)\times 10^{-4}\\
{\cal B}(\bdszshort)&=&(1.01\pm0.10\pm0.09)\times 10^{-4}\\
{\cal B}(\bdshort)&=&(3.38\pm0.14\pm0.29)\times 10^{-4}\\
{\cal B}(\Bz\to\Dstarm\proton\antiproton\pi^+)&=&(4.81\pm0.22\pm0.44)\times 10^{-4}\end{aligned}$$ where the first error is statistical and the second systematic.
5.cm 5.cm
5.cm 5.cm 5.cm
5.cm 5.cm 5.cm
We investigate the decay dynamics by projecting the branching fractions obtained with Equation \[eqn:br3\] onto the different invariant mass axes. This method requires that the variables used in the fit are uncorrelated to the variable being projected. The correlations between the invariant masses and $\de$ and $\mes$ are observed to be small. Figure \[fig:dalitz\] shows the two dimensional projections (the Dalitz plots for the 3-body decays) for the four modes under study. Figure \[fig:allNt\] shows 1-dimensional projections and the comparison with phase space distributions for the $p\overline{p}$, $\overline{D}\overline{p}$ (non-exotic minimal quark content of $\overline{c}\overline{u}\overline{d}$ or $\overline{c}\overline{d}\overline{d}$) and $\overline{D}p$ (exotic minimal quark content of $\overline{c}uuud$ or $\overline{c}duud$) invariant masses.
In comparison with phase space, an enhancement at low $p\overline{p}$ mass is seen in all decay channels. Such an enhancement has been observed in other situations [@Abe:2002ds; @Aubert:2005gw; @Aubert:2005cb; @prl_91_022001]; indeed, it is also observed in the background $p\overline{p}$ distributions in this analysis. In the left plot of Figure \[fig:ComparePP\] the $p\overline{p}$ distributions for all four modes have been overlaid removing the events with $M(\overline{D}^{(*)}\overline{p})$ less than 3.1 and normalizing to the total area. In addition, each event entering Figure \[fig:ComparePP\] has been weighted by a phase-space factor and thus the distribution is proportional to the square of the matrix element. The distributions of the four modes show the same behavior. We have also compared our phase-space corrected $p\overline{p}$ distributions (averaged over the four modes) to those measured in $e^+e^-\rar p\overline{p}\gamma$ [@Aubert:2005cb] and $B^+\rar p\overline{p}K^+$ [@Aubert:2005gw] by , shown on the right of Figure \[fig:ComparePP\], and again there appears to be good agreement. Explanations that have been proposed to account for the enhancement observed at the $p\overline{p}$ threshold include a gluonic resonance [@chua] and short-range correlations between the $p$ and the $\overline{p}$ [@rosner2]. The BES collaboration has recently claimed evidence for a resonance decaying to $\pi\pi\eta^\prime$ with a mass of 1834 and a width of 69 [@Ablikim:2005um]. This resonance should also decay to $p\overline{p}$ and the mass and width measured by BES in $\pi\pi\eta^\prime$ is in agreement with the enhancement seen by BES in the $p\overline{p}$ distribution in J$/\psi\to\gamma p \overline{p}$ decays [@prl_91_022001] assuming a Breit-Wigner with corrections for final state interactions [@zou; @ulf].
With respect to the $\overline{D}\overline{p}$ invariant mass spectra, other than an excess at low mass in the $\bdz$ mode, the plots in the middle row of Figure \[fig:allNt\] are in qualitative agreement with the phase space histograms. The low mass excess in $\bdz$ is also easily seen in the Dalitz plot in Figure \[fig:dalitz\] and appears again to be a threshold enhancement as in the $p\overline{p}$ case. While it would be expected that the same effect would be seen in the $\bdsz$ mode, the statistics are much lower and the mass threshold is higher.
The $\overline{D}p$ distributions, in the bottom row of Figure \[fig:allNt\], we observe a clear tendency to peak toward high $\overline{D}^{(*)0}p$ mass in comparison with phase space for the three-body modes. This is also reflected in the apparent asymmetry in the Dalitz plots. The four body modes are in qualitative agreement with phase space distributions in the $\overline{D}p$ projections.
The H1 Collaboration has claimed evidence for a charmed pentaquark state decaying to $D^{*-}p$ at 3.1 whose width is less than their experimental resolution of 7.1 . By fitting the $D^{-}p$ invariant mass spectrum in the decay $\bd$ to a Breit-Wigner plus linear background, we obtain an upper limit on the branching fraction: $${\cal B} (\Bz \to \Theta_c \antiproton\pi^+)\times{\cal B}(\Theta_c \to D^-\proton)<9\times10^{-6},$$ while for the $D^{*-}p$ spectrum in $\bds$ we obtain: $${\cal B} (\Bz \to \Theta_c \antiproton\pi^+)\times{\cal B}(\Theta_c \to \Dstarm\proton)<14\times10^{-6}$$ at 90% C.L. For this limit we have assumed the resonance width for the $\Theta_c$ to be 25 , which corresponds to the upper limit on the width given by H1. If we assume a smaller width, the limits decrease.
In conclusion, we have measured the branching fractions of $\bdz$, $\bdsz$, $\bd$, and $\bds$. The results obtained for the modes $\bds$, $\bdsz$, and $\bdz$ agree with the previous measurements and have smaller uncertainties while the decay $\bd$ has been measured for the first time. We do not observe any evidence for the charmed pentaquark observed by H1 at $M(D^{*-}p)$ of 3.1 . In comparison with phase space we observe a low-mass $p\overline{p}$ enhancement similar to other observations in $p\overline{p}$ production. We also observe a deviation from phase-space structure in the $Dp$ and $\overline{D}p$ invariant mass distributions for the three-body modes.
4.2cm 4.2cm 4.2cm 4.2cm
4.2cm 4.2cm 4.2cm 4.2cm
4.2cm 4.2cm 4.2cm 4.2cm
8.cm 8.cm
pubboard/acknow\_PRL
[99]{}
Throughout this paper, the named reaction refers also to its charge conjugate.
CLEO Collaboration, S. Anderson [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2732 (2001).
Belle Collaboration, K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 151802 (2002).
C.K. Chua, W.S. Hou and S.Y. Tsai Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 034003 (2002).
W. S. Hou and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4247 (2001).
I. Dunietz, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 094010 (1998).
E. Fermi and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**76**]{}, 1739 (1949). J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 014004 (2003). R. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 232003 (2003). S. Armstrong, B. Mellado and S. L. Wu, J. Phys. [**G30**]{}, 1801 (2004).
H1 Collaboration, A. Aktas [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**588**]{}, 17 (2004).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A [**479**]{}, 1 (2002).
Nucl. Instrum. Methods A [**506**]{}, 250 (2003).
S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004).
G.C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**41**]{} 1581(1978).
M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A[**555**]{}, 356 (2005).
CLEO Collaboration, Q. He [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 121801 (2005).
Belle Collaboration, K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 181803 (2002).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 012005 (2006).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 051101 (2005).
BES Collaboration, J. Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett [**91**]{}, 022001 (2003).
C.K. Chua, W.S. Hou, S.Y. Tsai, Phy. Lett. B [**544**]{}, 139 (2002). J.L. Rosner, Phy. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 094014 (2004). BES Collaboration, M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 262001 (2005).
B.S. Zou and H.C. Chiang, Phy. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 034004 (2003). A. Sibirtsev [*et al.*]{}, Phy. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 054010 (2005).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Hervé Wozniak [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'AA\_2014\_25005.bib'
date: 'Accepted 2014 11 18. Received 2014 11 18 ; in original form 2014 09 16'
title: 'How can double-barred galaxies be long-lived?'
---
[ The dynamical and physical requirements for long-lived triaxiality in the central region of galaxies still need to be clarified. ]{} [N$-$body/hydrodynamical simulations including star formation recipes have been performed. Their properties (bar lengths, pattern speeds, age of stellar population, and gas content) have been compared with the most recent observational data in order to prove that they are representative of double-barred galaxies, even SB0. Overlaps in dynamical resonances and bar modes have been looked for using Fourier spectrograms. ]{} [Double-barred galaxies have been successfully simulated with lifetimes as long as 7 Gyr. The stellar and gaseous distributions in the central regions are time dependent and display many observed morphological features (circumnuclear rings, pseudo-bulges, triaxial bulges, ovals, etc.) typical of barred galaxies, even early-type. The stellar population of the secondary bar is younger on average than for the primary large-scale bar. An important feature of these simulations is the absence of any resonance overlap for several Gyr. In particular, there is no overlap between the primary bar inner Lindblad resonance and the secondary bar corotation. Therefore, mode coupling cannot sustain the secondary bar mode. Star formation is identified here as possibly being responsible for bringing energy to the nuclear mode. Star formation is also responsible for limiting the amount of gas in the central region which prevents the orbits sustaining the secondary bar from being destroyed. Therefore, the secondary bar can dissolve but reappear after $\approx 1$ Gyr as the associated wave is persistent as long as central star formation is active. When star formation is switched off the dynamical perturbation associated with the secondary bar needs several Gyr to fully vanish, although the central morphological signature is almost undetectable after 2 Gyr. ]{} [Double-bars can be long-lived in numerical simulations with a gaseous component, even in the absence of overlap of resonances or mode coupling, provided that star formation remains active, even moderately, in the central region where the nuclear bar lies. ]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The early idea that any central triaxial massive component embedded in a stellar disc could be efficient enough to bring gas close to the nucleus [e.g. @1982modg.proc..113K] has for a long time turned the attention of both observers and theoreticians to the fruitful framework of “bars within bars” [@1989Natur.338...45S] preceded by a few works dealing with triaxial bulges [e.g. @1988MNRAS.233..337L]. At that time, the bars within bars scenario was sustained by a few crucial observations [e.g. @1974IAUS...58..335D; @1986ApJS...61..631B]. Since then, the observation of small samples of double-barred galaxies laid the groundwork for larger samples, less biased, that has refined the global picture by removing from the list of prototypes a few false detections made in the optical and adding a lot of new examples mainly detected in the near infrared [@2011MSAIS..18..145E for a comprehensive review].
However, the formation of nuclear bars has remained puzzling in spite of the efforts made by several groups to perform realistic modelling of these complex systems. Our difficulty in creating a standard scenario for the evolution of the central kpc is certainly not due to the lack of models that show how the stellar material can be assembled to form the inner bar, but rather is due to the coexistence of several credible physical mechanisms. Most of these mechanisms have been studied mainly through numerical simulations (N$-$body and/or hydrodynamical simulations) although orbit analysis [@1997ApJ...484L.117M; @2000MNRAS.313..745M; @2010ApJ...719..622M] has helped a lot to understand the foundation of double-bar dynamics.
The double-bar formation scenarios can first be divided into two major classes: either the large-scale bar forms first, i.e. before the inner one, or the contrary. The first case is sustained by early theoretical works [@1989Natur.338...45S], simulations with a gaseous component present , but also pure collisionless simulations making the need for a gaseous component questionable if the initial stellar disc is dynamically hot and embedded in a massive halo. The second case was considered hypothetical until @2007ApJ...654L.127D created such examples by fine tuning the initial conditions of their collisionless simulations. One can argue that a third case should exist, that is the two bars growing simultaneously [@2013MNRAS.433L..44S]. It seems in all cases that the outer bar forms slightly before the inner bar.
Whatever the formation scenario is, the main concern with inner bars formed in N$-$body/hydrodynamical simulations is that they are short-lived because the central gas concentration naturally tends to destroy the bar. However, the lifetime of any nuclear bar must be long enough to be compatible with the high frequency of double-bars: 30 % of barred galaxies or 20 % of all galaxies [@2011MSAIS..18..145E]. Past simulations that were able to produce long-lived double-barred models [e.g. @2002MNRAS.337.1233R; @2007ApJ...654L.127D] are either 2D or purely collisionless.
We show here that 3D N$-$body/hydrodynamical simulations, implementing classical star formation recipes, are able to create long-lived double-barred galaxies. We identify the dynamical and physical processes whereby a double-barred system can survive on several Gyr.
This paper is focused on the long-term evolution of double-barred galaxies. In Sect. \[sec:model\] we describe our simulations and introduce postprocessing techniques. The evolution of the central region is addressed in detail in Sect. \[sec:evol\]. As forthcoming papers dealing with other aspects of double-barred galaxies will be based on this topic, we give a detailed description there. We compare the properties of simulations with observational constraints in Sect. \[sec:comparison\]. Finally, we discuss our results in Sect. \[sec:discussion\] and conclude in the last section.
Description of the numerical simulations {#sec:model}
========================================
[lrrrcclllrrrr]{} Model & End& $N_\mathrm{s}$ & $N_\mathrm{_g}$ & $M_1$ & $M_2$ & $l_1$ & $l_2$ & $M_\mathrm{g}$ & $l_\mathrm{g}$ & $N_\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{end}$ & &(Myr)&$\times 10^{6}$&$\times 10^{4}$&$\times 10^{11}$ M$_{\sun}$&$\times 10^{11}$ M$_{\sun}$&(kpc)&(kpc)&$\times 10^{11}$ M$_{\sun}$&(kpc)&$\times 10^{6}$ & [[SimL]{}]{}& 9486& 2.5 &5 & 0.1 & 1.0 & 1.5 & 6.5 &0.11 & 6.0 & 3.32& [[SimS]{}]{}& 5798& 2.5 &5 & 0.1 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 3.5 &0.11 & 3.0 & 3.21&
We performed several simulations of disc galaxies varying mainly the initial disc scale lengths and the gas contents. For each simulation, the conditions for the initial stellar and gaseous populations were computed as follows. The initial stellar population was set up to reproduce a typical disc galaxy. The positions and velocities for $N_s$ particles were drawn from a superposition of two axisymmetrical @MN75 discs of mass respectively $M_1$ and $M_2$ (cf. Table \[tab:simul\]). The shape of Miyamoto & Nagai density distribution depends on the choice of two parameters, traditionally called $a$ and $b$. The @1911MNRAS..71..460P sphere ($a=0$) and the @k56 flat disc ($b=0$) are the two extreme possible distributions. The use of Miyamoto & Nagai distributions enabled us to create initial conditions very close to typical disc galaxies. The real radial scale lengths are respectively $l_1=a_1+b$ and $l_2=a_2+b$. We chose a scale height of $b=0.5$ kpc common to all simulations. Thus, with our choice of parameters (cf. Table \[tab:simul\]), the first component can be viewed as representing a bulge, the second one a disc, with the main advantage that there is no discontinuity in either the mass density distribution or the gravitational forces. The initial velocity dispersions were computed by solving numerically the Jeans equations. The gaseous component is represented by $N_g$ particles for a total mass of $M_g$ distributed in a $l_g$ scalelength Miyamoto-Nagai disc.
Some differences in the initial conditions should be noted. The disc scalelength of [[SimL]{}]{} ($l_2=6.5$ kpc, hence the “L” for “long”) is almost twice that of [[SimS]{}]{} (3.5 kpc, “S” for “short”) for the same scaleheight ($b=0.5$ kpc). The dynamical timescales of the stellar bar development should thus be longer for [[SimL]{}]{} than for [[SimS]{}]{}.
The dynamical evolution was computed with a particle–mesh N-body code that includes stars, gas, and recipes to simulate star formation. The broad outlines of the code are the following. The gravitational forces are computed with a particle–mesh method using a 3D polar grid with $(N_R, N_\phi, N_Z)=(60,64,312)$ active cells, leading to a vertical sampling of 50 pc. The smallest radial cell in the central region is 36 pc large. The hydrodynamics equations are solved using the SPH technique, following closely the implementation suggested by @b90. Since we used a log–polar grid, we improved the pre-computation of self-forces by subdividing each cell in $(n_r,
n_\phi, n_z)=(32,6,6)$ subcells. Self-forces were then linearly interpolated before being subtracted from gravitational forces. The spatial and forces resolutions are thus much higher than in our previous studies based on the same code .
The star formation and feedback modelling is based on the instantaneous star formation approximation . The major steps are 1) the identification of the regions where star formation can be ignited, 2) the conversion of a fraction of gas into stars, and 3) the computation of the amount of energy and metals injected in the interstellar medium (i.e. the energy and chemical feedback from type II supernovae – SNII). Because the last step leads to gas heating, a simple treatment of radiative cooling is implemented in the energy equation.
The first task is to identify the gaseous particles that will form stars. @FB93 examined some possible criteria. Not surprisingly, they found that the standard Jeans instability criterion can be applied to spherical non-rotating gaseous systems, but for rotating flat discs that Toomre’s instability criterion [@1964ApJ...139.1217T] is a better indicator. Observational evidence also appears to support the use of this criterion as a good indicator for locating star formation at intermediate scalelengths . In all cases, a particle $i$ will be assumed to undergo a star formation episode if the following condition is verified, $$Q_{i}^{g} = \frac{s_{i}\kappa_{i}}{\pi G \Sigma_{i}^{g}} \leq \lambda
,$$ where $Q_i^g$ is Toomre’s parameter, $s_{i}$ is the local sound speed, $\kappa_{i}$ is the generalized epicyclic frequency, and $\Sigma_{i}^{g}$ is the gas surface density. The constant $\lambda$ equals unity in the case of an axisymmetric gaseous disc subject to radial instabilities [cf. @1964ApJ...139.1217T]. However, a value of $\lambda \approx 1.4$ (with $s = 6$ km s$^{-1}$) has been derived from observations [@1990ASSL..161..405K]. Since we intend to reproduce realistic conditions for star formation, we adopted the same value for $\lambda$.
The pattern speed [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} of the large-scale bar is easily determined using its position-angle measured every 10 Myr during the simulation run. Any post-processing technique applied on snapshots (spaced by 50 Myr) or on movies (timestep of 1 Myr) gives the same results. For the nuclear or inner bar, the determination of [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} is more difficult. The initial size of the nuclear bar is unpredictable, and so it is difficult to catch its position-angle in real time during the simulation run. The snapshot sampling (every 50 Myr) is too long to make a proper measurement as the rotation period of the nuclear bar can be much shorter. Therefore, the nuclear position-angle was determined directly from the movies using the inertia moment technique confirmed by eye measurements. However, the errors can be large (typically $\approx
2$ Myr on rotation period measurements), especially when the nuclear bar rotation period $T_\mathrm{s}$ is of the order of a few tens of Myr. A Fourier transform technique (as used by [@2011MNRAS.417..762Q]) is unapplicable here because of the frequency cutoff. Therefore, for a few periods of interest, simulations have been partly recomputed using a smaller output timestep (1 Myr) in order to apply this technique (see Sect. \[sec:discussion\]). For these particular periods, this technique confirms our manual measurements well within our conservative error bars.
The terminology used in the case of double-barred galaxies is wide and thus confusing. We thus clarify hereby what terms will be used throughout this paper. The simulations will represent double-barred galaxies, which means two stellar bars will coexist. A **primary** bar is the main bar with respect to its size. It is a large-scale structure. It is often named **large-scale** bar. This does not imply that it appears first, even if this is the case for our simulations. A **secondary** bar is a smaller stellar structure embedded in the primary bar. However, it is often called the **inner** or **nuclear** bar. Hereafter, in the context of this paper, we use the word **“nuclear”** for a rapidly rotating secondary bar extending less than 500 pc across, and reserve the term **“inner”** for larger secondary bars.
Evolution of the central regions {#sec:evol}
================================
In Figs. \[fig:fbfc2\] and \[fig:abab\] we show the face-on projections of the central region ($2\times 2$ kpc) for the two runs used throughout this paper. Figure \[fig:fbfc\] focuses on the $1\times 1$ kpc of [[SimS]{}]{} during the formation of the nuclear bar. The stellar mass distribution has been photometrically calibrated using the technique of . A blue photometric band (B Cousins) has been chosen to emphasize the regions with the youngest stellar population. For this purpose, the age of the initial stellar population has been kept fixed at 10 Gyr for all snapshots. This implies that a direct photometric comparison of snapshots has no sense since the initial stellar population is not getting old and thus its luminosity is not dimming. Because it is a post-processing technique, this obviously has no impact on the self-consistent chemodynamical evolution of the simulation.
The two simulations show different histories of star formation (Fig. \[fig:SFR\]). Their dynamical history is obviously different, the main driver being the dynamical timescale that is roughly doubled for [[SimL]{}]{} with respect to [[SimS]{}]{}.
![Star formation rate (SFR) averaged in a sliding window of 10 Myr for runs [[SimS]{}]{} (red) and [[SimL]{}]{} (black).[]{data-label="fig:SFR"}](AA_2014_25005-fig1.pdf){width="\hsize"}
Run [[SimS]{}]{} {#ssec:fbfc}
----------------
{width="\hsize"}
### The nuclear bar formation
The initial disc quickly develops a typical strong bar and a spiral structure both in the stellar and the gaseous components. The gravity torques due to the bar and spiral structure drive the gas inwards and reorganize the mass distribution even for the old stellar population; this gas inflow occurs in a rather short timescale since the star formation rate peaks at $t=0.45$ Gyr (cf. Fig. \[fig:SFR\]). As expected, star formation also occurs along gaseous spiral arms that are not shown in Figs. \[fig:fbfc\] and \[fig:fbfc2\].
{width="\hsize"}
>From $t\approx 0.36$ Gyr, the gas distribution in the central 400 pc (Fig. \[fig:fbfc2\]) starts to twist by an increasing angle that amounts to $\approx 45^\circ$ at $t=0.4$ Gyr. This twist is also visible in the distribution of the new stellar population. At the beginning of the twisting process, the new stellar population is aligned with the gas distribution. Afterwards, the gas twist angle still increases, quickly reaching $90^\circ$ at $t\approx 0.42$ Gyr, but not the stellar angle since the collisionless component is less reactive to the torque induced by the local gravitational potential twist. Moreover, the stellar mass trapped in that region also increases as a result of the on-going star formation, thus making the decoupling of the stellar component easier. When the gas twist angle continues to increase so that the central gas distribution eventually realigns with the larger scale flows, the new stellar population is rather axisymmetric.
At $t\approx 0.5$ Gyr there is, however, as much mass in the new stellar component as in the gas component. A second episode of twisting then begins. At $t\approx 0.51$ Gyr, the angular motion of the new stellar population distribution becomes elongated and definitively decouples from the gas distribution. For $t\approx 0.52$ Gyr, the central gas twist is again almost perpendicular to the major-axis large-scale stellar bar. At that point, one can clearly identify a so-called nuclear secondary bar whose rotating motion seems independent from the gas motion.
During this formation phase, the pattern speed of the nuclear bar is very high, leading to a low rotation period of $T_\mathrm{s}\approx
10$ Myr (Fig. \[fig:FBFC\_period\]). This value is the dynamical signature of the gas from which the new stellar population has been created. The radius of the nuclear bar is then $l_\mathrm{s} \approx
250$ pc, whereas $l_\mathrm{p}\approx 4.55$ kpc, which leads to $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p} \approx 0.056$.
![Period of rotation for the primary bar (in black) and the nuclear bar (in red) for [[SimS]{}]{}. []{data-label="fig:FBFC_period"}](AA_2014_25005-fig4.pdf){width="\hsize"}
### The nuclear bar evolution
Once the nuclear bar has been formed and rotates independently of the gas (what was called “decoupling” in some studies from the 1990s), the central gas concentration quickly gets aligned with the stellar component. For $t\ga 0.63$ Gyr the gas dynamics can be considered fully driven by the nuclear bar evolution (orientation, velocity) since the gas no longer represents the most massive component in that part of the galaxy. The morphology is modified consequently. Indeed, the gas distribution is more ring-like around the nuclear bar or sometimes disc-like, especially when the energy feedback from SNII temporarily dissolves a part of the gaseous ring.
After 1 Gyr, the total mass inside the central kpc has increased by a factor of 1.5. Indeed, a nuclear gas disc is formed from the accumulation of gas in the centre, and new stars are actively formed there. The first cause of this mass inflow is the overall reorganization of the mass distribution under the influence of the stellar bar, even the old population. Owing to gravitational torques exerted on the gas by the stellar bar, the extra mass in the form of gas and new stars amounts to $1.97\,10^{9}$ M$_{\sun}$ at $t=1$ Gyr, which is only 31% of the whole additional mass. The redistribution of the old stellar population contributes to the other 69%.
The length of the nuclear bar slowly increases as it slows down. The large-scale bar also increases, but at a lower rate. Therefore, at $t=2$ Gyr $l_\mathrm{s} \approx 1$ kpc, $l_\mathrm{p} \approx 5$ kpc so that $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p} \approx 0.2$.
### The nuclear bar dissolution. Formation of the nuclear disc
While the nuclear stellar bar continuously grows, the gaseous ring radius increases. For $t \ga 2$ Gyr the nuclear bar gets also thicker, looking sometimes like an oval surrounded by a ring of gas. The ring itself gets broader as the nuclear bar thickens. The nuclear bar is sometimes slightly off-centred, in particular around $t\approx
1.6$ Gyr, but this is a transient effect.
It is impossible to precisely date the moment when the nuclear bar can be considered as dissolved because the dissolution process is smooth and has a long timescale. Except for $t \ga 2.7-3.0$ Gyr, one can consider that the nuclear bar has been replaced by a nuclear disc. This stellar nuclear disc has a clear signature in the edge-on mass distribution. It also drives the shape of the gaseous nuclear ring. Any slight temporary ovalization of the stellar nuclear disc leads to an alignment of the major-axis of the gaseous ring.
Since the gas accumulation in the central region continues, whereas the star formation rate is very low in the ring, the gas mass increases in the ring and the nucleus. For $t > 4$ Gyr the gaseous ring becomes unstable. It starts to twist and collapse. This permits the gas flows to reach the nucleus and leads the star formation rate to briefly increase (Fig. \[fig:SFR\]). As a result, the nice broad gaseous ring is replaced by a gaseous disc of the same size as the nuclear disc for $t > 4.3$ Gyr until the end of the simulation.
Run [[SimL]{}]{} {#ssec:abab}
----------------
{width="0.95\hsize"}
### The nuclear bar formation: the first secondary bar
As for [[SimS]{}]{}, the initial disc of [[SimL]{}]{} develops a typical large-scale strong bar and spiral structure. However, because the disc scalelength of [[SimL]{}]{} is roughly twice that of [[SimS]{}]{}, the dynamical timescale for the development of the main stellar bar is significantly greater. It is only after $t\approx 0.8$ Gyr that the new stellar population created in the central gas concentration forms a nuclear bar-like structure (Fig. \[fig:abab\]). This nuclear structure is very small, $l_\mathrm{s} \approx 250$ pc, whereas $l_\mathrm{p}\approx 5$ kpc, which leads to $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p} = 0.05$. It is also transient, lasting less than $\approx 0.6$ Gyr, and is often asymmetric and/or off-centred. It then dissolves into a stellar nuclear spiral structure surrounded by a circumnuclear gaseous ring. It must be also mentioned that the large-scale bar growth is not completed yet. However, even if the length of both bars increases during this phase, the ratio $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}$ remains approximately constant. For instance, at $t\approx 1.3$ Gyr, $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}\approx 0.3/6.0 = 0.05$.
Because of its time dependent morphology, the pattern speed of this nuclear structure is difficult to measure precisely. The pattern rotation period of the large-scale bar and the nuclear structure are shown in Fig. \[fig:ABAB\_period\]. It was not possible to determine properly the nuclear rotation period for the whole lifetime because of the quick changes in morphology. However, the nuclear structure has a very short rotation period (between 10 and 30 Myr) that strongly contrasts with the primary bar rotation period; it is at least ten times longer. During the lifetime of the nuclear structure, the large-scale bar temporarily slows down, the rotation period increasing from 200 Myr to 300 Myr (Fig. \[fig:ABAB\_period\]).
![As in Fig. \[fig:FBFC\_period\] for [[SimL]{}]{}.[]{data-label="fig:ABAB_period"}](AA_2014_25005-fig6.pdf){width="\hsize"}
When the nuclear structure dissolves, both a gaseous disc and a stellar disc (mainly made of new stellar population), surrounded by a ring-like structure, survive. These discs form the remnant of the nuclear bar. The size of both gaseous and stellar discs increases to $\approx 1.8$ kpc in diameter, which leads to $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}\approx 0.9/8 =0.11$. However, because the remnant stellar disc is no longer barred, $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}$ has another meaning here. Transient gaseous and/or stellar spiral arms often appear inside and outside the ring-like structure until $t\approx 2.6$ Gyr.
### The inner bar formation: the second secondary bar
After $t\approx 2.6$ Gyr, the inner region returns to a bar-like shape. The pattern speed can be determined much more precisely now than for the first nuclear bar. The gaseous and stellar components both display the same features. The inner bar ends in a broad circumnuclear ring. In the centre, the remnant of the first nuclear bar settles in the centre as a flattened small bulge. As the stellar inner bar begins to turn into an oval, the gaseous counterpart progressively dissolves. Only a gaseous circumnuclear ring survives, that gradually gets broader (up to roughly 500 pc across the torus).
For $t\ga 4$ Gyr, it becomes difficult to unambiguously determine a nuclear bar structure. The central kpc region looks like the triaxial pseudobulges described by . However, even if the contrast between the inner structure and the old stellar population background is too low to permit a proper pattern speed determination, the inner region is not devoid of non-axisymmetries. Therefore, for $t \ga 4.5$ Gyr, the whole inner stellar structure, including the now vanishing circumnuclear ring, turns into a strong oval that looks like a $l_\mathrm{s}=2.2$ kpc long bar ($l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}\approx 0.275$). The shape of this second (in the time sequence) inner bar depends strongly on its relative orientation with respect to the large-scale bar. The higher axis ratio is obtained when the angle between the two bars reaches 90. When the two bars are aligned, the axis ratio is roughly halved.
For $t\ga 4.5$ Gyr, the responsive gaseous ring also starts to turn into an oval, meaning that the gas ring shrinks and expands depending on the relative orientation of the inner bar with respect to the large-scale bar. The ring progressively dissolves into a disc that closely follows the same changes in morphology as the stellar nuclear bar and thus shares the same orientation.
Because star formation, which mainly occurs in the central region, consumes the gas, the nuclear disc size significantly decreases for $t \ga
6$ Gyr and becomes dynamically unstable. For $6 < t < 7$ Gyr, the star formation rate temporarily increases (Fig. \[fig:SFR\]) because of the collapse of the gaseous nuclear ring. This is the last episode of star formation in that region. At $t\approx 7$ Gyr, the gaseous nuclear disc has almost fully disappeared, whereas the stellar counterpart is made of an inner bar with $l_\mathrm{s}\approx 1.3$ kpc embedded in a slightly larger stellar disc. The large-scale bar has $l_\mathrm{p}=8.5$ kpc leading to $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}\approx 0.15$.
As the stellar inner bar (oval-like) still exists for $t > 7$ Gyr, the gas inflow continues in such a way that a gaseous circumnuclear ring forms again. The gas mass surface density in the ring, and in the region encircled by the ring, is higher than 1 [M$_{\sun}\ \mbox{pc}^{-2}$]{} , but never reaches the same high values as during the first 2 Gyr. In particular, the gas distribution is smoother.
These structures, the inner stellar bar or oval and gaseous circumnuclear ring, last until the end of the simulation at $t\approx 9.5$ Gyr without any significant morphological change. The only noticeable fact is the permanent slow down of both bars due to the classical angular momentum exchange with the large-scale disc.
At the end of the simulation, $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}\approx 1.5/9
= 0.17$, quite close to the value at $t=7$ Gyr. Indeed, the two bars slow down, but at different rates.
Comparison with observations {#sec:comparison}
============================
Gas mass in the central kpc {#ssec:gasmass}
---------------------------
It has been argued in the past [@2004ApJ...603..495P and references therein] that large amounts of gas are not required to form and sustain a double-bar. However, if the nuclear bar is long-lived, and we can imagine that the galaxy has been gas rich in the past, then its gas has been consumed and possibly redistributed thus explaining the current low content. Alternatively, if the nuclear bar is a short-lived phenomenon, one has to define the lower gas mass limit to initiate the formation process. This means that the expressions ‘gas rich’ or ‘gas poor’ used in the literature must be clarified. The last development stage (i.e. after 7 Gyr) of [[SimL]{}]{} is morphologically close to SB0 galaxies, and so it is morphologically comparable to the @2004ApJ...603..495P observations. We can thus determine the amount of gas in a region of similar surface limited by the beam size. For ten objects, the radius encircling the mass that has been measured ranges from 0.3 kpc to 2.6 kpc, but for their SB0 subsample (NGC2859, NGC2950, NGC3081, NGC4340, and NGC4371) $r < 1$ kpc and $r < 2.3$ kpc are more representative. For $r <
1$ kpc, observational gas mass upper limits range from 1.510$^7$ to 8.110$^7$ [M$_{\sun}$]{} , whereas it amounts to 4.410$^7$ [M$_{\sun}$]{} for [[SimL]{}]{}. For $r < 2.3$ kpc it increases to 2.810$^8$ [M$_{\sun}$]{} for our simulation, whereas for NGC3081 the gas mass amounts to 6.2 or 6.510$^8$ [M$_{\sun}$]{}. Since our simulation is not fine tuned to fit any particular galaxy, we can conclude that [[SimL]{}]{} is well within the observational constraints. A value of 4.410$^7$ [M$_{\sun}$]{} is low enough to explain why @2004ApJ...603..495P were unable to detect molecular gas in NGC2859, NGC4340, and NGC4371, but obviously one cannot conclude that the gas component do not play a role in the formation of nuclear bars.
Stellar population in nuclear bars {#ssec:stellarpop}
----------------------------------
Studying the stellar populations of double-barred galaxies NGC2859, NGC3941, NGC4725, and NGC5850, @2013MNRAS.431.2397D have recently concluded that the inner bars are younger and more metal rich than the large-scale primary bars. It has been argued that the stellar age distribution in bars has to be interpreted with a dynamical approach. For instance, two regions of apparent low age at the end of the large-scale bars are due to the accumulation of a composite stellar population, younger in average and trapped in orbits shaped like an ellipse in average, aligned with the bar.
To make a comparison with @2013MNRAS.431.2397D, a mean age profile has been computed as the average of individual particle age in annuli 100 pc wide and $\pm 100$ pc thick centred on the nucleus. Being an azimuthal average approach, each annulus mixes the population inside and outside the structures (inner and outer bars, circumnuclear ring). Moreover, all particles of the initial population arbitrarily have the same age (0 at the beginning of the simulation) so that snapshot time is also the age of the initial population.
![Radial profile of the age difference with the time of the snapshot ($t = 9.486$ Gyr) for [[SimL]{}]{}. The mean age has been computed in concentric annuli of 100 pc wide. For the sake of comparison, the radius of the NGC5850 inner bar and the limit of age measurement [@2013MNRAS.431.2397D] have been scaled to [[SimL]{}]{} and overplotted as dashed and dot-dashed lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:periodage"}](AA_2014_25005-fig7.pdf){width="\hsize"}
In Fig. \[fig:periodage\] we show the relative mean age of the particle population at $t = 9.486$ Gyr. The region inside the nuclear bar is 2.5$-$3.0 Gyr younger than the large-scale bar. Because of the mixing with older regions outside the inner bar, and the rough assumption that all initial particles have an age of 9.486 Gyr, this value is certainly a lower limit. The outermost region of the large-scale bar is also younger. This effect is obviouly that discovered by and explained by .
Even if a direct and quantitative comparison with @2013MNRAS.431.2397D is not possible because the averaging technique is different (they measured ages along ellipses fitted on the isochrone maps), the results are in good qualitative agreement. In particular, the age difference for NGC5850 amounts to $\approx
4$ Gyr between the nuclear bar and the outermost measurements. To help the comparison, the large-scale bar radius of NGC5850 (using the @2013MNRAS.431.2397D value, i.e. 63) has been scaled to [[SimL]{}]{} ($l_\mathrm{p} \approx 9$ kpc). The large-scale bar radius was used as its determination is much more accurate than the nuclear radius. In Fig. \[fig:periodage\] the outermost limit of age measurement by @2013MNRAS.431.2397D is also plotted showing that their age measurements might be well inside the large-scale bar.
Pattern speeds {#ssec:pattern}
--------------
The ratio of pattern speeds ([$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}/[$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} or equivalently [$T_\mathrm{s}$]{}/[$T_\mathrm{p}$]{}, cf. Fig \[fig:period\_ratio\]) is not constant over time. For the two simulations, both [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} and [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} decrease as a function of time (Figs. \[fig:FBFC\_period\] and \[fig:ABAB\_period\]) but are not locked into a particular ratio. The slopes seem different between [[SimS]{}]{} and [[SimL]{}]{}, but are in fact consistent with a factor of roughly two in dynamical timescales. This means that the ratio is the same for [[SimL]{}]{} after twice the time needed by [[SimS]{}]{}. Because on average [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} decreases much faster than [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}, the ratio [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}/[$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} monotonically increases up to $\approx
0.21-0.25$. Only a change in the slope and a lower dispersion between 6 and 8 Gyr are notable for [[SimL]{}]{}, mainly due to [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} variations during the circumnuclear ring collapse (cf. Sect \[ssec:abab\]). The fluctuations of the ratio is due to oscillations of [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} and [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} (Figs. \[fig:FBFC\_period\] and \[fig:ABAB\_period\]) that depend on the relative phase of the two bars, a fact already observed by @2004ApJ...617L.115E and [@2007ApJ...654L.127D].
![Ratio of the primary to secondary bar pattern speed. Black dots are for [[SimL]{}]{}, red dots for [[SimS]{}]{}.[]{data-label="fig:period_ratio"}](AA_2014_25005-fig8.pdf){width="\hsize"}
The best model of has $\Omega_p/\Omega_s
\approx 0.32$, and $0.3$ for @2004ApJ...617L.115E, values that our simulations never reach. Our values of [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} and [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} are comparable, however, to the few measurements in double-barred galaxies. Most observational methods to directly estimate $\Omega_p$ cannot be easily applied to $\Omega_s$ and, more generally, are not suited when multiple patterns are present [@2006MNRAS.371..451M; @2009ApJ...690..758S]. However, keeping in mind the questionable viability of $\Omega_s$ measurement, we must rely on available attempts.
Therefore, if we assume two bars in NGC5248 , [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}$\,=30$ [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} [@2002ApJ...575..156J] and [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{}$\ga 135$ [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} leading to a ratio [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}/[$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} $\la
0.23$. @2003ApJ...599L..29C found a value as low as 0.13 for NGC2950 using the Tremaine-Weinberg method [but see @2006MNRAS.371..451M; @2009ApJ...690..758S]. @2005ApJ...632..253H and @2009ApJ...704.1657F applied the same technique to H$\alpha$ velocity fields to determine pattern speeds and found $0.3 < \Omega_p/\Omega_s < 0.55,$ but with large error bars on [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{}. An in-depth analysis of NGC1068, based both on multiwavelength observations and numerical simulations, led @2006MNRAS.365..367E to conclude that $0.19 \la
\Omega_p/\Omega_s \la 0.26$.
@2007AJ....133.2584Z introduced a potential-density phase-shift method that is able to determine the position of multiple corotations in a galaxy without any kinematical information. This method is thus particularly well suited to double-barred galaxies. Moreover, it is based on the properties of quasi-stationary density wave modes. @2007AJ....133.2584Z did not publish values for $\Omega_p$ and $\Omega_s$, but only radii for [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} and [CR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}. However, the ratio of corotation radii [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}/[CR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} can be used as it evolves like $\Omega_p/\Omega_s$. For their small sample (seven objects), they found ratios between 0.086 (NGC1530) and 0.3 (NGC936) and a mean of $\approx 0.17$. For [[SimS]{}]{} and [[SimL]{}]{}, [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}/[CR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} starts at $\approx
0.03$ when a nuclear bar is just detected for the first time and then increases to respectively $\approx 0.24$ and $0.30$. Our values are thus comparable even for SB0 galaxies.
The most recent survey [@2014MNRAS.444L..85F] of pattern speeds in double-barred galaxies, using a phase reversal technique in H$\alpha$ kinematical maps [@2014ApJS..210....2F] found a narrow range of ratios $0.29^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$, a bit higher than our end values. However, @2014MNRAS.444L..85F have introduced an important assumption: the nuclear bar ends near its corotation ([CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}) which in turn overlaps (or is close to) the primary bar ILR ([ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}). If this new technique could be useful to determine the location of resonances (although a firm physical foundation must be found), it gives no information on the type of these resonances, especially the main ones, ILR, ultraharmonic (UHR, also called 4:1), CR, and OLR. Therefore, the identification of the resonance needs to assume that any bar ends inside and close to its corotation. Whereas this is reasonable true for the primary bars (although it has been argued by that typical observational bar length measurement techniques are more correlated with the UHR resonance than with the CR), this assumption is questionable for nuclear bars. Indeed, if [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} is determined in [[SimL]{}]{} as being the end of the nuclear bar, and moreover identical to [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, this leads to a large underestimation of [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{}. For the sake of illustration, we consider the moment $t=7.5$ Gyr. At this time, $R_\mathrm{ILRp}
\approx 4.84$ kpc and $\Omega_p\approx 15$ [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{}. If we assume that this radius is identical to the corotation radius of the nuclear bar, this leads to $\Omega_s\approx 45$ [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} instead of $\approx 73$ [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} (see also Fig. \[fig:fft\] in the next section). Therefore, the ratio [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}/[$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} might be spuriously estimated to be 0.33, a value which appears to be in good agreement with @2014MNRAS.444L..85F, instead of $\approx 0.2$, its **real** value.
Bar lengths {#ssec:shape}
-----------
The absolute sizes of simulated secondary bars fit quite well with the values given by @2011MSAIS..18..145E. Erwin showed that $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}$, the secondary over primary bar lengths, ranges from 0.025 to 0.25 with a median of $\approx 0.12$. For the first nuclear bar of [[SimL]{}]{}, $l_\mathrm{s}/l_\mathrm{p}$ remains roughly constant at 0.05. It is only when the nuclear bar has been fully dissolved that this ratio reaches 0.11 (this is then the size of the remnant nuclear disc relative to the large-scale bar). The inner bar restarts with a rather high ratio (0.275 at $t\approx 4.5$ Gyr), but then decreases to 0.15-0.19. However, the observational relative size distribution does not show any strong evidence of two different kinds of secondary bars that could help to distinguish the first generation from the subsequent ones. Our simulations should also show some similarities with that of since our recipes are quite similar, although our initial conditions are different. Indeed, the basic process leading to the formation of a nuclear bar is the same. However, their best model has a bar length ratio of $0.26$.
Although it is incorrect to base an argument on absolute sizes, it is also noteworthy that, all other factors being equal, if primary bars have low [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} (as for [[SimL]{}]{}), they are longer than bars with high [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} (as for [[SimS]{}]{}), assuming here that they systematically fill the region inside their corotation radius. @2011MSAIS..18..145E emphasizes that the sizes of large-scale bars are longer in double-barred galaxies than in single-barred ones whereas all the other properties are similar.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
[[SimS]{}]{} and [[SimL]{}]{} having morphological, kinematical and stellar population properties similar to real galaxies, we can now discuss their dynamical structure and long-term evolution.
Resonance overlap or not? {#ssec:mode}
-------------------------
In the framework of the epicyclic approximation, we solved the equations $\Omega-\kappa/n
= \Omega_{p,s}$ for the resonance radii ([ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} and [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} for $n=2$, [UHR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} and [UHR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} for $n=4$, [CR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} and [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} for $n=\infty$, [OLR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} and [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} for $n=-2$). @1992MNRAS.259..328A and have shown that, even in the case of strong bars for which the epicyclic approximation breaks down, the errors on the resonance positions remain within 10%, especially in the case of the ILR and the CR. In Fig. \[fig:pos\_resonance\] we show the evolution of ILR, UHR, CR, and OLR as a function of time. Since most of the time two ILRs exist, hereafter we only deal with the outermost one (named oILR by most authors). Moreover, because it is very close to the centre in the case of [[SimS]{}]{}, the position of [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} is not always reliable for $t\la 2$ Gyr.
![Radius of the linear resonances (ILR, UHR, CR, OLR) for the secondary bar (subscript ’s’, red triangles) and the primary bar (’p’, black dots) in the simulations [[SimS]{}]{} (top) and [[SimL]{}]{} (bottom). [OLR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} is not shown. []{data-label="fig:pos_resonance"}](AA_2014_25005-fig9-top.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![Radius of the linear resonances (ILR, UHR, CR, OLR) for the secondary bar (subscript ’s’, red triangles) and the primary bar (’p’, black dots) in the simulations [[SimS]{}]{} (top) and [[SimL]{}]{} (bottom). [OLR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} is not shown. []{data-label="fig:pos_resonance"}](AA_2014_25005-fig9-bottom.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
The immediate observation is that the whole resonance system of the inner bar, up to [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}, remains well inside the [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} for a long time (roughly 2 Gyr for [[SimS]{}]{} and 8 Gyr for [[SimL]{}]{}). Therefore, there is no [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}–[ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} overlap, unlike and many other similar studies that followed.
However, such a situation is not new as a few examples have been already reported by and , but with different experimental setups (either 2D simulations or an analytical bulge component). Moreover, reported evidence of an [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}–[ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} coupling in the case of NGC4736, before the paradigm of [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}–[ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} coupling was firmly established. They claimed this configuration could weaken the interaction and increase the lifetime of the nuclear bar.
To further investigate the dynamical impact of possible resonance overlaps, we have built spectrograms, as introduced by @1986MNRAS.221..195S and widely used [see e.g. @2011MNRAS.417..762Q and references therein]. We note $m$ the azimuthal wavenumber of a wave of frequency $\omega$. Spectrograms can be used to determine the pattern speed $\Omega$ of any wave as being $\Omega = \omega/m$ and helps to identify any potential non-linear mode coupling when resonances overlap. As discussed by and @2011MNRAS.417..762Q, spectrograms show many small features, often transient, probably linked to the main modes. Some of these features with a well-defined pattern speed can be beat modes triggered by the non-linear couplings of other waves at the location of resonance overlaps. found many kinds of resonance overlaps in addition to the classical [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}–[ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, although they were not always able to determine whether these couplings were stationary or accidental.
Figure \[fig:fft\] shows spectrograms for $m=2$, centred at $t=3$ and $7.5$ Gyr for [[SimL]{}]{} and computed in a window of 269 Myr corresponding to 256 outputs. To compute the spectra we included only the stellar component to extract the information on stellar modes. Similar spectrograms have been obtained for [[SimS]{}]{}. Spectra with greater wavenumbers ($m \ge 4$) confirm what can be inferred from $m=2$, in particular the presence of harmonics of the large-scale bar mode. They are not shown here. For the two moments shown in Fig. \[fig:fft\] representative of the rest of the simulations, the two dominant modes correspond to the secondary and primary bars, with pattern speed values in good agreement with all other measurements (cf. Sect. \[sec:model\]). The features are not as thin as for . This is due in part to our narrower time window. This also shows that these features do not correspond to quasi-stationary structures.
![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL]{}]{} in $\log$ scale. The time window spans 269 Myr centred at $t=3.3$ and $t=7.5$ Gyr. The left vertical scale gives values of $\omega$, the wave frequency in Myr$^{-1}$, whereas the right vertical scale is for the pattern speed $\Omega=\omega/2$ in [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{}. The horizontal white lines represent [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} and [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}, respectively, at the beginning of the time window (full line) and the end (dot-dashed one). [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} decreases from 146 to 139 at $t=3.3$ Gyr and from 81 to 71 [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} at $t=7.5$ Gyr, whereas [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} decreases by less than 1 [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} so that the two lines cannot be distinguished. The averaged curves $2\Omega -\kappa$ (which allows the ILR to be identified) and $2\Omega +\kappa$ (for the OLR) are drawn as white short dashed lines, $2\Omega -\kappa/2$ (for the UHR) as long dashed line, and $2\Omega$ as a solid line (for the CR). A logarithmic scale has been chosen for the radius to emphasize the central kpc. []{data-label="fig:fft"}](AA_2014_25005-fig10-top.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL]{}]{} in $\log$ scale. The time window spans 269 Myr centred at $t=3.3$ and $t=7.5$ Gyr. The left vertical scale gives values of $\omega$, the wave frequency in Myr$^{-1}$, whereas the right vertical scale is for the pattern speed $\Omega=\omega/2$ in [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{}. The horizontal white lines represent [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} and [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{}, respectively, at the beginning of the time window (full line) and the end (dot-dashed one). [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} decreases from 146 to 139 at $t=3.3$ Gyr and from 81 to 71 [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} at $t=7.5$ Gyr, whereas [$\Omega_\mathrm{p}$]{} decreases by less than 1 [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{} so that the two lines cannot be distinguished. The averaged curves $2\Omega -\kappa$ (which allows the ILR to be identified) and $2\Omega +\kappa$ (for the OLR) are drawn as white short dashed lines, $2\Omega -\kappa/2$ (for the UHR) as long dashed line, and $2\Omega$ as a solid line (for the CR). A logarithmic scale has been chosen for the radius to emphasize the central kpc. []{data-label="fig:fft"}](AA_2014_25005-fig10-bottom.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
Figure \[fig:fft\] clearly shows that most of the power of the nuclear bar mode remains inside the [UHR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}. For the large-scale primary bar, it has been argued that the most appropriate orbits to sustain a bar are those existing inside the UHR . This also seems to be true for the secondary bars of [[SimL]{}]{} and [[SimS]{}]{}. This additionally supports our previous claim (Sect. \[ssec:pattern\]) that one cannot systematically assume that the morphological end of a nuclear bar coincides with [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}.
Finally, whatever the approach, the linear resonance analysis or the mode analysis both lead to the same conclusion: there is no resonance overlap or mode coupling in [[SimL]{}]{} and [[SimS]{}]{}.
Double-bar lifetime {#ssec:lifetime}
-------------------
@2002MNRAS.337.1233R reported the case of a long-lived double-barred system (their [model I]{}) which could be very similar to [[SimL]{}]{}, although [[SimL]{}]{} is 3D and fully self-consistent whereas their [model I]{} is 2D and the bulge is represented by an analytical Plummer sphere. However, the fact that long-lived systems can exist is important in order to explain the high frequency of double-barred galaxies. In our case, the nuclear bar lifetime is clearly linked to the lifetime of the central bar mode. The fact that we are not able to determine a proper pattern speed during roughly 1 Gyr centred on $t\approx 2$ and 4 Gyr (cf. Fig. \[fig:abab\]) does not mean that *dynamically* the nuclear mode has disappeared. Indeed, the mode still exists (Fig. \[fig:fft2\]) at a pattern speed of respectively $\approx 215$ and 125 [km$\,$s$^{-1}$kpc$^{-1}$]{}. This means that even if, on photometrical grounds, it can be stated that the nuclear bar has been dissolved into a triaxial bulge or pseudobulge , or even a weaker structure like nuclear spirals (cf. Sect. \[sec:evol\]), the bar mode does survive, which in turn facilitates the morphological revival of the nuclear bar later on.
@2007ApJ...654L.127D also reported long-lived double-barred systems in purely collisionless simulations. A direct comparison is not possible since the initial conditions of their simulations, especially the bulge part, were fine-tuned to produce such gas-free double-barred galaxies. However, their enforced rotating bulge mimics perfectly the effect of a dissolved or weak first nuclear bar.
![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL]{}]{} centred at $t=2$ (top panel) and $t=4.275$ Gyr (bottom) in a window of 538 Myr, whereas the inner bar cannot be detected on density maps. Consequently, [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} cannot be measured because the position-angle of the central structure cannot be properly determined. []{data-label="fig:fft2"}](AA_2014_25005-fig11-top.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL]{}]{} centred at $t=2$ (top panel) and $t=4.275$ Gyr (bottom) in a window of 538 Myr, whereas the inner bar cannot be detected on density maps. Consequently, [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} cannot be measured because the position-angle of the central structure cannot be properly determined. []{data-label="fig:fft2"}](AA_2014_25005-fig11-bottom.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
Another crucial dynamical feature of our models that could play an important role in the lifetime of the secondary bar, is the absence of any overlap of resonances for a long time. Indeed, the whole nuclear dynamical system evolves as if embedded in a quasi-stationary gravitational background due to the rest of the galaxy. The mass (both gas and stars) encircled by the [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} is so large that the two dynamical systems are unable to couple together through their resonances. For [[SimL]{}]{}, almost 38 % of the total mass of the galaxy lie inside $R \la 5$ kpc at $t=7$ Gyr.
All previous works that have looked for mode coupling in 3D self-consistent N$-$body/hydrodynamical simulations have found an [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}–[ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} overlap whereas their double-barred systems were short-lived . One noticeable exception is @2002MNRAS.337.1233R who argue that this mode coupling is not necessary for the coexistence of bars and show examples of other kinds of coupling. , using 2D N$-$body simulations and inelastically colliding massless gas particles, exhibit an example very close to [[SimL]{}]{} with [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} well inside [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} (their [model A2.5]{}). This is the situation of [[SimS]{}]{} for $t\la
2$ Gyr and [[SimL]{}]{} for $t\la 8$ Gyr. However, their model develops a very weak primary bar (more oval than [[SimL]{}]{}) and the $m=2$ of the nuclear mode remains close to the maximum of $\Omega-\kappa/2$ all through the simulation, which is not the case of our simulations.
Can we infer a strong dynamical perturbation when [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} position comes close to [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} and eventually overlaps with [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}? For [[SimS]{}]{}, less than 1 Gyr after [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} intersects [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, the nuclear bar is transformed into a disc with a very time-dependent shape. It is also remarkable that the nuclear bar then starts to dissolve in the case of [[SimS]{}]{} whereas it continues to evolve as a large oval for [[SimL]{}]{}, showing larger fluctuations in [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{}. Three spectrograms centred at $t=2, 3.4,$ and $5.47$ Gyr for [[SimS]{}]{} (Fig. \[fig:fft3\]) show that the nuclear bar mode progressively vanishes whereas the large-scale bar mode (with a lower pattern speed) expands toward the centre. However, the [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}-[ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} overlap seems to play no role. Indeed, the primary bar mode is at a maximum just inside [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} , but we have not found a mode associated with the nuclear bar that might be present near the [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} to explain the energy and angular momentum exchanges. The overlap thus seems neutral and the nuclear bar mode extinction could simply be due to classical Landau damping at [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}.
![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimS]{}]{} centred at $t=2$ (top panel), when [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} intersects [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, $t=3.4$ (middle), and $t=5.47$ Gyr (bottom) where the nuclear bar is dissolved. For $t=2$ Gyr the time window has been halved (269 Myr) because [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} evolves rapidly.[]{data-label="fig:fft3"}](AA_2014_25005-fig12-top.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimS]{}]{} centred at $t=2$ (top panel), when [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} intersects [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, $t=3.4$ (middle), and $t=5.47$ Gyr (bottom) where the nuclear bar is dissolved. For $t=2$ Gyr the time window has been halved (269 Myr) because [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} evolves rapidly.[]{data-label="fig:fft3"}](AA_2014_25005-fig12-middle.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimS]{}]{} centred at $t=2$ (top panel), when [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} intersects [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, $t=3.4$ (middle), and $t=5.47$ Gyr (bottom) where the nuclear bar is dissolved. For $t=2$ Gyr the time window has been halved (269 Myr) because [$\Omega_\mathrm{s}$]{} evolves rapidly.[]{data-label="fig:fft3"}](AA_2014_25005-fig12-bottom.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
In the case of [[SimL]{}]{}, the shape of the inner bar is oval for $t\ga 7$ Gyr. Looking at the spectrograms (Fig. \[fig:fft3b\]) for $t=7.6$ and 9.2 Gyr, it appears that the power of the inner bar mode is concentrated just outside [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} whereas the maximum power of the primary bar is just inside [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, as it is for [[SimS]{}]{}. Again, it is hard to find any mode between [CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} and [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}. Unlike [[SimS]{}]{}, several modes can be detected at low level with $\Omega_p < \Omega < \Omega_s$ or $\Omega > \Omega_s$, but only inside a region limited by $\Omega(r)$. As we do for [[SimS]{}]{}, we can suspect Landau damping at [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} to be responsible for the inner bar mode decrease.
![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL]{}]{} centred at $t=7.6$ (top panel) just before [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} intersects [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, $t=9.2$ Gyr (bottom) whereas the nuclear bar has been replaced by a large rotation oval. The time windows is 568 Myr wide.[]{data-label="fig:fft3b"}](AA_2014_25005-fig13-top.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![$m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL]{}]{} centred at $t=7.6$ (top panel) just before [OLR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} intersects [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}, $t=9.2$ Gyr (bottom) whereas the nuclear bar has been replaced by a large rotation oval. The time windows is 568 Myr wide.[]{data-label="fig:fft3b"}](AA_2014_25005-fig13-bottom.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
What makes double-bars long-lived? {#ssec:mecanism}
----------------------------------
The lack of mode coupling is a major difference with previous simulations. For pure N$-$body simulations, but also for models with massless gas particles, this situation would prevent the nuclear bar from being long-lived. Indeed, apart form the swing amplification at corotation that does not operate here, there is no mechanism to bring energy to the inner bar wave. Therefore, this wave should vanish by Landau damping at [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}.
In our simulations, the first difference is the presence of a self-gravitating gas component. This component behaves differently from the stellar component because of its dissipative nature. However, as shown for example by , the gas does not help to sustain a long-lived nuclear bar because the mass accumulation close to the centre reinforces [ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{} , which in turn destabilizes the nuclear bar orbits.
Another major difference is the star formation process that creates a stellar population with initial dynamical properties inherited from their parent gas elements (SPH particles). During the first Gyrs, when the secondary bar grows, gas inflow and star formation are responsible for bringing energy to the inner waves. When the central star formation fades out as the mass of gas inflowing in the central region decreases, the energy dissipation at [ILR$_\mathrm{s}$]{} prevails. This is basically the scenario of [[SimS]{}]{} for $t \ga 2$ Gyr. What delays the inner bar extinction in [[SimL]{}]{} is a sustained local star formation rate for several Gyr (cf. Fig. \[fig:SFR\]). In the same way as for sustaining the $\sigma-$drop phenomenon [@2006MNRAS.369..853W], the regular feeding of the central region with recent stellar populations enables secondary bars to be long-lived. Simulations by did not take star formation into account, leading to the extinction of the secondary bar in roughly 5 turns. This is also the case of other past simulations with a gaseous component that have been discussed before. A noticeable exception is who ran a simulation with star formation, but only on a short timescale (less than 2 Gyr).
![Top and middle panels: as for Fig. \[fig:abab\] at $t=7.6$ Gyr, with ([[SimL]{}]{}, top) and without ([[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}, middle) star formation. The surface brightness ranges from 22.8 to 17 $\mathrm{Bmag}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$ for [[SimL]{}]{} and 22.8 to 19.1 $\mathrm{Bmag}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$ for [[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}. Bottom: $m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}, centred at $t=7.6$ (top panel). This figure can be directly compared with Fig. \[fig:fft3b\]. []{data-label="fig:fftnosf"}](AA_2014_25005-fig14-top.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"} ![Top and middle panels: as for Fig. \[fig:abab\] at $t=7.6$ Gyr, with ([[SimL]{}]{}, top) and without ([[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}, middle) star formation. The surface brightness ranges from 22.8 to 17 $\mathrm{Bmag}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$ for [[SimL]{}]{} and 22.8 to 19.1 $\mathrm{Bmag}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$ for [[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}. Bottom: $m=2$ power spectra for [[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}, centred at $t=7.6$ (top panel). This figure can be directly compared with Fig. \[fig:fft3b\]. []{data-label="fig:fftnosf"}](AA_2014_25005-fig14-bottom.pdf "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
To firmly establish the role of star formation, we recomputed [[SimL]{}]{} from $t=5.25$ Gyr until $t=7.6$ Gyr switching off the star formation process in the simulation code ([[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{} in short). @2006MNRAS.369..853W used this method for $\sigma-$drops. Figure \[fig:fftnosf\] shows the gas and stellar mass distributions at $t=7.6$ Gyr. They are significantly different from [[SimL]{}]{}. The gas distribution is more concentrated in [[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{} than in [[SimL]{}]{} since the gas is no longer consumed by the formation of new stars. This has two immediate consequences. First, this predictably makes dissolving the inner bar easier as the gas can now reach the centre, increasing there the mass that in turn axisymmetrizes the gravitational potential. Second, no more gas is turned into stars so that the mass of the inner stellar bar cannot increase. After roughly 2 Gyr, the inner bar is indeed barely detectable in the stellar distribution of [[SimL$^\mathtt{nosf}$]{}]{}. The spectrogram centred at $t=7.6$ Gyr, as in Fig. \[fig:fft3b\], confirms that, although it has not yet fully disappeared, the amplitude of the $m=2$ mode has strongly decreased with respect to [[SimL]{}]{}.
The role of star formation in sustaining the nuclear bar over several Gyr is thus demonstrated for the first time.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Unlike the outcome of most numerical simulations with both stellar and gaseous components, we have successfully simulated a *long-lived* inner bar embedded in a large-scale primary bar.
The ratio of the two bar lengths, the ratio of pattern speeds, as well as the age of the inner stellar bar population and the central gas mass fit well with observations published in the literature. Moreover, throughout the simulation, our models go through various morphological phases representative of the diversity of observations, including SB0.
The most important difference with past simulations leading to short-lived double-barred galaxies is the lack of overlap between the primary bar inner Lindblad resonance ([ILR$_\mathrm{p}$]{}) and the nuclear bar corotation ([CR$_\mathrm{s}$]{}) and, more generally, the lack of any kind of resonance overlap. The absence of mode coupling, confirmed by a Fourier analysis, implies that to sustain a permanent nuclear bar mode another physical or dynamical mechanism must feed the central waves.
Star formation in the central region is identified as possibly being responsible for bringing energy to the nuclear mode. Star formation is also responsible for regulating the gas mass accumulation close to the centre, in the sense that it prevents a strong increase in mass density that can destabilize the inner bar orbits.
As a direct consequence (whereas the inner bar can be temporarily undetectable, leading the pattern speed to be barely measurable or unmeasurable), the corresponding perturbation modes survive and allow the revival of the nuclear structure less than 1 Gyr after it disappears, provided that star formation continues.
A side result of our study is that an overlap between the ILR of the main bar and the CR of the nuclear bar cannot be systematically assumed as it is not a necessary condition for the existence of double-barred galaxies. Another direct consequence of our simulations is the evidence that several morphological features in barred galaxies that have been identified by various names (double-bars, pseudo-bulges, triaxial bulges, etc.) originate dynamically from an unique inner mode. [[SimL]{}]{} displays all these features at various stages of its evolution. This speaks for a global analysis of triaxiality in the central regions of barred galaxies as being a unique dynamical phenomenon due to persistent modes in the central region.
Acknowledgements
================
I warmly thank Witold Maciejewski for fruitful discussions during the meeting “The Role of Bars in Galaxy Evolution” in Granada, which revived my long-lived interest in double-barred galaxies, and Isabel Pérez for organizing this productive meeting. I am grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her suggestions that have improved the legibility of the paper. I would also like to acknowledge the *Pôle HPC* (High Performance Computing department) of the University of Strasbourg for supporting this work by providing technical support and access to computing resources. Part of the computing resources were funded by the Equipex Equip@Meso project. Local post-processing resources have been funded by the INSU Programme National Cosmologie & Galaxies.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study exclusive radiative decays of the $\Upsilon$ using soft-collinear effective theory and non-relativistic QCD. In contrast to inclusive radiative decays at the endpoint we find that color-octet contributions are power suppressed in exclusive decays, and can safely be neglected, greatly simplifying the analysis. We determine the complete set of Lorentz structures that can appear in the SCET Wilson coefficients and match onto them using results from a previous calculation. We run these coefficients from the scale ${M_\Upsilon}$ to the scale $\Lambda \sim 1 \, \textrm{GeV}$, thereby summing large logarithms. Finally we use our results to predict the ratio of branching fractions $B(\Upsilon \to \gamma f_2)/B(J/\psi \to \gamma f_2)$, $B(J/\psi \to \gamma f_2)/B(\psi'' \to \gamma f_2)$, and the partial rate for $\Upsilon \to \gamma \pi \pi$.'
author:
- Sean Fleming
- Christopher Lee
- 'Adam K. Leibovich'
date: 'May 18, 2005\'
title: Exclusive Radiative Decays of Upsilon in SCET
---
Introduction
============
In a recent series of papers the differential decay rate for the decay $\Upsilon \to \gamma X$ has been studied in the “endpoint" region where the decay products have a large total energy of order the $\Upsilon$ mass (${M_\Upsilon}$), and a small total invariant mass squared of order $\Lambda {M_\Upsilon}$, where $\Lambda \sim 1 \, \textrm{GeV}$ is the typical hadronic scale [@Bauer:2001rh; @Fleming:2002rv; @Fleming:2002sr; @Fleming:2004rk; @GarciaiTormo:2004jw]. An important tool in this analysis is the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) [@Bauer:2001ew; @Bauer:2001yr; @Bauer:2001ct; @Bauer:2001yt], which is a systematic treatment of the high energy limit of QCD in the framework of effective field theory. Specifically SCET is used to describe the highly energetic decay products in the endpoint region. The heavy $b$ and $\bar{b}$ quarks which form the $\Upsilon$ are described by non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) [@Bodwin:1995jh; @Luke:2000kz].
The soft-collinear effective theory is not limited to applications involving inclusive processes. In fact SCET has been extensively applied to exclusive decays of $B$ mesons into light mesons [@Bauer:2001cu; @Bauer:2002aj; @Chay:2003zp; @Chay:2003ju; @Chay:2003kb; @Mantry:2003uz; @Beneke:2003pa; @Lange:2003pk; @Leibovich:2003tw; @Hill:2004if; @Feldmann:2004mg]. Here we use similar techniques to study exclusive radiative decays of the $\Upsilon$. We make use of some of the results derived in the analysis of inclusive radiative decays in the endpoint region, but the analysis of exclusive decays is complicated by the existence of two different collinear scales. This necessitates a two-step matching procedure [@Bauer:2002aj]. In the first step one matches onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ which describes collinear degrees of freedom with typical offshellness of order $\sqrt{\Lambda {M_\Upsilon}}$, as is appropriate for inclusive decays in the endpoint region as discussed above. In the second step $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ is matched onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$, which is appropriate for exclusive processes since it describes collinear degrees of freedom with typical offshellness of order $\Lambda$.
The analysis of $\Upsilon$ decay is further complicated by the existence of two types of currents: those where the $b\bar{b}$ is in a color-singlet configuration and those where it is in a color-octet configuration. The octet operators are higher-order in the combined NRQCD and SCET power counting, so one might suppose that they can be dropped. However, the octet currents have a Wilson coefficient which is order $\sqrt{\alpha_s({M_\Upsilon})}$ while the singlet current has a Wilson coefficient of order $\alpha_s({M_\Upsilon})$. The additional suppression of the singlet Wilson coefficient is enough so that both color-octet and color-singlet operators must be included as contributions to the inclusive radiative decay rate in the endpoint region [@Fleming:2002rv; @Fleming:2002sr].
In this work we show that in exclusive decays the octet currents are truly suppressed relative to the singlet current and can be neglected. We then determine the minimal set of color-singlet currents which can arise and fix their matching coefficients in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$. We run this current to the intermediate collinear scale $\mu_c \sim \sqrt{\Lambda {M_\Upsilon}}$ and match onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$. Our expression for the decay rate agrees to leading order in the twist expansion used in previous work in QCD [@Baier:1; @Baier:1985wv; @Ma:2001tt]. Finally we use our results to make a prediction for the ratio of branching fractions $B(\Upsilon \to \gamma f_2)/B(J/\psi \to \gamma f_2)$, $B(J/\psi \to \gamma f_2)/B(\psi' \to \gamma f_2)$, and analyze the decay $\Upsilon \to \gamma \pi \pi $ in the kinematic regime where the pions are collinear.
Power Counting
==============
Inclusive Decays
----------------
The first step is to match the QCD amplitude for a $b\bar{b}$ pair in a given color and spin configuration to decay to a photon and light particles onto combined $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ and NRQCD currents. The SCET power-counting is in the parameter $\lambda \sim \sqrt{ \Lambda/M}$, where $M = 2m_b$, while the NRQCD power-counting is in $v$, the relative velocity of the $b\bar b$ pair in the $\Upsilon$. Numerically, $\lambda\sim v \sim1/3$. The matching is shown graphically in Fig. \[matching\_fig\].
![*Matching onto operators in the effective field theory with one and two gluons in the final state. The currents on the left have a color-octet $b\bar{b}$ in either a ${}^1S_0$ or ${}^3P_J$ configuration. The matching for a color-singlet $b\bar{b}$ pair in a ${}^3S_1$ configuration is shown on the right.*[]{data-label="matching_fig"}](match){width="6.5in"}
The effective theory operators can be classified into those with the $b\bar{b}$ in a color-octet configuration (shown on the left-hand side of Fig. \[matching\_fig\]) and those with the $b\bar{b}$ in a color-singlet configuration (shown on the right-hand side of Fig. \[matching\_fig\]). The leading octet operators can be further subdivided into a those where the $b\bar{b}$ is in a ${}^1S_0$ configuration and those where the $b\bar{b}$ is in a ${}^3P_J$ configuration. The octet ${}^1S_0$ operators are [@Fleming:2002rv; @Fleming:2002sr] $$\label{1s0op2}
J_\mu(8,{}^1S_0) =
\sum_i C^{8,{}^1S_0}_i(M,\mu) \Gamma^i_{\alpha \mu}\,
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} B^\alpha_\perp \psi_{\bf p} \,,$$ where $$B_\perp^\mu = -\frac{i}{g_s}W^\dag[\mathcal{P}_\perp^\mu + g_s(A^\mu_{n,q})_\perp]W.$$ The operator ${{\cal P}}^\mu_\perp$ projects out the label momenta in the perpendicular direction [@Bauer:2001ct]. The sum in Eq. (\[1s0op2\]) is over all possible Lorentz structures denoted by $\Gamma^i_{\alpha \mu}$, and $C^{8,{}^1S_0}_i(M,\mu)$ is the corresponding matching coefficient for each structure. The octet ${}^3P_J$ operators are $$\label{3pjop}
J_\mu(8,{}^3P_J) =
\sum_i C^{8,{}^3P_J}_i(M,\mu) \Gamma^i_{\alpha \mu \sigma \delta}
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} B^\alpha_\perp \Lambda \cdot \widehat{{\bf p}}^\sigma
\Lambda \cdot \bsigma^\delta \psi_{\bf p} \,,$$ where $\Lambda$ is a Lorentz boost matrix. Each of these color-octet operators scales as ${\cal O}(\lambda)$ in SCET. The NRQCD power-counting has the ${}^1S_0$ octet operators scaling as ${\cal O}(v^3)$; however, this operator has an overlap with the $\Upsilon$ state beginning at ${\cal O}(v^2)$. Thus the $^1S_0$ operator contributes at order $v^5 \lambda$ to the $\Upsilon$ radiative decay rate. The ${}^3P_J$ octet operator has NRQCD scaling ${\cal O}(v^4)$, but overlaps with the $\Upsilon$ at order $v$. Thus the total power-counting of the $^3P_J$ contribution is ${\cal O}(v^5 \lambda)$, which is the same as the ${}^1S_0$ octet operators. The leading order matching coefficients for both are ${\cal O}(\sqrt{\alpha_s(M)})$.
The color-singlet operators are $$\label{3s1op}
J_\mu(1,{}^3S_1) =
\sum_i \Gamma^i_{\alpha \beta \delta \mu}
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \Lambda\cdot\bsigma^\delta \psi_{\bf p}
{\rm Tr} \big\{ B^\alpha_\perp \,
C^{(1,{}^3S_1)}_i ( M,{\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ) \,
B^\beta_\perp \big\} \,,$$ where ${\bar {\cal P}}_+ = {\bar {\cal P}}^\dagger + {\bar {\cal P}}$, with ${\bar {\cal P}}\equiv {{\bar n}}\cdot{{\cal P}}$. These operators scale as ${\cal O}(\lambda^2)$ in SCET and ${\cal O}(v^3)$ in NRQCD. The leading matching coefficients are ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(M))$. Thus the ratio of color-octet to color-singlet contributions in inclusive radiative $\Upsilon$ decay scales as: $$\label{incrat}
\frac{\textrm{octet}}{\textrm{singlet}} \sim
\frac{v^2}{\lambda \sqrt{\alpha_s(M)}} \sim \frac{v}{\sqrt{\alpha_s(M)}} \,.$$
Exclusive decays
----------------
The situation changes when one considers exclusive decays. The currents we just discussed are $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ currents where the typical invariant mass of the collinear degrees of freedom is of order $\mu_c = \sqrt{M \Lambda}$. In order to have overlap with the meson state we must match onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ currents where the typical invariant mass of collinear particles is ${\cal O}(\Lambda)$. Furthermore, the interpolating field which annihilates the meson state in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ is defined to consist only of collinear fields in a color-singlet configuration [@Bauer:2002aj]. Given these considerations it is simple to match the color-singlet operator in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ to an operator of identical form in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$. However, the matching of the octet contributions from $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ is more involved.
Before we consider the matching of the octet contributions from $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ we turn our attention to the scaling of these contributions in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$. In order to produce a final state consisting only of collinear fields in a color-singlet configuration we need an interaction which changes the ultrasoft (usoft) gluon into a collinear gluon (as shown on the left-hand side of Fig. \[octetmatch\]). This term in the SCET Lagrangian is power suppressed by $\lambda$ so that the time-ordered product of the octet current with the collinear-collinear-usoft vertex scales as ${\cal O}(\lambda^2)$ in the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ power counting. In addition, the exchanged gluon introduces an extra factor of the coupling constant at the matching scale: $\alpha_s(\mu_c)$. Including these factors, the time-ordered product of octet currents with the subleading Lagrangian scales as ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(\mu_c) \sqrt{\alpha_s(M)} \lambda^2 v^5)$, and the ratio of time-ordered products to the singlet contribution is $$\label{excrat}
\frac{\textrm{octet}}{\textrm{singlet}} \sim
\frac{v^2 \alpha_s(\mu_c) }{\sqrt{\alpha_s(M)}} \approx 0.05 \,,$$ for the bottomonium system. For charmonium the above ratio is about 0.2. This result is very different from the result for the inclusive decay given in Eq. (\[incrat\]). In $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ the octet contribution to exclusive radiative $\Upsilon$ decay is not only suppressed in the limit $v,\lambda \to 0$, but numerically suppressed by a factor of $\sim 10$ for typical values of the parameters. This is the same order of suppression we expect from higher order SCET and NRQCD corrections; thus, we should be able to safely neglect the color-octet contribution in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$. However, before we can neglect the octet contribution in our analysis we must show that the suppression of the octet piece holds after matching onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$.
![*An example Feynman diagram of a time-ordered product in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ that matches onto an operator in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ that has a non-zero overlap with the final state collinear meson.*[]{data-label="octetmatch"}](scet2match2){width="4.0in"}
We first turn our attention to the simpler calculation: matching the color-singlet operator. In $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ we perform the field redefinition [@Bauer:2001yt]: $$\label{fieldredef}
A_n \rightarrow Y A^{(0)}_n Y^\dag \,,$$ which decouples usoft from collinear degrees of freedom. Under this field redefinition $$\label{fieldredef2}
B^\alpha_\perp \rightarrow Y B^{(0)\alpha}_\perp Y^\dag\,,$$ and the $Y$’s cancel in the trace of the color singlet operator given in Eq. (\[3s1op\]). Thus we match the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ operator after the field redefinition onto an operator in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ of a form identical to that in Eq. (\[3s1op\]): $$\label{3s1opII}
J_\mu^{(II)}(1,{}^3S_1) = \sum_i \Gamma^i_{\alpha \beta \delta \mu}
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \Lambda\cdot\bsigma^\delta \psi_{\bf p}
{\rm Tr} \big\{ B^\alpha_{\textrm{II} \perp} \,
C^{(1,{}^3S_1)}_i ( M,{\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu_c) \,
B^\beta_{\textrm{II} \perp} \big\} \,.$$ where $\mu_c = \sqrt{ M \Lambda}$ is the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$–$\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ matching scale, and the subscripts indicate $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ fields. From now on we drop the subscripts. In $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ the power-counting parameter is $\eta \sim \lambda^2$, and the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ color-singlet operator in Eq. (\[3s1opII\]) is ${\cal O}(v^3 \eta^2)$. The short-distance coefficient is inherited from $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ and is ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(M))$.
The matching of the color-octet current is more complicated. In order to match onto an $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ operator with color-singlet collinear degrees of freedom we must consider time-ordered products where a usoft gluon radiated from the $b\bar{b}$ pair is turned into a final state collinear degree of freedom. An example of such a diagram is given in Fig. \[octetmatch\]. Two collinear gluons are required for the collinear final state to be color-singlet. One of the collinear gluons comes from the octet current, and the other can be produced by pulling a gluon out of the $b\bar b g$ Fock state of the $\Upsilon$, and kicking it with a collinear gluon from the current. This requires a collinear-collinear-ultrasoft coupling which first appears at order $\lambda$ in the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ Lagrangian [@Chay:2002vy; @Beneke:2002ph; @Pirjol:2002km]: $$\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)} = \frac{2}{g^2}\operatorname{Tr}\left\{[i\mathcal{D}^\mu, iD_{us}^{\perp\nu}][i\mathcal{D}_\mu, iD_{c\nu}^\perp]\right\},$$ where $\mathcal{D}^\mu = D_c^\mu + n{\!\cdot\!}D_{us}\bar n^\mu/2$. The decay amplitude comes from a time-ordered product of the color-octet current and $\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}$, or a time-ordered product of the color-octet current, $\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}$, and a leading order gluon interaction. Though our result will hold for either type of time-ordered product we will, for the sake of concreteness, only consider the former: $$\label{top1}
T_8 = \int d^4 x \, T\left\{J(8,\cdot)(0),\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}(x)\right\},$$ where the dot stands for $^1S_0$ or $^3P_J$. In the time-ordered product two gluon fields are contracted to form the internal propagator in Fig. \[octetmatch\], which scales as $1/\lambda^2$. We require two uncontracted $A_{c\nu}^\perp$ fields (in a color-singlet configuration) so that we can match onto an $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ operator in the form ${\rm Tr}[A_{c\mu}^\perp A_{c\nu}^\perp]$ which annihilates the final state collinear meson. In this example the leading contribution is an $\bar n\cdot A_n$ gluon field in one of the Wilson lines in $J(8,\cdot)$ contracted with an $n\cdot A_n$ field in $\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}$. After the contraction what remains in $\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}$ is $$\label{leftover}
\frac{2}{g^2}\operatorname{Tr}\left\{[gT^A, A_{us}^{\perp\nu}][{\bar {\cal P}}, A_{c\nu}^\perp]\right\},$$ which scales as $(\lambda^2)(1)(\lambda) = \lambda^3$. Note we now have the correct field content for the operator shown on the right-hand side of Fig. \[octetmatch\]: there are two outgoing $A^c_\perp$ fields, one from $\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}$ and one from $J(8,\cdot )$, in a color-singlet configuration, and an incoming soft gluon field also from $\mathcal{L}_{cg}^{(1)}$.
Next we decouple collinear and usoft in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ through the field redefinition in Eq. (\[fieldredef\]). This introduces factors of $Y$ and $Y^\dagger$ into our expressions. When matching onto $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ these become soft Wilson lines $S$ and $S^\dagger$. Since these Wilson lines do not affect the power counting we ignore them. Now we can match onto a convolution of $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ operators with $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$–$\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ matching coefficients. Since these arise from integrating out the internal collinear propagators they scale as $\lambda^{-2}$ for each propagator. In our example there is one propagator so the matching coefficient scales as ${\cal O}(\lambda^{-2})$, which is ${\cal O}(\eta^{-1})$ in the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ power counting (remember $\eta\sim\lambda^2$). Since the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ operator has two $A_{c\nu}^\perp$ fields each scaling as $\eta$, and a soft field scaling as $\eta$, it scales as $\eta^3$. Combining the scaling of the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ operator with the scaling of the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$–$\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ matching coefficient gives an ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(\mu_c) \eta^2)$ contribution. If we include the order $v^5$ NRQCD scaling from the heavy sector, and the ${\cal O}(\sqrt{\alpha_s(M)})$ contribution from the QCD–$\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$ matching coefficient the color-octet contribution to exclusive decays scales as ${\cal O}(v^5 \eta^2 \sqrt{\alpha_s(M)} \alpha_s(\mu_c))$ in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$. Taking the ratio of the color-octet to the color-singlet contribution to exclusive $\Upsilon$ decay in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ we find: $$\frac{\textrm{octet}}{\textrm{singlet}} \sim \frac{v^2 \alpha_s(\mu_c)}{\sqrt{\alpha_s(M)}} \,,$$ which is the same scaling we found in $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm I}$. Thus we can safely neglect the color-octet contributions at this order.
Complete Basis of Color-Singlet Matching Coefficients
=====================================================
Now that the color-octet contribution has been eliminated we determine a complete basis of Lorentz structures $\Gamma^i_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}$ that can appear in the color-singlet matching coefficient in Eq. (\[3s1op\]). At leading order in $\alpha_s(M)$ only one Lorentz structure was found to be non-zero [@Fleming:2002rv]: $$\label{matchcoeff1}
C_1^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega) \Gamma^1_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu} =
\frac{4 g^2_s e e_b}{3 M} g^\perp_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\delta} \,.$$ However, at higher order other Lorentz structures may appear. These coefficients can be constructed from the set: $$\label{set}
\{ g_{\mu\nu}, n_\mu, \bar n_\mu, v_\mu \} \,,$$ where $v$ is the four-velocity of the $\Upsilon$, under the restriction that $\Gamma^i_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu}$ satisfies the appropriate symmetries. For example, the full theory amplitude is parity even, as is the effective theory operator, meaning that the matching coefficient must also be parity even. As a result the epsilon tensor is not included in Eq. (\[set\]). We treat $v$ as an object independent of $n,\bar n$ [@Pirjol:2002km], and use $n^2 = \bar n^2 = 0$, $n\cdot\bar n = 2$, and $v^2 = 1$. Before we write down all the possible operators which can appear we note some simple properties that will make our task more manageable. First we note that $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu}$ must be symmetric in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. To see this consider the object: $$\label{blah}
\sum_\omega C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega) \Gamma^i_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu}
\operatorname{Tr}(B_\perp^\alpha \delta_{\omega, {\bar {\cal P}}_{+}} B_\perp^\beta) \,.$$ which is the collinear part of the color-singlet operator where a sum over $\omega$ has been introduced. First interchange $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and then use the cyclic nature of the trace to switch the two $B_\perp$ fields. Note, however, there is a projection on these fields from the operator in the Kronecker delta involving ${\bar {\cal P}}_{+}$. Since ${\bar {\cal P}}_{+} = {\bar {\cal P}}^\dagger + {\bar {\cal P}}$ this operator projects out minus the label on $B_\perp^\alpha$ and projects out the label on $B_\perp^\beta$ [@Bauer:2001ct]. To preserve this relationship when the order of the fields is switched we must let $\delta_{\omega, {\bar {\cal P}}_{+}} \to \delta_{\omega, -{\bar {\cal P}}_{+}}$. By letting $\omega \to -\omega$ we have $\delta_{-\omega, -{\bar {\cal P}}_{+}} = \delta_{\omega, {\bar {\cal P}}_{+}}$, and the operator goes into itself. However, the Wilson coefficient is now $C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,-\omega)$. To demonstrate that Eq. (\[blah\]) is symmetric under $\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta$ we must show that $C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega)$ is even in $\omega$. We use charge conjugation for this. The heavy quark sector of the operator has charge conjugation $C=-1$ as does the photon. As noted in Ref. [@Novikov:1977dq] two gluons in a color-singlet configuration must have $C$ even. Since QCD is charge conjugation conserving the product of operator and coefficient in Eq. (\[blah\]) must also be $C$ even. This is the case if the matching coefficient $ C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega) \Gamma^i_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu}$ is $C$ even. Following Ref. [@Bauer:2002nz], under charge conjugation the above product of operator and coefficient goes to itself with $\omega \to -\omega$ in the coefficient function. Thus charge conjugation implies $C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,-\omega) = C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega)$, and as a result Eq. (\[blah\]) is symmetric in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Second, any $v_\delta$ appearing in $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu}$ gives zero contribution to the operator, since $v\cdot\Lambda = 0$. Third, $n_\alpha,\bar n_\alpha$ (and by symmetry $n_\beta, \bar n_\beta$) appearing in the operator also gives a zero contribution since these indices contract with indices on the $B_\perp$ field. Finally, we use reparameterization invariance (RPI) of SCET [@Chay:2002vy; @Manohar:2002fd]. The terms satisfying these requirements are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coeff1}
\sum_i C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega) \Gamma^i_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu} & =
c_1 g_{\alpha\beta}g_{\delta\mu} + c_2 g_{\alpha\beta}\frac{n_\delta n_\mu}{(n\cdot v)^2} + c_3 g_{\alpha\beta}\frac{n_\delta v_\mu}{n\cdot v} \\
& \hspace{-15ex}
+c_4\biggl[\left(g_{\alpha\mu}-\frac{v_\alpha n_\mu}{n\cdot v}\right)\left(g_{\beta\delta}-\frac{v_\beta n_\delta}{n\cdot v}\right) + \left(g_{\alpha\delta}-\frac{v_\alpha n_\delta}{n\cdot v}\right)\left(g_{\beta\mu}-\frac{v_\beta n_\mu}{n\cdot v}\right)\biggr] \,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ So far we have allowed $v$ to be an arbitrary vector. Now we restrict ourselves to a frame where $v_\perp^\mu$ = 0. Furthermore we are interested in the case where the photon is real, so we can restrict the photon to have transverse polarizations. This leaves only two linearly independent terms: $$\label{coefftrans}
\sum_i C_i^{(1,{}^3S_1)}(M,\omega) \Gamma^i_{\alpha\beta\delta\mu} = a^g_1 g^\perp_{\alpha\beta}g^\perp_{\delta\mu} + a^g_2\left( g^\perp_{\alpha\delta}g^\perp_{\beta\mu} + g^\perp_{\alpha\mu}g^\perp_{\beta\delta} - g^\perp_{\alpha\beta}g^\perp_{\delta\mu}\right)\,,$$ where $g^{\mu\nu}_\perp = g^{\mu\nu}-(n^\mu {{\bar n}}^\nu + {{\bar n}}^\mu n^\nu)/2$. The first term projects out the trace part of the $\operatorname{Tr}(B_\perp^\alpha \delta_{\omega, {\bar {\cal P}}_{+}} B_\perp^\beta)$ operator, while the second term projects out the symmetric traceless component. Since the Lorentz symmetry in the perpendicular components is not broken in SCET these two terms do not mix under renormalization. The leading-order matching fixes the coefficients $a_1$ and $a_2$ to order $\alpha_s$: $$\label{matchcoeff}
a^g_1({\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu = M) = \frac{4g^2_s e e_b}{3M}, \hspace{10ex}
a^g_2({\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu = M) = 0 \,.$$ Since there is no mixing, $a_2=0 + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2(M))$ at all scales. Note this matching assumes the $\Upsilon$ states are non-relativistically normalized: $\langle \Upsilon (P') | \Upsilon (P) \rangle = \delta^3(P-P')$.
In addition to gluon operators we must consider the basis of all possible quark operators which can appear in radiative $\Upsilon$ decays $$\label{quarkcur}
J_\mu^q (1,{}^3S_1) = \sum_{i} \chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \Lambda\cdot\bsigma^\delta \psi_{\bf p}
\bar{\xi}_{n,p_1} W \Gamma^i_{\mu \delta} (M,{\bar {\cal P}}_+) W^\dagger \xi_{n,p_2} \,.$$ The basis of Dirac structures, $\{ \bnslash , \bnslash \gamma_5 , \bnslash \gamma^\mu_\perp \}$, was given in Ref. [@Bauer:2002nz], and the most general basis of quark operators can then be constructed out of these Dirac structures and the set $\{ \epsilon_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}, g_{\mu\nu}, n_\mu, \bar n_\mu, v_\mu \}$. Using the symmetries of SCET and RPI we find $$\sum_{i} \Gamma^i_{\mu \delta} =
a^q_1 \frac{\bnslash}{2} g^\perp_{\mu\delta} +
a^q_2 \frac{\bnslash}{2} \gamma_5 \epsilon^\perp_{\mu\delta} +
a^q_3 \frac{\bnslash}{2} \gamma^\perp_{\mu} n_{\delta} \,.$$ The first term transforms as a scalar, the second term transforms as a pseudoscalar, and the third as a vector. The matching coefficients at the scale $\mu = M$ for the quark operators in radiative $\Upsilon$ decay are all zero at leading order in perturbation theory, but the scalar quark operator mixes with the scalar gluon operator through renormalization group running and can be generated in this manner. The pseudoscalar and vector term do not mix with the scalar gluon operator due to Lorentz symmetry and will not be generated at this order in the perturbative matching.
Decay Rates & Phenomenology
===========================
We now consider the phenomenological implications of our analysis for exclusive radiative decays of quarkonium into either a single meson or a pair of mesons which are collinear. The $(n+1)$-body decay rate is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma (\Upsilon \to \gamma F_n ) &=& \frac{1}{2{M_\Upsilon}} \int \frac{d^3{\mathbf{q}}}{2 E_{\gamma} (2\pi)^3}
\prod^n_i \frac{d^3{\mathbf{p}}_i}{2 E_i (2\pi)^3} (2 \pi )^4 \delta^4(P - q - \sum^n_i p_i)
{\nonumber}\\
& & \hspace{10ex} \times
| \langle \gamma(q) p_1 ... p_n | J^\mu\mathcal{A}_\mu | \Upsilon(P) \rangle |^2\end{aligned}$$ where $J$ is the QCD current, $\mathcal{A}$ is the photon field, and $F_n$ denotes an exclusive final state consisting of $n$ collinear particles. We consider only decay rates where the final state momenta $p_i$ are all collinear with combined invariant mass $m^2_n = (\sum^n_i p_i)^2 \sim \Lambda$. The effective theory decay rate is obtained by matching the current $J$ onto the $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ current given in Eq. (\[3s1opII\]) plus a quark operator: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{currmatch}
& & \langle \gamma(q) p_1 ... p_n | J^\mu\mathcal{A}_\mu | \Upsilon(P) \rangle
{\nonumber}\\
& \to &
\sum_i \Gamma^i_{\alpha \beta \delta \mu} \langle \gamma(q) p_1 ... p_n |
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \Lambda{\!\cdot\!}\bsigma^\delta \psi_{\bf p}
{\rm Tr} \big\{ B^\alpha_{\perp} \,
C^{(1,{}^3S_1)}_i ( {\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu) \,
B^\beta_{ \perp} \big\} \mathcal{A}^\mu | \Upsilon(P) \rangle
{\nonumber}\\
& & + \sum_i \langle \gamma(q) p_1 ... p_n |
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \Lambda{\!\cdot\!}\bsigma^\delta \psi_{\bf p}
\bar{\xi}_{n,p_1} W \Gamma^i_{\mu \delta} (M,{\bar {\cal P}}_+) W^\dagger \xi_{n,p_2}
\mathcal{A}^\mu| \Upsilon(P) \rangle
{\nonumber}\\
& = &
{\langle 0\rvert}\chi_{-{\mathbf{p}}}^\dag\Lambda{\!\cdot\!}\bsigma^\delta\psi_{{\mathbf{p}}}{\lvert \Upsilon(P)\rangle}
{\langle \gamma(q)\rvert}\mathcal{A}^\mu{\lvert 0\rangle}g^\perp_{\delta\mu} {\nonumber}\\
& & \times\bigg[ \langle p_1 ... p_n | {\rm Tr} \big\{ B^\alpha_{\perp} \,
a^g_1( {\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu) \,
B_\alpha^{ \perp} \big\} | 0 \rangle + \langle p_1 ... p_n | \bar{\xi}_{n,p_1} W \frac{\bnslash}{2} \, \frac{a^q_1( {\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu)}M \,
W^\dagger \xi_{n,p_2} | 0 \rangle
\bigg] \,.\end{aligned}$$ In obtaining the second line we make use of the results in Eqs. (\[coefftrans\]) and (\[matchcoeff\]), and use the properties of $\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}$ to factor soft and collinear degrees of freedom. In the last line we changed to a nonrelativistic normalization for the $\Upsilon$ state.
Next we define the light-cone wave functions $$\label{wfdefs}
\begin{split}
{\langle p_1\dots p_n\rvert} \mathcal{\bar P}\operatorname{Tr}[B_\perp^\alpha \delta_{\omega,\mathcal{P}_+} B^\perp_\alpha]{\lvert 0\rangle} &= M^{3-n} \phi_g^{F_n}(x), \\
{\langle p_1\dots p_n\rvert}\bar\xi_{n,\omega_1} W \frac{\bnslash}{2}\delta_{\omega,{\bar {\cal P}}_+} W^\dag\xi_{n,\omega_2} {\lvert 0\rangle} &= M^{3-n}\phi_q^{F_n}(x) \,,
\end{split}$$ where states are relativistically normalized, and the discrete label $\omega$ is converted to a continuous one, $x = \omega/\bar{n}{\!\cdot\!}p$, as explained in Ref. [@Fleming:2004rk]. The wave functions $\phi_{q,g}^{F_n}$ are dimensionless. See Appendix \[app:lc\] for the relation of these SCET light-cone wave functions to those conventionally defined in QCD. Then the collinear matrix elements in brackets in Eq. (\[currmatch\]) can be written as the convolution: $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\langle p_1 ... p_n | {\rm Tr} \big\{ B^\alpha_{\perp} \,
a^g_1( {\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu) \,
B_\alpha^{ \perp} \big\} | 0 \rangle
+ \langle p_1 ... p_n | \bar{\xi}_{n,p_1} W \frac{\bnslash}{2} \, a^q_1( {\bar {\cal P}}_{+} ; \mu) \,
W^\dagger \xi_{n,p_2} | 0 \rangle
{\nonumber}\\
& & =
M^{2-n}\int^1_{-1} dx \, \big( a_1^g(x;\mu) \phi^{F_n}_g(x;\mu) + a_1^q(x;\mu) \phi^{F_n}_q(x;\mu) \big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The dependence on the scale $\mu$ cancels between the long-distance matching coefficients and the wave function. We will elaborate on this point in a moment. First we expand both $a^{g/q}_1(x;\mu)$ and $\phi^{F_n}_{g/q}(x;\mu)$ in Gegenbauer polynomials: $$\begin{aligned}
a_1^q(x;\mu) &=& \sum_{n\textrm{ odd}}a_q^{(n)}(\mu)C_n^{3/2}(x) \,,
{\nonumber}\\
a_1^g(x;\mu) &=& \sum_{n\textrm{ odd}}a_g^{(n)}(\mu)(1-x^2)C_{n-1}^{5/2}(x) \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\phi_q^{F_n}(x;\mu) &=& \sum_{n\textrm{ odd}}b_q^{(n)}(\mu)(1-x^2)C_n^{3/2}(x) \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\phi_g^{F_n}(x;\mu) &=& \sum_{n\textrm{ odd}}b_g^{(n)}(\mu)(1-x^2)C_{n-1}^{5/2}(x) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Then the convolution becomes an infinite sum of products of Gegenbauer coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gegenbauer}
&& \int^1_{-1} dx \big( a_1^g(x;\mu) \phi^{F_n}_g(x;\mu) + a_1^q(x;\mu) \phi^{F_n}_q(x;\mu) \big)
{\nonumber}\\
&& = \sum_{n\textrm{ odd}} \big( f^{(n)}_{5/2} a_g^{(n)}(\mu) b_g^{(n)}(\mu) +
f^{(n)}_{3/2} a_q^{(n)}(\mu) b_q^{(n)}(\mu)\big) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$f^{(n)}_{5/2} = \frac{n(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)}{9(n+3/2)} \,, \hspace{5ex}
f^{(n)}_{3/2} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{n+3/2} \,.$$ We now return to the question of the scale. Here we pick $\mu \sim \Lambda$ which minimizes logarithms in the wave function; however, large logarithms of $M/\Lambda$ then appear in the Wilson coefficients. These large logarithms are summed using the renormalization group equations in SCET. This calculation was carried out in Ref. [@Fleming:2004rk], and we only quote the results here. We find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{resum}
&& \int^1_{-1} dx \big( a_1^g(x;\mu) \phi^{F_n}_g(x;\mu) + a_1^q(x;\mu) \phi^{F_n}_q(x;\mu) \big)
{\nonumber}\\
&& = \frac{4}{3} a_1^g(M) \sum_{n\textrm{ odd}} \bigg\{ \bigg[
\gamma^{(n)}_+ \bigg( \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(M)} \bigg)^{2 \lambda^{(n)}_+/\beta_0} -
\gamma^{(n)}_- \bigg( \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(M)} \bigg)^{2 \lambda^{(n)}_-/\beta_0} \bigg]
b_g^{(n)}(\mu)
{\nonumber}\\
&& \hspace{10ex} +
\frac{f^{(n)}_{3/2}}{f^{(n)}_{5/2}} \frac{\gamma^{(n)}_{gq}}{\Delta^{(n)}} \bigg[
\bigg( \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(M)} \bigg)^{2 \lambda^{(n)}_+/\beta_0} -
\bigg( \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(M)} \bigg)^{2 \lambda^{(n)}_-/\beta_0} \bigg]
b_q^{(n)}(\mu) \bigg\} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_0 &=& 11 - \frac{2n_f}{3} \,, {\nonumber}\\
\gamma_\pm^{(n)} &=& \frac{\gamma_{gg}^{(n)} - \lambda_\mp^{(n)}}{\Delta^{(n)}} \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\lambda_\pm^{(n)} &=& \frac{1}{2}\left[\gamma_{gg}^{(n)} + \gamma_{q\bar q}^{(n)} \pm \Delta^{(n)}\right] \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\Delta^{(n)} &=& \sqrt{\left(\gamma_{gg}^{(n)} - \gamma_{q\bar q}^{(n)}\right)^2 + 4\gamma_{gq}^{(n)}\gamma_{qg}^{(n)}} \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\gamma_{q\bar q}^{(n)} &=& C_F\left[\frac{1}{(n+1)(n+2)} - \frac{1}{2} - 2\sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\frac{1}{i}\right] \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\gamma_{gq}^{(n)} &=& \frac{C_F}{3}\frac{n^2+3n+4}{(n+1)(n+2)} \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\gamma_{qg}^{(n)} &=& 3n_f\frac{n^2+3n+4}{n(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)} \,,
{\nonumber}\\
\gamma_{gg}^{(n)} &=& C_A\left[\frac{2}{n(n+1)} + \frac{2}{(n+2)(n+3)} - \frac{1}{6} - 2\sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\frac{1}{i}\right] - \frac{n_f}{3}.\end{aligned}$$ The quantities $\lambda^{(n)}_\pm$ which appear in the exponents in Eq. (\[resum\]) are negative for any $n >1$. Furthermore $\lambda^{(1)}_- < 0$, while $\lambda^{(1)}_+ = 0$. This property allows us to consider the asymptotic limit $M \gg\Lambda$, where $\alpha_s(M) \to 0$. Then $$\begin{split}
\lim_{M \to \infty} \int_{-1}^1 dx
&\left[a_1^g(x;\mu)\phi_g^{F_n}(x;\mu) + a_1^q(x;\mu)\phi_q^{F_n}(x;\mu)\right] \\
&\longrightarrow
\frac{16}{3} \frac{C_F}{4C_F + n_f}
a_1^g(M)\left[b_g^{(1)}(\Lambda) + \frac{3}{4}b_q^{(1)}(\Lambda)\right] \equiv B^{F_{n}} a_1^g(M),
\end{split}$$ which defines a nonperturbative parameter $B^{F_n}$. However, for values of $M$ around the $\Upsilon$ mass this is not a very good approximation, and for values around the $J/\psi$ mass a much better approximation is to assume no running at all.
Two body decay: $\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2$
-----------------------------------------------
Having taken care of the technical details we can now use the above results to study the two body radiative decay $\Upsilon \to \gamma F_1$. The decay rate is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2body}
\Gamma (\Upsilon \to \gamma F_1 )_{\textrm{SCET}_{\rm II}} & = & \frac{1}{16\pi}
{\langle \Upsilon \rvert} \psi_{{\bf p}'}^\dagger \sigma_\perp^i \chi_{-{\bf p}'}
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \sigma_\perp^i \psi_{\bf p} {\lvert \Upsilon\rangle}
{\nonumber}\\
& & \times
\bigg[ \int^1_{-1} dx \big( a_1^g(x;\mu) \phi^{F_1}_g(x;\mu) + a_1^q(x;\mu) \phi^{F_1}_q(x;\mu) \big) \bigg]^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the full expression for the term in brackets is given in Eq. (\[resum\]). After factoring, the soft matrix element involving the heavy quark fields was further simplified using the vacuum insertion approximation for the quarkonium sector, which holds up to corrections of order $v^4$ [@Bodwin:1995jh]. Note that the operator above overlaps only with the $\lambda=\pm 1$ helicities of the $\Upsilon$. Then using the rotation symmetries of NRQCD [@Braaten:1996jt] we can relate the non-relativistic matrix element above to those conventionally used: $${\langle \Upsilon \rvert} \psi_{{\bf p}'}^\dagger \sigma_\perp^i \chi_{-{\bf p}'}
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \sigma_\perp^i \psi_{\bf p} {\lvert \Upsilon\rangle} =
\frac{2}{3} {\langle \Upsilon \rvert} {\cal O}(1,{}^3S_1) {\lvert \Upsilon\rangle} \,.$$ For the final state meson $F_1$ to have nonzero overlap with the operators in Eq. (\[wfdefs\]) it must be flavor singlet, parity even and charge conjugation even. One candidate with the correct quantum numbers is the $f_2(1270)$. Furthermore this decay has been measured both in $\Upsilon$ and $J/\psi$ radiative decay, which is why we consider it. An interesting point is that only the helicity $\lambda =0$ component of the $f_2$ contributes at the order to which we are working. To see this begin by considering the decomposition of the following gluon matrix element into all possible light-cone form-factors: $$\label{f2formfact}
{\langle f_2\rvert}\operatorname{Tr}[B_\perp^\alpha B_\perp^\beta]{\lvert 0\rangle} =
A(e(\lambda))g_\perp^{\alpha\beta} + B_\lambda e_\perp^{\alpha\beta}(\lambda),$$ where $e^{\alpha\beta}$ is the symmetric-traceless polarization tensor of the $f_2$. We give the explicit form in Appendix \[sec:pol\]. There are only two form factors above since the matrix element must be decomposed into tensors that have non-zero perpendicular components. The only structures available are $g_\perp^{\alpha\beta}$ and $e_\perp^{\alpha\beta}$. For $\lambda=\pm 1$, $e_\perp^{\mu\nu}(\lambda=\pm 1) = 0$, so this helicity component does not appear at this order. The coefficient $A(e(\lambda))$ is a scalar function which can be constructed from $\operatorname{Tr}(e_\perp)$ and ${{\bar n}}_\alpha n_\beta e^{\alpha\beta}$. Because the helicity-zero polarization tensor has the property that $e_\perp^{\mu\nu}(\lambda = 0)\propto g_\perp^{\mu\nu}$, and the helicity-two polarization tensor has $\operatorname{Tr}(e_\perp) = 0$ and ${{\bar n}}_\alpha n_\beta e^{\alpha\beta}= 0$, we can fix the normalization of the coefficient $A(e(\lambda))$ so that the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[f2formfact\]) parameterizes the $\lambda = 0$ contribution while the second term parameterizes the $\lambda = \pm 2$ contributions. The helicity-zero piece is picked out by the $a_1 g_\perp^{\alpha\beta}$ term in Eq. (\[coefftrans\]), while the helicity-two piece is picked out by the $a_2$ term. Thus at leading order in perturbation theory, the dominant decay should be to the helicity-zero component of the $f_2$.
The NRQCD matrix element in Eq. (\[2body\]) can be expressed in terms of the leptonic decay width of the $\Upsilon$. At leading order, $$\Gamma(\Upsilon\rightarrow e^+ e^-) = \frac{8\pi\alpha^2 e_b^2}{3 M^2}{\langle \Upsilon\rvert} {\cal O}(1,{}^3S_1) {\lvert \Upsilon\rangle} \,,$$ and the decay rate for $\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2$ can be expressed as: $$\Gamma(\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2) = \frac{16\pi\alpha_s(M)^2}{9\alpha}(B^{f_2})^2\Gamma(\Upsilon\rightarrow e^+ e^-)\,.$$ We can repeat the same analysis for the decay rate $\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2)$ and form a ratio of branching fractions, which in the asymptotic limit is: $$\frac{B(\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2)}{B(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2)} = \left[\frac{\alpha_s(M_{b\bar{b}})}{\alpha_s(M_{c\bar{c}})}\right]^2\left(\frac{4 C_F + 3}{4C_F+4}\right)^2\frac{B(\Upsilon\rightarrow e^+ e^-)}{B(J/\psi\rightarrow e^+ e^-)}\,,$$ where $M_{Q\bar{Q} } = 2 m_Q$. Using $m_b = 4.1-4.4$ GeV, $m_c = 1.15-1.35$ GeV, $B(\Upsilon\rightarrow e^+e^-) = (2.38\pm 0.11)\times 10^{-2}$, and $B(J/\psi\rightarrow e^+e^-) = (5.93\pm 0.10)\times 10^{-2}$ [@Eidelman:2004wy], we predict the ratio of branching fractions to be in the range: $$\label{ratioasymptotic}
\left[\frac{B(\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2)}{B(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2)}\right]_{M\rightarrow\infty} = 0.14-0.19\,.$$ As was mentioned earlier the asymptotic limit is not particularly good for the $\Upsilon$, and quite bad for the $J/\psi$. As a consequence we consider the scenario where the resummation of logarithms is neglected. In this case the ratio of branching fractions lies in the range $$\label{nologs}
\frac{B(\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2)}{B(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2)} = 0.18 - 0.23\,.$$ We can improve this approximation by keeping more terms in the resummed formula in Eq. (\[resum\]). The dominant term is the part of the $n=1$ term proportional to $b_g^{(1)}(\mu)$, and in this approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ratioimproved}
\frac{B(\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2)}{B(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2)} &=& \left[\frac{\alpha_s(M_{b\bar{b}})}{\alpha_s(M_{c\bar{c}})}\right]^2
\left[\frac{ \gamma_+^{(1)} -
\gamma_-^{(1)} \big( \alpha_s(\mu ) / \alpha_s(M_{b\bar{b}}) \big)^{2 \lambda_-^{(1)}/\beta_0^{n_f=4}} }
{ \gamma_+^{(1)} -
\gamma_-^{(1)} \big( \alpha_s(\mu ) / \alpha_s(M_{c\bar{c}}) \big)^{2 \lambda_-^{(1)}/\beta_0^{n_f=3}} }
\right]^2
\frac{B(\Upsilon\rightarrow e^+ e^-)}{B(J/\psi\rightarrow e^+ e^-)}
{\nonumber}\\
&=& 0.13 - 0.18\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu\sim 1$ GeV. The range of values has not changed much from Eq. (\[ratioasymptotic\]); however, theoretical errors are reduced: corrections to Eq. (\[ratioimproved\]) from the $b_q^{(1)}$ and higher-order terms in Eq. (\[resum\]) are estimated to be roughly $40\%$, while corrections to the infinite mass limit from higher order terms are estimated to be roughly $80\%$. Corrections to Eq. (\[nologs\]) are hard to estimate; however, the range of values obtained give a rough upper limit on the ratio of branching ratios. In addition there are theory errors from neglecting higher-order terms in the perturbative expansion, as well as in the expansions in $v$ and $\eta$. Our prediction can be compared to the measured value of $0.06\pm 0.03$, using the measurements $B(\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma f_2) = (8\pm 4)\times 10^{-5}$ and $B(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2) = (1.38\pm 0.14)\times 10^{-3}$ [@Eidelman:2004wy]. Given the theoretical errors we can only conclude that our prediction does not disagree with data.
Our predictions for the ratios of $\Upsilon$ and $J/\psi$ branching fractions to $\gamma f_2$ are consistent with the results of Refs. [@Baier:1; @Baier:1985wv; @Ma:2001tt] at leading order in the twist expansion used therein. In particular, we reproduce the suppression of the helicities ${\left\lvert \lambda\right\rvert} = 1,2$ in the final state relative to $\lambda = 0$. In contrast with Ref. [@Ma:2001tt], we extract the NRQCD color-singlet matrix elements from the leptonic decay widths of $\Upsilon$ and $J/\psi$ instead of the decay widths to light hadrons, for which corrections from color-octet contributions must be taken into account for a reliable calculation [@Gremm:1997dq]. The leptonic decay width, however, receives large corrections at NNLO in perturbation theory [@Beneke:1997jm; @Czarnecki:1997vz]. In either case, one hopes that the uncertainties are mitigated in taking the ratios of branching fractions.
We can also compare the decay rates of $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ to $\gamma f_2$ predicted by Eq. (\[2body\]) at the matching scale $\mu = M$, where $a_1^q(x;M) = 0$ and $a_1^g(x;M)$ is a constant. Dependence on the integral of the wave function $\phi_g^{f_2}(x;M)$ cancels out in the ratio of branching fractions: $$\frac{B(J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_2)}{B(\psi'\rightarrow\gamma f_2)} = \frac{B(J/\psi\rightarrow e^+ e^-)}{B(\psi'\rightarrow e^+ e^-)} = 7.85\pm 0.35\,,$$ while the measured value is $6.57\pm 1.42$. We used $B(\psi'\rightarrow e^+ e^-) = (7.55\pm 0.31)\times 10^{-3}$ and $B(\psi'\rightarrow \gamma f_2) = (2.1\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-4}$ [@Eidelman:2004wy].
Three body decay: $\Upsilon\rightarrow\gamma\pi\pi$
---------------------------------------------------
Next we consider a two pion final state in the kinematic region where the pions are collinear to each other with large energy and small total invariant mass $m_{\pi\pi} \sim \Lambda$. In this case we we have a three body final state where the two pions are collinear. It is convenient to define the variables: $${m_{\pi\pi}^2}= (p_1 + p_2)^2 \,, \qquad z = \frac{\bar n{\!\cdot\!}p_1}{{M_\Upsilon}} \,.$$ In terms of these variables the differential decay rate is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{temp}
\frac{d\Gamma}{d{m_{\pi\pi}^2}\,dz} &=& \frac{1}{512\pi^3{M_\Upsilon}^2}
{\langle \Upsilon \rvert} \psi_{{\bf p}'}^\dagger \sigma_\perp^i \chi_{-{\bf p}'}
\chi^\dagger_{-{\bf p}} \sigma_\perp^i \psi_{\bf p} {\lvert \Upsilon\rangle}
{\nonumber}\\
& & \times
\bigg[ \int^1_{-1} dx \big( a_1^g(x;\mu) \phi^{\pi\pi}_g(x;\mu) + a_1^q(x;\mu) \phi^{\pi\pi}_q(x;\mu) \big) \bigg]^2\end{aligned}$$ to leading order in ${m_{\pi\pi}^2}/{M_\Upsilon}^2$. The properties of the meson pair light-cone wave function $\phi^{\pi\pi}$ have been investigated in Refs. [@Grozin:1986at; @Grozin:1983tt], which interestingly find that in the region where $\Lambda \ll m_{\pi\pi} \ll {M_\Upsilon}$ they are given by an integral over two single-particle wave functions. The ratio of the $\Upsilon$ and $J/\psi$ rates to $\gamma\pi\pi$ in the kinematic region of low ${m_{\pi\pi}^2}$ is numerically the ratio in Eq. (\[ratioimproved\]) times an extra factor of $m_c^2/m_b^2 \sim 0.07 - 0.1$, that is, $0.01 - 0.02$. This suppression is due to the much larger total phase space available in $\Upsilon \to \gamma\pi\pi$ relative to that in $\Upsilon \to \gamma f_2$. No $\Upsilon\to\gamma\pi\pi$ events have yet been observed in the region ${m_{\pi\pi}^2}< (1.0\text{ GeV})^2$ [@Anastassov:1998vs].
Conclusions
===========
We have systematically analyzed the exclusive radiative decays of quarkonium to energetic light mesons within the framework of soft-collinear effective theory and non-relativistic QCD to leading order in the effective theory power counting, as well as to leading order in the strong coupling. We show that color-octet contributions are suppressed by a factor of $v^2 \alpha_s(\mu_c) / \sqrt{\alpha_s(M)} \approx 0.05$ in exclusive $\Upsilon$ decays, and can therefore be safely neglected. This is different from the situation in inclusive radiative decays in the endpoint region where octet contributions must be kept.
We then turn to the color-singlet contribution. The tree-level matching onto this operator is carried out in Refs. [@Fleming:2002rv; @Fleming:2002sr]; however, the authors do not consider the complete set of operators that could appear in this decay. We use the symmetries of SCET and NRQCD, including RPI, to show that the operator which is matched onto in Refs. [@Fleming:2002rv; @Fleming:2002sr] is the only operator that can appear for the decays in question. We also consider the set of possible quark operators which can arise. Again only one of the possible quark operators can contribute to the decays we are interested in. This operator has zero matching coefficient, but it can be generated through running. We use the results of Ref. [@Fleming:2004rk] for the renormalization group mixing of the quark and gluon operators, thus resumming large logarithms. Our results agree with the leading-twist analyses carried out in Refs. [@Baier:1; @Baier:1985wv; @Ma:2001tt]. In Ref. [@Ma:2001tt] higher twist corrections to the color-singlet contribution were considered. These corrections would be part of higher-order SCET corrections, which we have not studied here. Such an analysis would be complicated by the subleading color-octet contribution discussed in this work.
Finally we study the phenomenology of quarkonium radiative decay to the $f_2$, as well as to $\pi\pi$ where the pions are collinear. We make predictions for the ratios of branching fractions $B(\Upsilon\to\gamma f_2)/B(J/\psi\to\gamma f_2)$ and $B(J/\psi\to\gamma f_2)/B(\psi'\to\gamma f_2)$, as well as for the differential decay rates of $\Upsilon$ and $J/\psi$ to $\gamma\pi\pi$ in the kinematic region of two collinear pions. Our predictions for the decays to $\gamma f_2$ are consistent with experimental data, but with large theoretical uncertainties, while there is insufficient data for $\gamma\pi\pi$ with which to compare. Further theoretical work and more experimental data, especially for the light-cone wave functions of $f_2$, will improve the precision of these predictions greatly.
We thank Christian Bauer, Dan Pirjol, and Mark Wise for helpful discussions. S.F. would like to thank the Caltech theory group for their hospitality while part of this work was being completed. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grants No. DE-FG03-97ER40546 (S.F.) and No. DE-FG03-92ER40701 (C.L.), and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0244599 (A.K.L.). C.L. was supported in part by a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship. A.K.L. was supported in part by the Ralph E. Powe Junior Faculty Enhancement Award.
Nonperturbative Matrix Elements and Light-Cone Wave Functions \[app:lc\]
========================================================================
The matrix elements in Eq. (\[wfdefs\]) defining the SCET wave functions $\phi_{g,q}^{F_n}$ can be related to conventional QCD wave functions for flavor-singlet mesons. The two-gluon wave functions for a meson with momentum $q$ and net helicity $\lambda=0,\pm 2$ are defined as [@Chernyak:1983ej]: $$\begin{split}
{\langle 0\rvert}\operatorname{Tr}G_{\mu\nu}(z)Y(z,-z)&G_{\nu\lambda}(-z){\lvert q,\lambda=0\rangle}_{\mu_0} = f_S^L q_\mu q_\lambda\int_{-1}^1 d\zeta\,e^{iz\cdot q \zeta}\phi_S^L(\zeta,\mu_0) \,, \\
{\langle 0\rvert}\operatorname{Tr}G_{\mu\nu}(z)Y(z,-z)&G_{\nu\lambda}(-z){\lvert q,\lambda=\pm 2\rangle}_{\mu_0} \\
&= f_S^\perp[(q_\mu e^\perp_{\nu\beta} - q_\nu e^\perp_{\mu\beta})q_\alpha - (q_\mu e^\perp_{\nu\alpha} - q_\nu e^\perp_{\mu\alpha})q_\beta]
\int_{-1}^1 d\zeta\,e^{iz\cdot q \zeta}\phi_S^\perp(\zeta,\mu) \,,
\end{split}$$ where $Y(z,-z)$ is the path-ordered exponential of gluon fields: $$Y(z,-z) = P\exp\biggl[ig\int_{-z}^z d\sigma\cdot A(\sigma)\biggr].$$ Going to the light-cone frame where $q_\mu = \frac{\bar n\cdot q}{2}n_\mu$ and $z^\mu = \frac{n\cdot z}{2}\bar n^\mu$, we invert these formulas to find $$\label{lightconewfs}
\begin{split}
\phi_S^L(\zeta;\mu_0) &= \frac{\bar n^\mu \bar n^\lambda}{4\pi f_S^L q^-}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz^+\,e^{-i\zeta q^- z^+/2}{\langle 0\rvert}\operatorname{Tr}G_{\mu\nu}(z^+)Y(z^+,-z^+){G^\nu}_\lambda(-z^+){\lvert q,\lambda=0\rangle} \,,\\
\phi_S^\perp(\zeta;\mu_0) &= \frac{\bar n^\mu \bar n^\alpha e_\perp^{*\nu\beta}}{4\pi f_S^\perp q^-}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz^+\,e^{-i\zeta q^- z^+/2}{\langle 0\rvert}\operatorname{Tr}G_{\mu\nu}(z^+)Y(z^+,-z^+)G_{\alpha\beta}(-z^+){\lvert q,\lambda=\pm 2\rangle},
\end{split}$$ where $z^+ = n{\!\cdot\!}z$, and $q^-=\bar n{\!\cdot\!}q$. Now we match the QCD fields on the right-hand side to fields in SCET: $$\begin{split}
\bar n^\mu G_{\mu\nu}(z^+) &\rightarrow \left[e^{-i{\bar {\cal P}}z^+/2}\bar n_\mu G_n^{\mu\nu}\right ] \,,\\
Y(z^+,-z^+) &\rightarrow \left[W_n e^{i({\bar {\cal P}}^\dag + {\bar {\cal P}})z^+/2} W_n^\dag\right],
\end{split}$$ where $$G_n^{\mu\nu} = \frac{i}{g}[\mathcal{D}^\mu - ig A_{n,q}^\mu,\mathcal{D}^\nu - ig A_{n,q'}^\nu],$$ with $$i\mathcal{D}^\mu = \frac{n^\mu}{2}{\bar {\cal P}}+ {{\cal P}_\perp}^\mu + \frac{\bar n^\mu}{2}in{\!\cdot\!}D_{us}.$$ Therefore, for example, the matching between the QCD light-cone wave-function $\phi_S^L$ and the SCET operator is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_S^L(\zeta ; \mu_0 ) & \to &
\frac{\bar n^\mu \bar n^\lambda}{4\pi f_S^L q^-}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz^+\,e^{-i\zeta q^- z^+/2}
{\langle 0\rvert} \operatorname{Tr}G^n_{\mu\nu}(0) W_n e^{i {\bar {\cal P}}_+ z^+ /2}
W^\dagger_n {G^{n \nu}}_\lambda(0){\lvert q,\lambda=0\rangle}
{\nonumber}\\
& & \hspace{-15ex}
=
\frac{-1}{16 \pi f^L_s q^- } \sum_\omega \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz^+\, e^{-i(\zeta q^- - \omega)z^+/2}
(q^{- } - \omega)(q^{- } + \omega)
{\langle 0\rvert} \operatorname{Tr}B_\perp^\nu \delta_{{\bar {\cal P}}_+ , \omega} B^\perp_\nu {\lvert q,\lambda=0\rangle} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Integrating over $z^+$, and converting from the discrete index $\omega$ to a continuous $\omega_c$ where $\zeta \equiv \omega_c / q^-$ we obtain the matching relation between the QCD and SCET light-cone wave functions $$\label{wfdictionary}
\begin{split}
\phi_S^{L,\perp}(\zeta ;\mu) &\to -\frac{ q^-}{4f_S^L}(1-\zeta^2)\phi_g^{M(L,\perp)}(\zeta;\mu) \,.
\end{split}$$ The SCET wave functions on the right-hand side are given by \[cf. Eq. (\[wfdefs\])\]: $$\begin{split}
{\langle 0\rvert}{\bar {\cal P}}\operatorname{Tr}[B_\perp^\alpha\delta_{\omega,{\bar {\cal P}}_+}B^\perp_\alpha]{\lvert M(q)\rangle}&= (q^-)^2\phi_g^{M(L)} \,, \\
e_{\perp\alpha\beta}^*{\langle 0\rvert}{\bar {\cal P}}\operatorname{Tr}[B_\perp^\alpha\delta_{\omega,{\bar {\cal P}}_+}B_\perp^\beta]{\lvert M(q)\rangle}&= ( q^-)^2\phi_g^{M(\perp)} \,.
\end{split}$$ Relations between the wave functions for the quark operator in QCD and SCET can be derived as in Ref. [@Bauer:2002nz].
Spin-2 Polarization Tensors \[sec:pol\]
=======================================
The spin-2 polarization tensor for a particle of mass $m$ and three-momentum ${\mathbf{k}}$ can be built from spin-1 polarization vectors using Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to arrive at $$\label{spin2pol}
\begin{split}
e^{\mu\nu}(\lambda=\pm 2) &= \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & \pm i & 0 \\
0 & \pm i & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,,\\
e^{\mu\nu}(\lambda = \pm 1) &= \mp\frac{1}{2m}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & {\left\lvert {\mathbf{k}}\right\rvert} & \pm i{\left\lvert {\mathbf{k}}\right\rvert} & 0 \\
{\left\lvert {\mathbf{k}}\right\rvert} & 0 & 0 & E_{{\mathbf{k}}} \\
\pm i{\left\lvert {\mathbf{k}}\right\rvert} & 0 & 0 & \pm iE_{{\mathbf{k}}} \\
0 & E_{{\mathbf{k}}} & \pm iE_{{\mathbf{k}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,,\\
e^{\mu\nu}(\lambda = 0) &= \frac{1}{m^2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{k}}^2 & 0 & 0 & {\left\lvert {\mathbf{k}}\right\rvert}E_{{\mathbf{k}}} \\
0 & -\frac{m^2}{2} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\frac{m^2}{2} & 0 \\
{\left\lvert {\mathbf{k}}\right\rvert}E_{{\mathbf{k}}} & 0 & 0 & E_{{\mathbf{k}}}^2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}$$
C. W. Bauer, C. W. Chiang, S. Fleming, A. K. Leibovich and I. Low, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 114014 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0106316\]. S. Fleming and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 032001 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0211303\]. S. Fleming and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 074035 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0212094\]. X. Garcia i Tormo and J. Soto, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 114006 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0401233\]. S. Fleming and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 094016 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0407259\].
C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. Luke, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 014006 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0005275\]. C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 114020 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0011336\]. C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B [**516**]{}, 134 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0107001\]. C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 054022 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0109045\]. G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1125 (1995) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**55**]{}, 5853 (1995)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9407339\]. M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 074025 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9910209\]. C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 201806 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0107002\]. C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 071502 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0211069\]. J. g. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 071502 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301055\]. J. Chay and C. Kim, Nucl. Phys. B [**680**]{}, 302 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301262\]. J. g. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 034013 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0305033\]. S. Mantry, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 114009 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0306254\]. M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**685**]{}, 249 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0311335\]. B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**690**]{}, 249 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0311345\]. A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**586**]{}, 337 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312319\]. R. J. Hill, T. Becher, S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, JHEP [**0407**]{}, 081 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0404217\]. T. Feldmann and T. Hurth, JHEP [**0411**]{}, 037 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0408188\]. V. N. Baier and A. G. Grozin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**35**]{}, 596 (1982) \[Yad. Fiz. [**35**]{}, 1021 (1982)\]. V. N. Baier and A. G. Grozin, Z. Phys. C [**29**]{}, 161 (1985). J. P. Ma, Nucl. Phys. B [**605**]{}, 625 (2001) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**611**]{}, 523 (2001)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/0103237\]. J. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 114016 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0201197\]. M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**643**]{}, 431 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0206152\]. D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 094005 (2003) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**69**]{}, 019903 (2004)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/0211251\]. V. A. Novikov, L. B. Okun, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rept. [**41**]{}, 1 (1978). C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 014017 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0202088\]. A. V. Manohar, T. Mehen, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B [**539**]{}, 59 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0204229\]. E. Braaten and Y. Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 3216 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9604237\].
S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004). M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Lett. B [**407**]{}, 323 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9701353\]. M. Beneke, A. Signer and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2535 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712302\]. A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2531 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712222\]. A. G. Grozin, Theor. Math. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1109 (1986) \[Teor. Mat. Fiz. [**69**]{}, 219 (1986)\]. A. G. Grozin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**38**]{}, 289 (1983) \[Yad. Fiz. [**38**]{}, 484 (1983)\]. A. Anastassov [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 286 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ex/9807031\]. V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept. [**112**]{}, 173 (1984).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'There are mutually contradictory views in the literature of the kinematics and structure of high-ionization line (e.g. [C[IV]{}]{}) emitting regions in active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Two kinds of broad emission line region (BELR) models have been proposed, outflow and gravitationally bound BELR, which are supported respectively by blueshift of the [C[IV]{}]{} line and reverberation mapping observations. To reconcile these two apparently different models, we present a detailed comparison study between the [C[IV]{}]{}and [Mg[II]{}]{} lines using a sample of AGNs selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We find that the kinematics of the [C[IV]{}]{}region is different from that of [Mg[II]{}]{}, which is thought to be controlled by gravity. A strong correlation is found between the blueshift and asymmetry of the [C[IV]{}]{} profile and the Eddington ratio. This provides strong observational support for the postulation that the outflow is driven by radiation pressure. In particular, we find robust evidence that the [C[IV]{}]{} line region is largely dominated by outflow at high Eddington ratios, while it is primarily gravitationally bounded at low Eddington ratios. Our results indicate that these two emitting regions coexist in most of AGNs. The emission strength from these two gases varies smoothly with Eddington ratio in opposite ways. This explanation naturally reconciles the apparently contradictory views proposed in previous studies. Finally, candidate models are discussed which can account for both, the enhancement of outflow emission and suppression of normal BEL, in AGN with high Eddington ratios.'
author:
- 'Huiyuan Wang, Tinggui Wang, Hongyan Zhou, Bo Liu, Jianguo Wang, Weimin Yuan and Xiaobo Dong'
title: |
Coexistence of Gravitationally Bound and Radiation Driven\
[C[IV]{}]{} Emission Line Regions in Active Galactic Nuclei
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
It is now generally believed that super-massive black holes reside in the center of active galactic nuclei (AGNs; Lynden-Bell 1969). Through accretion of gas, AGNs release vast radiant energy, including high-energy ionizing photons, from an accretion disk around the black hole (Rees et al. 1984). The radiation photoionizes and heats surrounding gas so that it is able to leave its imprint, for example broad emission line (BEL) and broad absorption line (BAL), on the emergent continuum spectra emitted by accretion disk (Davidson & Netzer 1979; Osterbrock 1989; Weymann et al. 1991). The observed properties of these lines, such as strength, width, and profile, are determined by the combined effects of various physical processes. Hence, studies of these line features can reveal the physical conditions and processes in the central region of AGNs, and further shed light on the accretion and radiation mechanisms, and the co-evolution of black holes and their host galaxies.
The broad emission line region (BELR) is the most studied structure of AGNs. Extensive efforts had been devoted to probing its structure and kinematics, which are important for estimation of black hole masses and understanding of line formation. Velocity-resolved reverberation mapping of several local AGNs shows that there is no significant difference in the temporal response of the blue and red parts of the BELs to variations in the continuum (Gaskell 1988; Koratkar & Gaskell 1991; Korista et al. 1995; Done & Krolik, 1996; O’brien et al. 1998). These studies demonstrate that the predominant motion of the BELR is either Keplerian or virial motion, both driven by the gravity of the central black hole (see Gaskell 2009, for a review). Further robust evidence supporting this view is given by the correlation between the BELR size and line width in the form $r \propto \sigma^{-2}$ for various emission lines found in a few well-studied AGNs (Krolik et al 1991; Peterson & Wandel 1999; 2000; Onken & Peterson 2002). This correlation is readily expected for gravitation dominated kinematics. Particularly, these works showed that the emitting regions of both high- and low-ionization lines (e.g. [C[IV]{}]{} and [H$\beta$]{}) are gravitationally bound.
However, studies of luminous AGNs at high redshifts uncover quite different behaviors of the BELR, especially the high-ionization line (e.g. [C[IV]{}]{}) region. Gaskell (1982; see also Wilkes 1984; Marziani et al. 1996) found that the peak of the [C[IV]{}]{} line tends to be blueshifted with respect to the peak of low-ionization lines in a small sample of high-redshift AGNs. This was confirmed by Richards et al. (2002; also Vanden Berk et al. 2001) using a large sample of AGNs selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000). Subsequently, the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift was detected in several low-luminosity AGNs (e.g. Leighly & Moore 2004). The blueshift is difficult to reconcile with gravitationally bound BELR models, but is considered as a signature of outflowing gas (Gaskell 1982; Marziani et al. 1996; Leighly 2004). Outflow models based on dynamical and photoionization calculations have been put forward to reproduce the observed line profiles, equivalent widths and line ratios, and further imposing constraints on the density, ionization state and geometry of the line emitting gas (e.g. Murray & Chiang 1997; Leighly 2004; Wang et al. 2009b). In fact, the frequent occurrences of blueshifted narrow absorption lines and BALs in AGN spectra have proved that outflow is ubiquitous in AGN (Weymann et al .1991; Crenshaw, Kraemer & George 2003). Outflow is therefore a natural interpretation of blueshift of high-ionization lines.
Although there have been a few attempts to tune one single model, i.e. outflow or gravitationally bound BELR, to simultaneously account for the contradictory observational results in reverberation-mapped objects and blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} AGNs (e.g. Chiang & Murray 1996; Gaskell & Goosmann 2008), the dramatic inconsistency may indeed manifest fundamental differences in the structure and kinematics of these two line emitting regions. If this is the case, it would be interesting to find out what causes such differences. Previous studies have already provided some meaningful observational constraints on the underlying processes. For example, it is well known that the blueshift of the [C[IV]{}]{}emission line in radio quiet AGNs is, on average, stronger than in radio loud AGNs (Marziani et al. 1996; Sulentic et al. 2000a; Richards et al. 2002; 2011). Recently, several studies found that the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift decreases with the increase of the X-ray to UV flux ratio (Gibson, Brandt & Schneider 2008; Richards et al. 2011). In addition, Sulentic et al. (2007) found that the correlation between the width and equivalent width of the [C[IV]{}]{}BEL varies dramatically with the width of the [H$\beta$]{} BEL. Richards et al. (2011) found that [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift varies with the ionizing spectral energy distribution. All these facts point towards that BELR structure is related to the accretion process of the central engine.
It is worthwhile to note that the low-ionization lines, such as [Mg[II]{}]{} and [H$\beta$]{}, are fairly close to the systemic redshift (Marziani et al. 1996; Sulentic et al. 2000a; Richards et al. 2002). Apparently different from the high-ionization lines, the low-ionization line region is gravitationally bound, and outflow model is unlikely. This is supported by the fact that local AGNs follow the same luminosity-BELR size relationship for the [H$\beta$]{}line as for those well-studied AGNs, whose BELR have been demonstrated to be governed by gravity (Kaspi et al. 2005; Bentz et al. 2006). In particular, the power-law slope of this relationship is about 0.5, indicating that all of these AGNs have roughly the same ionization state and gas density in the low-ionization lines region. The [H$\beta$]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} lines are therefore widely adopted to estimate the black hole masses, [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{}, of AGNs (Kaspi et al. 2000; Collin et al. 2006; Vestergaard & Peterson 2006; Mclure & Jarvis 2002; Onken & Kollmeier 2008; Wang et al. 2009a). The [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{} estimate is plagued by many uncertainties in, for example, the geometry, kinematics and inclination of the BELR, the measurement of line with, the influence from other forces (such as radiation pressure), the validity of extrapolating the small-sample results to a large sample (Krolik 2001; Collin et al. 2006; Marconi et al. 2008; Richards et al. 2011). Although the [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{} estimate can be calibrated using the correlation between [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{} and bulge/spheroid stellar velocity dispersion (e.g. Onken et al. 2004), it is accurate only from a statistical point of view.
In this paper, we probe the structure and kinematics of the high-ionization line emitting region via a comparison with the low-ionization lines. We use the [C[IV]{}]{} line, the most prominent metal line, to represent high-ionization lines, while we adopt [Mg[II]{}]{}as a representation of low-ionization lines. Both lines are observable in SDSS AGNs at redshift $z\sim2$, from which a sufficiently large sample can be obtained for our purpose. Please see Section \[sec\_sam\] for the sample selection. We present in Section \[sec\_c4b\] the correlations between the properties of [C[IV]{}]{} line, and the composite spectra. In Section \[sec\_mc\], we examine whether the [C[IV]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} line properties follow the same correlations. Similarity in the correlations indicates that two lines come from regions with similar kinematics, while opposite results mean that the structures are different. Our method differs from earlier investigations, in which the authors directly compared the properties of the two lines. Then, in Section \[sec\_dis\], we analyze the geometry and kinematics of the [C[IV]{}]{}region and discuss the candidate models. We also present a comprehensive comparison between BAL and the blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} BEL. Finally, we summarize our results in Section \[sec\_sum\].
Sample and Data Analysis {#sec_sam}
========================
We select AGNs in the redshift range $1.7<z<2.2$ from the Fifth Data Release (DR5) of SDSS spectroscopic database (Schneider et al. 2007). The redshift range is chosen in such a way that both the [C[IV]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} lines fall in the wavelength coverage of the SDSS spectrograph. To ensure reliable measurements of emission line parameters, we only select objects with median signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)$\geq$ 7 per pixel in both the [C[IV]{}]{} (1450-1700 ) and the [Mg[II]{}]{} (2700-2900 ) spectral regions. We further discard the broad absorption line AGNs as cataloged by Scaringi et al. (2009). 6009 AGNs meet these criteria. The SDSS spectra are corrected for the Galactic extinction using the extinction map of Schlegel et al. (1998) and the reddening curve of Fitzpatrick (1999), and transformed to the rest frame using the improved redshifts for SDSS AGNs as computed by Hewett & Wild (2010, hereafter HW10). To measure the broad lines, we perform continuum and emission-line fitting using Interactive Data Language (IDL) code based on MPFIT (Markwardt 2009), which performs $\chi^2$-minimization by the Levenberg-Marquardt technique.
The [Mg[II]{}]{} broad lines are fitted using the exactly same method as Wang et al. (2009a). Here we only present a brief description of the procedures. First, we simultaneously fit the featureless continuum (assumed to be a power law) and the [Fe[II]{}]{}multiplet emission, which together constitute the so-called pseudocontinuum. [Fe[II]{}]{} is modelled with the tabulated semi-empirical template generated by Tsuzuki et al. (2006) based on their measurements of I ZW1; in the wavelength region covered by the [Mg[II]{}]{} emission, this template uses the calculation with the CLOUDY photoionization code (Ferland et al. 1998). After subtracting the fitted pseudocontinuum, the broad components of the [Mg[II]{}]{} $\lambda\lambda$2796, 2803 doublet lines are each modelled with a truncated five-parameter ($p_i$, i=0 to 4) Gauss-Hermite series profile (van der Marel & Franx 1993). The expression for a Gauss-Hermite function is $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rm G_h}(x)=p_0e^{-x^2/2}[1+p_3h_3(x)+p_4h_4(x)],\nonumber\\
&h_3(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2\sqrt{2}x^3-3\sqrt{2}x),\nonumber\\
&h_4(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}(4x^4-12x^2+3).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $x=(\lambda-p_1)/p_2$. The narrow component of each line is fitted with a single Gaussian. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) is measured from the Gauss-Hermite model of [Mg[II]{}]{}$\lambda$2796, and rest equivalent width (EW) is the sum of the broad doublet lines.
To measure the [C[IV]{}]{} broad lines, we first fit the local continuum with a power-law in two wavelength windows near 1450and 1700, that have little or no contamination from emission-lines. After subtracting the continuum, we fit the residual spectrum around [C[IV]{}]{} with two Gaussians. Since the red wing of [C[IV]{}]{} is contaminated by [He[II]{} ]{}, only the spectral region of 1450-1580 is considered in fitting the [C[IV]{}]{} line. We also attempted to fit the residual spectrum with three Gaussians, which results in little or no significant improvements. We thus adopt the two-Gaussian model here.
In this work we introduce a blueshift and asymmetry index (BAI) to measure the deviation of the [C[IV]{}]{} line from an unshifted and symmetric profile. BAI is defined as the flux ratio of the blue part to the total profile, where the blue part is the part of [C[IV]{}]{} line at wavelengths short of 1549.06, the laboratory rest-frame wavelength of [C[IV]{}]{} doublets. The line parameters, BAI, FWHM and EW, of [C[IV]{}]{} are measured from the composite profiles of the two-Gaussian model (in the wavelength range of 1450-1700). The BAI estimation may be affected by the accuracy of the redshifts which we use to transform the observed spectra to the rest frame. To reduce possible uncertainty of BAI thus introduced, we adopt the redshifts provided by HW10[^1], which were derived by cross correlation of observed spectra with a carefully-constructed template. In particular, they corrected for the dependence of emission-line shift on luminosity and redshift, which is relevant to our investigation. BAI measures the combined effects of the asymmetry and shift of a line profile, which are generally treated separately in the literature (e.g. Sulentic et al. 2000a). In the Appendix we consider line shift and asymmetry separately and conclude that using BAI is a robust choice for our purposes. We use blueshift and BAI alternately in this paper.
The fitting results for most of the objects are reasonable according to our subsequent visual inspection. However, a small fraction of objects display strong narrow absorption in the emission lines regions, especially [C[IV]{}]{} spectral region, and cannot be well fitted by our automated processing. To minimize outliers left by the procedures, we eliminate objects with unacceptable fitting, i.e. $\chi^2/$d.o.f$>1.5$. This restriction leads to a final working sample of 4963 AGNs. We note that the last selection has little or no effect on the results obtained in this paper.
Blueshift of [C[IV]{}]{} Emission Line {#sec_c4b}
======================================
We show the distribution of BAI for the entire sample in Fig. \[fig\_udis\]. This parameter distributes in a wide range, from about 0.4 to more than 0.9, with a median value of 0.63. According to our definition of BAI, a blueshifted line has a BAI parameter larger than 0.5. Obviously, most of the AGNs in our sample display blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} emission lines with respect to their systemic redshifts, in agreement with previous findings (Gaskell 1982; Richards et al. 2002). Only 7.2% of the AGNs are redshifted outliers. This fraction is the same as that found in Richards et al. (2011), in spite of that we adopt a different method to denote the blueshift. Since the blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} line has been suggested to be emitted from outflows (e.g. Gaskell 1982; Murray & Chiang 1997; Leighly 2004), the BAI distribution suggests that outflows are common in AGNs.
We then show the equivalent width of [C[IV]{}]{} as a function of BAI and FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) in the two upper panels of Fig. \[fig\_uwe\]. The [C[IV]{}]{} emission line is weaker for AGNs with larger blueshifts or line widths. Both two trends are consistent with previous results. Richards et al. (2011) found an anti-correlation between blueshift and equivalent width (see also Marziani et al. 1996; Leighly & Moore 2004), and Wills et al. (1993) reported an anti-correlation of FWHM with EW. The left panel of Fig. \[fig\_uf\] shows FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) against BAI. Our result confirms the finding of Richards (2006) that the line width of [C[IV]{}]{} is, on average, slightly larger for AGNs with larger blueshifts. Inspecting the scatter plot in detail, one can find that the trend is complex and there appears to exist a ‘V’-shaped lower envelope. It implies a mixture of origins of the [C[IV]{}]{} emission. We will come back to this issue later.
Composite spectra can provide a wealth of diagnostic information. We show the composite spectra as a function of BAI in Fig. \[fig\_cs1\]. Our composites are constructed through the arithmetic mean method. We first sort the AGN sample according to their BAI then sub-divide it into four equally-sized subsamples (each subsample contains about 1241 AGNs). For each AGN, we use the redshift from HW10 to deredshift the spectrum. The spectrum is then normalized at 1450, rebinned into the same wavelength grids. The composite spectra are created by combining these normalized spectra in each of these subsamples. Only four major emission line regions, [Si[IV]{}]{}, [C[IV]{}]{}, [C[III\]]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{}, are presented. The spectra are normalized in the local continuum regions: (1355,1450), (1450,1700), (1830,1975), (2695,2955) (in units of ) for [Si[IV]{}]{}, [C[IV]{}]{}, [C[III\]]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{}.
As expected, the [C[IV]{}]{} emission line in our composites shifts significantly towards shorter wavelength as BAI increases. The equivalent width of [C[IV]{}]{} decreases with increasing BAI, consistent with Fig. \[fig\_uwe\]. The blueshift is also remarkable for [He[II]{} ]{} and moderate for [Si[IV]{}]{}, but seems to be absent in lower-ionization lines, such as [Mg[II]{}]{} and [Al[III]{}]{}, in good agreement with Richards et al. (2002). We also create composites as a function of EW([C[IV]{}]{}) and BAI, following Richards et al. (2011). The composites are very similar to that shown in Richards et al. This is not surprising since we use the same AGN redshifts provided by HW10. Our composites reveal a significant excess flux in the blue wing of [C[IV]{}]{} (around 1500 ), the strength of which increases with BAI (Fig. \[fig\_uwe\]). We then take the difference between the largest-BAI and smallest-BAI composite spectra and show the difference as a function of velocity with respect to [C[IV]{}]{} in Fig. \[fig\_ex\] (thick line). The blue excess wing peaks at 8000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}, ranging between $\sim4000$[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}and 11000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}.
Two additional phenomena are worth noting. First, the mean width of [Mg[II]{}]{} tends to be narrower for AGNs with larger [C[IV]{}]{}blueshifts. We will address this issue in next section. Second, the equivalent width of [Al[III]{}]{} is dramatically boosted at large BAI, different from other lines. Richards et al. (2011) paid particular attention to the unusual property of the [Al[III]{}]{} line. They suggested that the strong [Al[III]{}]{}, together with the large [Si[III\]]{}]{}/[C[III\]]{}]{} ratio, is indicative of an X-ray weak spectrum for these AGNs. Although this explanation is reasonable, it might simply be that [Al[III]{}]{} is contaminated by other lines. One possible contamination comes from the UV [Fe[III]{}]{} complexes. The [Fe[III]{}]{} complexes are usually more prominent on the long-wavelength side of [C[III\]]{}]{}(Laor et al. 1997). However, we do not find the expected excess at the corresponding wavelength and thus rule out this probability. Another promising explanation is that this excess flux is the [C[III\]]{}]{} emission of the outflow. To demonstrate this, we show the difference spectra of the largest-BAI and smallest-BAI composites as a function of velocity with respect to [C[III\]]{}]{} in Fig. \[fig\_ex\](thin line). One can find the average velocity of the ‘excess of [Al[III]{}]{}’ is about 8000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}. This velocity is very similar to that of the blue wing excess of [C[IV]{}]{} and thus supports our interpretation. Difference spectra are usually sensitive to the normalization. To investigate into this, we also try to use other local continuum regions. The velocity ranges of the excess flux for both [C[IV]{}]{} and [C[III\]]{}]{}change only slightly.
The blueshifted [C[III\]]{}]{} component suggests that the number density of the large-velocity part of the [C[IV]{}]{} BELR cannot be much larger than $3\times10^{9}{\rm cm}^{-3}$, which is the critical density of the intercombination line [C[III\]]{}]{} (Osterbrock 1989). This value is consistent with that estimated by Wang et al.(2009b), but much lower than that estimated by Ferland et al. (1992), about $10^{11}{\rm cm}^{-3}$ (see also Kuraszkiewicz et al. 2000). The discrepancy can be understood if there exist two kinds of [C[IV]{}]{}emitting region: a normal gravitationally bound BELR and an outflow, as we will discuss in this paper. In fact, studies of blueshifted absorption lines revealed quite low densities in outflows (see Crenshaw et al. 2003 for a review). Moreover, the column density of outflow can be constrained based on the absence of blueshifted component in low-ionization line. For example, Leighly (2004) performed photoionization calculation to model the outflow components of various UV lines in two narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and derived a rather low column density: $\log {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{H}}}\simeq 21.4$ for outflow gas. Leighly (2004) did not consider the blueshifted [C[III\]]{}]{} component. If taking into account this component, one may get a slightly larger column density. The lower density and column density than the typical values of normal emitting gas may be due to the expansion of outflow.
Comparison of Kinematics of [Mg[II]{}]{} and [C[IV]{}]{} {#sec_mc}
========================================================
In this section, we examine whether the [Mg[II]{}]{} and [C[IV]{}]{} line properties follow the same correlations. Since [Mg[II]{}]{} is thought to be emitted from a gravitationally bound BELR, the comparison may offer insight into the kinematics and geometry of the [C[IV]{}]{}emitting region. Note that our method differs from earlier investigations, in which the authors directly compared the properties of the two lines.
Correlations for [Mg[II]{}]{} and Fundamental Driver of [C[IV]{}]{} Blueshift
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We show the rest equivalent width of [Mg[II]{}]{} against BAI and FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) in the lower panels of Fig. \[fig\_uwe\]. Note that the BAI presented here is calculated using [C[IV]{}]{} line. One can see that EW([Mg[II]{}]{}) declines with increasing BAI. The trend is similar to but slightly weaker than [C[IV]{}]{}. Of particular interest is the positive correlation between EW([Mg[II]{}]{}) and FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}), which is in contrast to [C[IV]{}]{}(Fig. \[fig\_uwe\]). We also found such a correlation in a low-redshift AGN sample (Dong et al. 2009). The opposite behaviors indicates that the properties of [Mg[II]{}]{} and [C[IV]{}]{} emitting regions are essentially different.
The scatter plot of FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) versus [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift is shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig\_uf\]. Here again, we find a different correlation from [C[IV]{}]{}. AGNs with narrow [Mg[II]{}]{} BEL have a strong tendency to exhibit [C[IV]{}]{} emission with prominent blueshift. This trend is appreciable in previous work based on small low-redshift samples. For instance, Bachev et al. (2004) found the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift can only be found in objects with FWHM([H$\beta$]{}) less than 4000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}. Baskin & Laor (2005) found an marginal correlation between [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift and FWHM([H$\beta$]{}) in 81 PG QSOs. Sulentic et al. (2007) used the centroid at half maximum of [C[IV]{}]{} profile as a surrogate of line shift. Their Figure 2 clearly shows a somewhat weak correlation between the blueshift and FWHM([H$\beta$]{}) (see also Sulentic et al. 2000b). Since FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) is closely correlated with FWHM([H$\beta$]{})(e.g. Wang et al. 2009a), their results broadly agree with ours.
This correlation hints that the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift is driven by some primary physical parameters, such as black hole mass and the Eddington ratio[^2] ([[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}). We calculate black hole masses based on the FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) and the monochromatic luminosity $L_{\rm 3000}=\lambda L(3000 {\rm \AA})$ using the formula of Wang et al. (2009a)[^3]. We then compute the Eddington ratio assuming a constant bolometric correction, $L_{\rm bol}\simeq 5.9 L_{\rm
3000}$ (McLure & Dunlop 2004). To give a quantitative analysis, we perform Spearman rank correlation tests over the correlations of BAI with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}, [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{} and FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}), but note that these properties are degenerate, with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}$\propto$FWHM$^{-2}$, and [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{}$\propto$FWHM$^{2}$. The correlations with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) are comparable in strength, with Spearman correlation coefficients $r_s$ of 0.54 and -0.50 respectively (the probabilities for null hypothesis are less than $10^{-100}$), and are both significantly stronger than the dependence on [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{}($r_s$ = -0.39). Eddington ratio is therefore a more fundamental driver of the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift than black hole mass. In Fig. \[fig\_uledd\], we show BAI as a function of [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. As [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}increases from 0.1 to 1, the median value of BAI significantly increases from $\sim$0.5 to $\sim$0.75. A commonly accepted view for this correlation is that outflow is driven by radiation pressure (e.g. Murray et al. 1995; Boroson 2002), and therefore prominent for high [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs. If outflow carries away a significant amount of the angular momentum (e.g. Wang et al. 2007), it can serve as a driver of the accretion process, and consequently strengthen this correlation.
The correlation of BAI with FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) is as strong as that with the Eddington ratio. It would be interesting to know which physical property dominates the correlations involving BAI. However, given the tight correlation between FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) and the Eddington ratio ($r_s$=-0.93) in our sample, that is flux limited, it is impossible to disentangle these dependencies. A sample of AGNs covering a wide range in luminosity is required for this purpose. Recently, Richards et al. (2011) reported that the reverberation mapped AGNs occupy only part of the [C[IV]{}]{} line parameter space, and suggested that these objects have different ionizing spectral energy distribution (SED) from the mean SED of AGNs. It is unclear whether applying the scaling relation to the whole sample would lead to systematic error in determining [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{}and [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. If yes, the origin of the correlation between BAI and the inferred [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} would be more complex than that we discussed above, because the ionizing SED also correlates with the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift (Richards et al. 2011). Even so, it doesn’t necessarily mean the relationship between real [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and BAI is weaker than that shown in Fig. \[fig\_uledd\]. In fact, the correlation between SED, characterized by the ratio of X-ray flux to UV flux ($\alpha_{ox}$), and the inferred [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and line width is weak or absent (Vasudevan & Fabian 2007; Shemmer et al. 2008). These results doesn’t favor that the estimates of [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and [$M_\mathrm{BH}$]{} are significantly affected by the assumption of a single mean SED. However, $\alpha_{ox}$ cannot fully characterize the ionizing SED, further work is needed. Moreover, the constant bolometric correction may introduce systemic bias in the dependence of BAI on [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. But it is not important here because the bolometric corrections differ between objects by a factor of 2 (e.g. Richards et al. 2006), much less than the [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} range of our sample.
[C[IV]{}]{} in High and Low [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering the correlations involving FWHM, we can see very different or even opposite behaviors between [C[IV]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{}. FWHM may be a key to understanding the difference between [C[IV]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} emitting regions. The width of an emission line reflects the motion of the corresponding emitting gas. [Mg[II]{}]{} gas is thought to be gravitationally bound, whereas [C[IV]{}]{} line is generally blueshifted and the corresponding emitting gas may be impacted or driven by the radiation field. Thus, FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) is a measure of the gravity, while FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) is more likely the result of the competition between gravity and radiation pressure. It is therefore not surprising to find inconsistent trends. In order to understand the detailed effect of radiation pressure on [C[IV]{}]{} gas, it is necessary to explore more differences between [Mg[II]{}]{} and [C[IV]{}]{}, and to examine whether these trends for [C[IV]{}]{} hold for AGNs of different Eddington ratio.
To do so, we select two extreme subsamples which comprise the 25% highest [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and 25% lowest [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs, designated as sample A and B respectively. We first show the FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) as a function of BAI for these two subsamples in the left panels of Fig. \[fig\_fb\]. There is a clear trend that [C[IV]{}]{} line width increases with BAI in sample A, but this trend disappears in sample B. An evidence for this discrepancy can also be found in the entire sample (left panel of Fig. \[fig\_uf\]). For comparison, we also show FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) versus BAI for the *entire* sample in the same two panels (black points) as background. The [C[IV]{}]{} line of AGNs in sample A reveals an opposite tendency compared to the low-ionization line [Mg[II]{}]{}, while the [C[IV]{}]{} distribution of sample B is well consistent with the upper half of the [Mg[II]{}]{}distribution. We then make the same analysis of the FWHM-EW correlations for both lines and obtain similar results (see the right panels of Fig. \[fig\_fb\]). On one hand, AGNs in sample A exhibit a strong anti-correlation between FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) and EW([C[IV]{}]{}), which is completely opposite to the correlation for [Mg[II]{}]{}. This correlation also exists in the whole sample, albeit weaker. On the other hand, for sample B AGNs, the correlation becomes marginal and the discrepancy between [C[IV]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} become tiny compared to sample A.
We note that the results shown above do not change if we select subsamples based on FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) rather than [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. That is again due to the fact that FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) is strongly correlated with Eddington ratio in our flux limited sample. Using 130 low-redshift AGNs with HST ultraviolet-band spectroscopic observation, Sulentic et al.(2007) found FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) increases with the blueshift *only* in AGNs with FWHM([H$\beta$]{}) $\leq$4000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}. Their results are consistent with ours based on a much larger sample and [Mg[II]{}]{}, supporting that the kinematics of [H$\beta$]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} regions are similar. They found AGNs with FWHM([H$\beta$]{}) less and greater than 4000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{} exhibit different FeII and radio properties and further suggested that there is apparent dichotomy between these two populations(see also Sulentic et al. 2000a;2000b; Bachev et al. 2004; Zamfir, Sulentic & Marziani 2008). We also find similar differences between sample A and B AGNs in the parameter space defined by BAI, FWHM and EW (and the same differences between the small and large FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) subsamples). *More importantly, we find that the [C[IV]{}]{}emission of sample A is totally different from the low-ionization line [Mg[II]{}]{}, while the [C[IV]{}]{} emission of sample B is similar to [Mg[II]{}]{}*. In addition, Fig. \[fig\_uf\] and \[fig\_uledd\] show clearly that the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift varies continuously and smoothly with FWHM([Mg[II]{}]{}) and [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. This implies that the corresponding variation in the properties of the [C[IV]{}]{} emitting region is smooth, rather than abrupt.
Discussion {#sec_dis}
==========
In this section, we analyze the kinematics and geometry of the [C[IV]{}]{} region on the basis of the results presented above. Then we discuss candidate BELR models that can account for the specific behavior of [C[IV]{}]{}. To get more insight into the origin of the [C[IV]{}]{}blueshift, we finally present a comprehensive comparison between the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift and BAL.
Gravitationally Bound and Radiation Driven Emission Line Regions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The [C[IV]{}]{} emission of the AGNs in sampleA is strongly blueshifted, and it also displays an opposite tendency compared to [Mg[II]{}]{} in the parameter space defined by BAI, FWHM and EW. It is very likely dominated by outflow, whose velocity range can be roughly measured by FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}). Further evidence for the outflow origin of the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift is given by comparison of the blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} and BAL (see Sect. \[sec\_cbo\]), that is believed to be produced by outflows.
The correlation between FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) and BAI found from sample A can be easily understood in terms of outflows. In general, an outflow with a large terminal velocity tends to produce emission with a large blueshift and FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}). However, not all outflow models can successfully reproduce such a relationship. One of the commonly proposed models is disk-like equatorial outflows with a small opening angle. In this model, outflows on the far and near sides emit redshifted and blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} photons, respectively, at comparable amounts (see, e.g. Figure 7 of Murray & Chiang 1997). Only when viewed along the pole, the emission line is significantly blueshifted. Meanwhile, we will see a very narrow line because the line of sight is nearly perpendicular to the outflow velocity. It is inconsistent with our finding here. One solution is that, in the case of disk-like outflows, a large opening angle is required. Alternatively, the outflow is funnel like (see the geometry shown in Elvis 2000 and Wang et al. 2007), even close to the polar direction in some cases (e.g. Zhou et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2008). For a funnel-like outflow, the projected velocity of the far-side along the line of sight is so small that it contributes only little to the red side of the [C[IV]{}]{}emission[^4].
The strong anti-correlation between FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) and EW([C[IV]{}]{}) in sample A suggests that the [C[IV]{}]{} emission is suppressed in outflows at high velocities. This can possibly be ascribed to that, with expansion, the density of high velocity outflow gets lower, in agreement with our finding that the blueshifted component of the [C[III\]]{}]{} emission is possibly enhanced in AGNs with large BAI (see section \[sec\_c4b\] and Fig. \[fig\_cs1\]). However, as a major coolant of BELR, [C[IV]{}]{} may be insensitive to the change of the density. Alternatively, Murray & Chiang (1997) suggested that this correlation is related to the distribution of the launching radius of outflows. Detailed dynamical and photoionization model is needed to understand the underlying process.
Different from the case of sample A, the [C[IV]{}]{} emission of the AGNs in sample B nearly overlaps with [Mg[II]{}]{} in the parameter space. In particular, the two lines have similar widths. To demonstrate this more clearly, we show the probability distribution of $\log({\rm FWHM({Mg\,{\footnotesize II}})/FWHM({C\,{\footnotesize IV}})})$ in the left panel of Fig. \[fig\_fr\], which peaks at zero, albeit a large scatter of 0.16 dex. For comparison, we also plot the result for sample A, show that [C[IV]{}]{} is much broader than [Mg[II]{}]{}. The similarity between the widths of [C[IV]{}]{} and [Mg[II]{}]{} suggests that they largely come from the same emitting gas, which should be optically thick to ionizing radiation. Considering that radiation pressure is not important for optically-thick clouds (e.g. Fabian et al. 2006; Marconi et al. 2008) and that [Mg[II]{}]{} is a reasonable indicator of black hole mass, our results suggest that the kinematics of the [C[IV]{}]{} emission-line gas in these AGNs is primarily governed by gravity rather than by radiation field. This argument is also consistent with the facts that sample B AGNs have small blueshifts of [C[IV]{}]{} and weak radiation field compared to gravity for their low [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}.
The most convincing evidence to date for the gravitationally dominated kinematics of the [C[IV]{}]{} regions, from reverberation mapping observations of local AGNs, includes similar response timescales of the blue and red wings of [C[IV]{}]{}, the correlation between the BELR size and line width (Gaskell 1988; Koratkar & Gaskell 1991; Korista et al. 1995; Peterson & Wandel 1999; 2000; Onken & Peterson 2002). We examine the Eddington ratio of these reverberation mapped objects listed in Koratkar & Gaskell (1991), Peterson & Wandel (2000), and Onken & Peterson (2002) by collecting data from the literature, and find that almost all of these have quite low Eddington ratio, generally less than 0.1 (see Wang et al. 2009a for black hole mass and luminosity data). Moreover, radio-loud AGNs have averagely lower Eddington ratios (e.g. Boroson 2002; Zamfir et al. 2008) and weaker [C[IV]{}]{}blueshifts in comparison with radio-quiet AGNs. Both results are in agreement with our conclusion that the [C[IV]{}]{} region tends to be gravitationally bound at low [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}.
Therefore, our finding reconciles naturally previous contradictory results. The [C[IV]{}]{} region tends to be dominated by outflows in high Eddington ratio AGNs, and dominated by normal gravitationally bound BELR in low Eddington ratio AGNs. The emission strength from these two regions varies with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} in opposite directions, and BAI is a measure of their radio. For low-BAI AGNs, in which the outflow component is trivial, [C[IV]{}]{} is emitted primarily from the gravitationally bound region and is expected have a similar line width to [Mg[II]{}]{}. This is supported by the probability distribution of $\log({\rm FWHM({Mg\,{\footnotesize II}})/FWHM({C\,{\footnotesize IV}})})$ for the 25% lowest-BAI AGNs, as shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig\_fr\]. Interestingly, we find that the distributions of high- and low-[[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs (sample A and B) on the FWHM-BAI plane join at BAI$\sim0.6$ (Fig. \[fig\_fb\]). At this value the emission from the two regions may be comparable, and also the distributions of BAI for all the AGNs peak (Fig. \[fig\_udis\]). We thus conclude that the gravitationally bound and radiation driven [C[IV]{}]{} emitting regions coexist in most of the AGNs (see also Richards et al 2011), and there is no abrupt transition from one type to the other.
Models for Two [C[IV]{}]{} Regions
----------------------------------
Extensive efforts have already been devoted to understanding how an outflow is launched from an accretion disk (e.g. Arav et al. 1994; Murray et al. 1995; Proga, Stone & Kallman 2000; Everett 2005). These studies showed that the radiation force arising from line absorption of the central UV continuum can accelerate outflows to velocities up to 10000-20000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}. In particular, Murray et al. (1995) derived an approximate mass loss rate carried by outflow (their equation 9), that is equivalent to the strength of outflow, and found that it increases with the Eddington ratio (see also Proga et al. 2000). This is consistent with our finding here in observation. Another important parameter that also has impact on outflows is the strength of the X-ray emission relative to the UV (denoted as $\alpha_{\rm ox}$). A hard ionizing continuum can over-ionize outflows so that the acceleration efficiency of line absorption is suppressed; whereas a soft ionizing continuum would allow the launch of a strong wind (see e.g. Murray et al. 1995). Recently, Richards et al. (2011) found that AGNs with larger [C[IV]{}]{} blueshifts are apparently weaker in X-ray relative to UV (see also Gibson et al. 2008), consistent with the theoretical expectation. Both the above facts strongly favor the line driven outflow model.
If $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ decreases with increasing [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} the dependencies of the [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift on [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ are possibly induced by the same underlying causal process. Recent studies have revealed a complicated relationship between the two parameters. Kelly et al. (2008) found that $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ decreases with $L_{\rm UV}$/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}, but increases with $L_{\rm
X}$/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}, where $L_{\rm UV}$ and $L_{\rm X}$ are the UV and X-ray luminosity, respectively. Such a difference might be ascribed to the bolometric corrections of these two bands, that change with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} in different ways (Vasudevan & Fabian 2007). Vasudevan & Fabian (2007) directly calculated [$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{} by fitting the broad spectral energy distributions and didn’t find any relationship, while they pointed out that $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ cannot characterize the full ionizing continuum. Shemmer et al. (2008) also found that the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} is rather weak. They suggested that this correlation is probably a secondary effect of the correlations of $L_{\rm UV}$ with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} and $\alpha_{\rm ox}$. Thus the outflow strength might be affected by least two ‘independent’ quantities: the Eddington ratio and the relative strength of the ionizing continuum.
One prediction of the line-driven outflow model is that the correlation between the outflow strength and [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} depends on the ionizing continuum. In Fig. \[fig\_uledd\], we show BAI against [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} for the two subsamples that comprise the 25% largest EW([C[IV]{}]{}) and 25% smallest EW([C[IV]{}]{}) AGNs respectively. One can find that the correlation between BAI and [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} is apparently stronger in the small EW sample than in the large EW sample. Since EW([C[IV]{}]{}) is strongly correlated with $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ (e.g. Wang et al. 1998; Wu et al. 2009), it is reasonable to expect that the small-EW AGNs are relatively X-ray weak compared to the large-EW ones. The result shown here thus provides another piece of possible evidence to support the model.
A viable model for the [C[IV]{}]{} emitting region must also account for the weakening of the normal [C[IV]{}]{} BELs in high-[[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs. One possible mechanism is the change of the ionization state of BEL clouds, as discussed in Leighly (2004). In that model, the ionizing continuum is filtered through an outflow before reaching the normal BELR. The outflow absorbs the photons that can produce highly ionized ions, such as C$^{+3}$ and He$^{+2}$. As the outflow becomes stronger, the continuum filtering is more severe and high-ionization lines from the normal BELR become weaker. A shortcoming of this model is that it cannot explain the weakness of the low-ionization line [Mg[II]{}]{} in large BAI (strong outflow) or high [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs (Fig. \[fig\_uwe\]). Because the ionization state of the outflow is high, it can only absorb photons in the helium continuum, but is transparent to low-energy ionizing photons (Leighly 2004). Note that a high ionization state is required for the outflow as there is no significantly blueshifted component in low-ionization lines. Nevertheless, the ionization state-SED scenario cannot be ruled out. The low-energy ionizing continuum may be just intrinsically weak when a strong outflow is launched.
Another possible mechanism is that the amount of BEL clouds varies with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. If radiation pressure can expel BEL clouds out of the BELR (Dong et al. 2009; 2011, see also Ferland et al. 2009), the suppression of the normal BEL in high-[[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs can be easily explained. Since BEL clouds are usually dust free, the radiation pressure arises mainly from three processes: Thomson scattering, resonance scattering and ionization absorption. Thomson scattering is not favored since it is only important in AGNs with supper Eddington luminosities. Resonance scattering is neither able to drive clouds, because the internal velocity dispersion of a cloud is generally small and only tiny fraction of photons can be scattered. Recently, Fabian et al. (2006; see also Marconi et al. 2008) found that the radiation pressure arising from absorption of ionizing photons cannot be neglected. Assuming the fraction, $f_{\rm a}$, of ionizing flux is absorbed by a cloud with column density $N_{\rm H}$, we can derive the ratio of the radiation force (due to ionization absorption) to the gravitational force on the cloud: $$R_f=\frac{F_r}{F_g}=\frac{\frac{L_{\rm ion}f_{\rm a}}{4\pi r^2
c}}{\frac{G {\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{BH}}}{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{H}}}m_p}{r^2}} =\frac{b f_{\rm a}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle T}}}{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{H}}}}\frac{L_{\rm bol}}{L_{\rm Edd}}$$ where $G$, $c$ and [$\sigma_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle T}$]{} are gravitational constant, light speed and Thomson cross section, $L_{\rm ion}$ the luminosity of ionizing continuum, $b=L_{\rm ion}/L_{\rm bol}$, and $r$ the distance from the cloud to the central source. When $R_f>1$, the radiation force overcomes the gravity of the central black hole, and the clouds can escape from the BELR. It sets a lower limit of the column density of clouds that can survive: $f_{\rm a}N_t{{\ensuremath{L\mathrm{_{bol}}}}/{\ensuremath{L\mathrm{_{Edd}}}}}$, where $N_t=b/{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle T}}}$.
There are two parameters, $f_{\rm a}$ and $N_t$, to be determined. $f_{\rm a}$ is dependent on ionization degree and column density. For the typical normal BELR, when $N_{\rm H}>
1.2\times10^{21}$cm$^{-2}$, that is the column density at the hydrogen ionization front, the cloud is optically thick to the ionizing continuum and $f_{\rm a} \approx 1$ (Ferland 1999; Marconi et al. 2008). For $N_{\rm H}< 1.2\times10^{21}$cm$^{-2}$, ionization absorption becomes ineffective, i.e. $f_{\rm a} \approx
0$. We then give a rough estimate of $N_t$ assuming the ionizing continuum seen by the cloud is the same as what we observe. Approximating the continuum at wavelength short of 1200 as a power law with an index $\alpha_{\nu}=-1.57$ (Zheng et al. 1997; Telfer et al. 2000), $L_{\rm ion}$ is given by integrating over all ionizing frequencies(i.e. above the frequency of Lyman edge): $L_{\rm ion}\simeq 1.5\lambda L_{\lambda}(1200\A)$. Then approximating the UV continuum between 1200 and 3000 as a power law with an index $\alpha_{\lambda}=-1.54$ (Vanden Berk et al. 2001), $\lambda L_{\lambda}(1200\A) \simeq 1.64 \lambda
L_{\lambda}(3000\A)$. Adopting $L_{\rm bol}\simeq 5.9 \lambda
L_{\lambda}(3000\A)$ (McLure & Dunlop 2004), we obtain $b\approx
0.41$ and $N_t\approx 6\times10^{23}$cm$^{-2}$.
As long as ${{\ensuremath{L\mathrm{_{bol}}}}/{\ensuremath{L\mathrm{_{Edd}}}}}\gs 1.2\times10^{21}/6\times10^{23}=
2\times10^{-3}$, clouds with column density in the range between $1.2\times10^{21}$cm$^{-2}$ and $N_t{{\ensuremath{L\mathrm{_{bol}}}}/{\ensuremath{L\mathrm{_{Edd}}}}}$ can be blown away from the BELR. That is to say, the amount of BEL clouds that can survive near the central engine drops with increasing [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. Increasing [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} up to 0.1, the upper limit of the column density of expelled clouds increases to $6\times 10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$; where clouds can effectively emit the low-ionization line [Mg[II]{}]{}. Note that the estimation of $N_t$ is inexact, since it depends on whether the ionizing emission is isotropic, or is blocked by other BEL clouds (Gaskell 2009) and/or other structures (such as outflows, Leighly 2004). Nevertheless, the mechanism proposed here gives a promising explanation to the suppression of both the [C[IV]{}]{}and [Mg[II]{}]{} emission from the normal BELR in high-[[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} AGNs.
Connection Between [C[IV]{}]{} Blueshift and BAL {#sec_cbo}
------------------------------------------------
One of the most prominent spectral features imprinted by outflows is the broad absorption line. We refer to outflows associated with BAL as BAL outflow, while that associated with blueshifted BEL as BEL outflow. The comparison below suggests that BAL and BEL outflows may represent the same physical component.
Richards et al. (2002) found that the emission line features, such as the [C[III\]]{}]{} line complex[^5], [He[II]{} ]{} and the red wing of [C[IV]{}]{}, are very similar between the composites of BAL AGNs and non-BAL AGNs with large [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift. The broad band SED also displays a similar trend. For a given UV luminosity, non-BAL AGNs with large blueshifts tend to be X-ray weak compared to those with small blueshifts (Richards et al. 2011). The X-ray emission of BAL AGNs is usually severely absorbed, and thus cannot be directly used for a comparison. After correction for absorption, Fan et al. (2009) found that the intrinsic X-ray emission of BAL AGNs is on average weaker than that of non-BAL AGNs of the same UV luminosity. In particular, they found that the intrinsic X-ray strength is anti-correlated with the absorption strength of the [C[IV]{}]{} BAL for BAL AGNs. It is consistent with the correlation for the [C[IV]{}]{} BEL.
More similarities can be found when looking at the correlations of the outflow properties with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}. In this work, we find that the BEL outflow is stronger at a higher [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} (Fig. \[fig\_uledd\]). Similar correlations between the BAL properties and [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} have been reported previously. Boroson (2002) has shown that BAL AGNs tend to occupy the extreme end of the Boroson & Green (1992) Eigenvector 1, that is thought to be driven by the Eddington ratio. Recently, Ganguly et al. (2007) found the fraction of BAL AGNs, an indicator of the average covering factor of outflow, increases with the Eddington ratio(see also Zhang et al. 2010). They also found there appears to exist an overall upper-envelope of increasing $v_{\rm max}$ of BALs with increasing Eddington ratio. The correlations for the BAL outflows are consistent with but weaker than those for the BEL outflows. There may be a simple reason for this: BAL troughs hold only the information of outflow along the line of sight, and thus may be sensitive to the local structure; while BEL is an integral of emission over entire volume of the outflow and represents the overall properties.
The similarity between the BEL and BAL outflows can also be found directly from their own properties. The first is the maximal velocity, $v_{\rm max}$. Gibson et al. (2009) have obtained the distribution of $v_{\rm max}$ for BAL AGNs, which ranges from $<$5000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{} to $>$20000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}, with a mean value of $\sim$12000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}. The maximal velocity of a BEL outflow for individual AGN is hard to estimate. We estimate the average $v_{\rm max}$ of the BEL outflow from the difference spectra of the largest-BAI and smallest-BAI composites (Fig. \[fig\_ex\]). It is about 11000[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}, similar to the BAL outflow. We then compare their ionization states. As discussed above, the absence of blueshifted [Mg[II]{}]{} suggests that the BEL outflows contain very few Mg$^+$ ions. The same condition also appears in the BAL outflows. About only 10% of the BAL AGNs exhibit [Mg[II]{}]{} BAL (e.g Trump et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2010), suggesting the absence of Mg$^+$ ions in most of the BAL outflows.
Given the similarities shown above, the BAL outflows may also be responsible for producing the observed blueshifted BEL, at least for the strongest blueshifted BEL. When the line of sight to the continuum source intersects the outflow, BALs are produced in the AGN spectrum; otherwise, the AGN appears as a non-BAL AGN with blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{}. The frequency of occurrence of BAL in AGN spectra, the strength of BAL trough, and the blueshift of [C[IV]{}]{}are all enhanced as the outflow is boosted with increasing [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{}and/or decreasing the intrinsic X-ray emission. A viable outflow model must simultaneously account for both, the absorption and emission of [C[IV]{}]{}. Future studies on AGN outflows can be proceed from these two different approaches. For example, it is possible to use reverberation mapping results of the blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{} line to estimate the distance of the BAL outflow to the central source, an important parameter for understanding the launch of the outflow (the difficulty lies in how one separates variation of the outflow component from that of the normal BEL). One may also use the X-ray emission of AGNs with strongly blueshifted [C[IV]{}]{}, rather than the entire sample, to characterize the intrinsic X-ray emission of BAL AGNs; the latter is generally strongly absorbed and hard to study directly. In addition, we note that resonance scattering of the continuum and emission lines by ions, such as C$^{3+}$ and N$^{4+}$, in outflows may also contribute to the observed emission (e.g. Wang et al. 2010). That is to say, for proper modeling of the emission lines, especially [C[IV]{}]{} and [N[V]{}]{} with large blueshifts (a strong outflow and a weak normal BELR), the scattering emission must be taken into consideration.
Summary {#sec_sum}
=======
There are two kinds of models proposed to describe the kinematics and structure of the BELR of high-ionization lines (e.g. [C[IV]{}]{}) in AGNs, namely, the outflow and gravitationally bound BELR, that are apparently mutually contradictory. In this paper we attempt to uncover the underlying physical process responsible for this difference, using 4963 AGNs in the redshift range $1.7<z<2.2$ selected from SDSS DR5.
We introduce a blueshift and asymmetry index (BAI) to measure the deviation of the [C[IV]{}]{} line from an unshifted and symmetric profile. BAI is defined as the flux ratio of the blue part to the total profile, where the blue part is the part of the [C[IV]{}]{} line at wavelengths short of 1549.06, the laboratory rest-frame wavelength of the [C[IV]{}]{} doublets. BAI actually measures the combined effect of asymmetry and shift of a line profile, which is generally treated separately in the literature. Since both asymmetry and line shift may be caused by the same physical process, BAI is the best choice for our purpose.
We confirm previous findings that the [C[IV]{}]{} BEL is generally blueshifted with respect to the systemic redshift, and there exist significant correlations among the BAI, the line width (FWHM) and the rest equivalent width (EW) of [C[IV]{}]{}. For comparison, we investigate the same relationships among the BAI of [C[IV]{}]{}, the FWHM and EW of the low-ionization line [Mg[II]{}]{}. Dramatic differences are found between these two lines. For the [Mg[II]{}]{} line, FWHM is positively correlated with EW, and inversely correlated with BAI. While for [C[IV]{}]{}, FWHM is anti-correlated with EW, and the correlation between FWHM and BAI is complex and significantly different from that for [Mg[II]{}]{}. Given that line profile reflects the kinematic properties of the emitting gas, our results demonstrate clearly that, in general, the [C[IV]{}]{} line comes from a region with the structure and kinematics fundamentally different from those of [Mg[II]{}]{}, which is thought to be gravitationally bound.
We find a prominent correlation between BAI and the Eddington ratio, that is consistent with theoretical expectation. This correlation, together with the previously known correlation between [C[IV]{}]{} blueshift and the X-ray to UV flux ratio, advocates strongly the view that outflows are driven by resonance line absorption. Interestingly, there exist a number of similarities between blueshifted emission lines and broad absorption lines in AGNs in, for instance, the maximal velocity, ionization state and the correlations with the Eddington ratio and with the X-ray to UV flux ratio. These suggest that the same outflow produces these two different phenomena observed.
We select two subsamples, one composed of the 25% highest and one of the 25% lowest Eddington ratio AGNs. In the high Eddington ratio subsample, FWHM([C[IV]{}]{}) is positively correlated with BAI and anti-correlated with EW([C[IV]{}]{}). Both correlations are opposite to those for [Mg[II]{}]{} and can be understood in terms of outflow. Whereas, for the low Eddington ratio subsample, these two correlations for [C[IV]{}]{} become marginal or absent. [C[IV]{}]{} overlaps almost completely with [Mg[II]{}]{} in the parameter space. In particular, the line width of [C[IV]{}]{} is, on average, the same as that of [Mg[II]{}]{}. We thus conclude that the [C[IV]{}]{} line in this subsample is emitted by optically-thick gas driven by gravity, similar to the [Mg[II]{}]{} line.
Our results further suggest that the two [C[IV]{}]{} emitting regions, gravitationally bound and radiation driven, coexist in most of the AGNs. The emission strengths of these two regions vary smoothly with [[$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{}/[$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{}]{} in opposite directions. The [C[IV]{}]{} emission is generally dominated by outflows at high Eddington ratios, while it is primarily emitted from the normal gravitationally bound BELRs at low Eddington ratios. This explanation naturally reconciles the contradictory views proposed in previous studies. Viable models are also discussed that can account for both, the enhancement of outflow emission and the suppression of the normal BEL, in AGNs with high Eddington ratios.
We thank the referee, Gordon Richards, for his helpful suggestions that improved the paper. This work is supported by NSFC (11073017, 11033007, 10973013, 10973012, 11073019), 973 program (2007CB815405, 2009CB824800) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.
Arav, N., Li, Z.-Y., & Begelman, M. C. 1994, , 432, 62
Baskin, A., & Laor, A. 2005, , 356, 1029
Bachev, R., Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Zamanov, R., Calvani, M., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D. 2004, , 617, 171
Bentz, M. C., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., Vestergaard, M., & Onken, C. A. 2006, , 644, 133
Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, , 80, 109
Boroson, T. A. 2002, , 565, 78
Chiang, J., & Murray, N.1996, , 466, 704
Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B. M., & Vestergaard, M. 2006, , 456, 75
Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., & George, I. M. 2003, , 41, 117
Davidson, K., & Netzer, H.1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51, 715
Done, C., & Krolik, J. H.1996, , 463, 144
Dong, X.-B., Wang, T.-G., Wang, J.-G., Fan, X., Wang, H., Zhou, H., & Yuan, W. 2009, , 703, L1
Dong, X.-B., Wang, J.-G., Ho, L. C., Wang, T., Fan, X., Wang, H., Zhou, H., & Yuan, W.2011, ApJ accepted (arXiv:0903.5020)
Elvis, M. 2000, , 545, 63
Everett, J. E. 2005, , 631, 689
Fabian, A. C., Celotti, A., & Erlund, M. C. 2006, , 373, L16
Fan, L. L., Wang, H. Y., Wang, T., Wang, J., Dong, X., Zhang, K., & Cheng, F. 2009, , 690, 1006
Ferland, G. J., Peterson, B. M., Horne, K., Welsh, W. F., & Nahar, S. N. 1992, , 387, 95
Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., Ferguson, J. W., Kingdon, J. B., & Verner, E. M. 1998, , 110, 761
Ferland, G. J., Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Baldwin, J. A., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., & Williams, R. J. R. 2009, , 707, L82
Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, , 111, 63
Ganguly, R., Brotherton, M. S., Cales, S., Scoggins, B., Shang, Z., & Vestergaard, M. 2007, , 665, 990
Gaskell, C. M. 1982, , 263, 79
Gaskell, C. M. 1988, , 325, 114
Gaskell, C. M., & Goosmann, R. W. 2008, arXiv:0805.4258
Gaskell, C. M. 2009, , 53, 140
Gibson, R. R., Brandt, W. N., & Schneider, D. P. 2008, , 685, 773
Gibson, R. R., et al.2009, , 692, 758
Hewett, P. C., & Wild, V.2010, , 405, 2302
Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., & Giveon, U. 2000, , 533, 631
Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B. M., Vestergaard, M., & Jannuzi, B. T.2005, , 629, 61
Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., Trump, J. R., Vestergaard, M., & Siemiginowska, A. 2008, , 176, 355
Koratkar, A. P., & Gaskell, C. M. 1991, , 75, 719
Korista, K. T., et al.1995, , 97, 285
Krolik, J. H., Horne, K., Kallman, T. R., Malkan, M. A., Edelson, R. A., & Kriss, G. A. 1991, , 371, 541
Krolik, J. H. 2001, , 551, 72
Kuraszkiewicz, J. K., Wilkes, B. J., Czerny, B., Mathur, S., Brandt, W. N., & Vestergaard, M. 2000, , 44, 573
Laor, A., Jannuzi, B. T., Green, R. F., & Boroson, T. A. 1997, , 489, 656
Leighly, K. M. 2004, , 611, 125
Leighly, K. M., & Moore, J. R. 2004, , 611, 107
Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, , 223, 690
Marconi, A., Axon, D. J., Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Pastorini, G., Pietrini, P., Robinson, A., & Torricelli, G. 2008, , 678, 693
Markwardt, C. B. 2009, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 411, 251
Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Calvani, M., & Moles, M.1996, , 104, 37
McLure, R. J., & Jarvis, M. J. 2002, , 337, 109
McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2004, , 352, 1390
Murray, N., Chiang, J., Grossman, S. A., & Voit, G. M. 1995, , 451, 498
Murray, N., & Chiang, J.1997, , 474, 91
Nagao, T., Marconi, A., & Maiolino, R. 2006, , 447, 157
O’Brien, P. T., et al.1998, , 509, 163
Onken, C. A., & Peterson, B. M. 2002, , 572, 746
Onken, C. A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., Vestergaard, M., & Wandel, A. 2004, , 615, 645
Onken, C. A., & Kollmeier, J. A. 2008, , 689, L13
Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Research supported by the University of California, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, University of Minnesota, et al. Mill Valley, CA, University Science Books, 1989, 422 p.,
Peterson, B. M., & Wandel, A. 1999, , 521, L95
Peterson, B. M., & Wandel, A. 2000, , 540, L13
Proga, D., Stone, J. M., & Kallman, T. R. 2000, , 543, 686
Rees, M. J. 1984, , 22, 471
Richards, G. T., Vanden Berk, D. E., Reichard, T. A., Hall, P. B., Schneider, D. P., SubbaRao, M., Thakar, A. R., & York, D. G. 2002, , 124, 1
Richards, G. T. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0603827
Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, , 166, 470
Richards, G. T., et al. 2011, , 141, 167
Scaringi, S., Cottis, C. E., Knigge, C., & Goad, M. R. 2009, , 399, 2231
Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525
Schneider, D. P., et al. 2007, , 134, 102
Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., & Kaspi, S. 2008, , 682, 81
Sulentic, J. W., Marziani, P., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D. 2000a, , 38, 521
Sulentic, J. W., Zwitter, T., Marziani, P., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D. 2000b, , 536, L5
Sulentic, J. W., Bachev, R., Marziani, P., Negrete, C. A., & Dultzin, D. 2007, , 666, 757
Telfer, R. C., Zheng, W., Kriss, G. A., & Davidsen, A. F. 2002, , 565, 773
Trump, J. R., et al.2006, , 165, 1
Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., Oyabu, S., Tanab[é]{}, T., & Matsuoka, Y. 2006, , 650, 57
van der Marel, R. P., & Franx, M. 1993, , 407, 525
Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2001, , 122, 549
Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, , 381, 1235
Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, , 641, 689
Wang, T.-G., Lu, Y.-J., & Zhou, Y.-Y. 1998, , 493, 1
Wang, H.-Y., Wang, T.-G., & Wang, J.-X. 2007, , 168, 195
Wang, J., Jiang, P., Zhou, H., Wang, T., Dong, X., & Wang, H. 2008, , 676, L97
Wang, J.-G., et al. 2009a, , 707, 1334
Wang, T., Zhou, H., Yuan, W., Lu, H. L., Dong, X., & Shan, H. 2009b, , 702, 851
Wang, H., Wang, T., Yuan, W., Wang, J., Dong, X., & Zhou, H. 2010, , 710, 78
Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Foltz, C. B., & Hewett, P. C. 1991, , 373, 23
Wilkes, B. J. 1984, , 207, 73
Wills, B. J., Brotherton, M. S., Fang, D., Steidel, C. C., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1993, , 415, 563
Wu, J., Vanden Berk, D. E., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., Gibson, R. R., & Wu, J. 2009, , 702, 767
York, D. G., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579
Zamfir, S., Sulentic, J. W., & Marziani, P. 2008, , 387, 856
Zhang, S., Wang, T.-G., Wang, H., Zhou, H., Dong, X.-B., & Wang, J.-G. 2010, , 714, 367
Zheng, W., Kriss, G. A., Telfer, R. C., Grimes, J. P., & Davidsen, A. F. 1997, , 475, 469
Zhou, H., Wang, T., Wang, H., Wang, J., Yuan, W., & Lu, Y. 2006, , 639, 716
Notes on the asymmetry and shift of line profile
================================================
The asymmetry and shift of line profile are generally treated separately in the literature (e.g. Baskin & Laor 2005). Our blueshift and asymmetry index (BAI) is actually a combination of these two properties. In this Appendix, we present the line-shift index (SI) and asymmetry index (AI) of the [C[IV]{}]{} line profile and their comparisons with BAI. Both parameters are measured from the composite profiles of our two-Gaussian model. SI is defined as the shift of the line peak with respect to that in the AGN rest frame. Positive values of SI indicate blueshift. While AI is the flux ratio of the blue part to the total profile, where the blue part is the part of line profile at wavelengths short of the *peak wavelength*. The measurement of AI is therefore independent of the redshift errors of AGNs.
In the upper panels of Fig. \[fig\_asy\], we show the distributions of AI and SI. The median of SI is about 898[$\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$]{}, in agreement with Richards et al. (2011). The median of AI is about 0.50, suggesting that there is no strong preference for red or blue asymmetries. This is consistent with the result in Marziani et al. (1996, their Figure 4, see also Sulentic et al. 2000a), but different from that in Baskin & Laor (2005), who found that the [C[IV]{}]{} lines tend to be blue asymmetric. To derive the line parameter, Baskin & Laor fitted the local continuum with a power-law in two wavelength windows near 1470 and 1620. However, it is well known that there is a prominent bump near 1620 (see e.g. Nagao et al. 2006). Adopting 1620 as a continuum window can lead to systematic overestimation of AI.
AI and SI are strongly correlated with BAI (the lower panels of Fig. \[fig\_asy\]). The Spearman rank coefficients for these two correlations are both about $r_s=0.7$, suggesting that redshift errors do not cause significant bias in BAI, at least for our sample with high S/N data. We use AI or SI, instead of BAI, to repeat our analysis. Interestingly, all the correlations shown in this paper retain, albeit becoming somewhat weaker. This means that we can draw the same conclusions by using any of these three parameters. This further suggests that the line asymmetry and line shift are caused by the same process, as is discussed in the main text. Since BAI is a combination of AI and SI, BAI is the best choice for our purpose here.
Moreover, we also attempt to use the often-used asymmetry index, such as the shift between the centroids at $1/4$ and $3/4$ maximum in units of FWHM (see Sulentic et al. 2000a; Baskin & Lasor 2005). Very similar results are obtained.
[^1]: More recently, Richards et al. (2011) also used these redshifts to compute the [C[IV]{}]{} line shift. They found that the resultant line-shift is consistent with the shift with respect to the low-ionization line [Mg[II]{}]{}, which is often used in the literature.
[^2]: [$L\mathrm{_{bol}}$]{} is the bolometric luminosity and [$L\mathrm{_{Edd}}$]{} is the luminosity required for radiation pressure arising from electron scattering to balance the gravity of the central black hole.
[^3]: Our tests show that the results presented below do not change if we adopt other [Mg[II]{}]{} black hole mass formulae.
[^4]: The emission from an counter outflow on the other side of a presumed optically thick accretion disk is blocked.
[^5]: [C[III\]]{}]{} line complex is composed of [C[III\]]{}]{}, [Si[III\]]{}]{} and [Al[III]{}]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The dominant approaches for named entity recognition (NER) mostly adopt complex recurrent neural networks (RNN), long-short-term-memory (LSTM). However, RNNs are limited by their recurrent nature in terms of computational efficiency. In contrast, convolutional neural networks (CNN) can fully exploit the GPU parallelism with their feed-forward architectures. However, little attention has been paid to performing NER with CNNs, mainly owing to their difficulties in capturing the long-term context information in a sequence. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective CNN-based network for NER, gated relation network ([GRN]{}), which is more capable than common CNNs in capturing long-term context. Specifically, in [GRN]{} we firstly employ CNNs to explore the local context features of each word. Then we model the relations between words and use them as gates to fuse local context features into global ones for predicting labels. Without using recurrent layers that process a sentence in a sequential manner, our [GRN]{} allows computations to be performed in parallel across the entire sentence. Experiments on two benchmark NER datasets ( CoNLL-2003 and Ontonotes 5.0) show that, our proposed [GRN]{} can achieve state-of-the-art performance with or without external knowledge. It also enjoys lower time costs to train and test. We have made the code publicly available at https://github.com/HuiChen24/NER-GRN.'
author:
- |
Hui Chen$^{\dag}$, Zijia Lin$^\ddag$, Guiguang Ding$^{\dag}$, Jianguang Lou$^\ddag$, Yusen Zhang$^\S$, Borje Karlsson$^\ddag$\
$^\dag$Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology(BNRist)\
School of Software, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China\
$^\S$School of Computer Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China\
$^\ddag$Microsoft Research, Beijing, China\
$\{$jichenhui2012, yusenzhang95$\}[email protected], [email protected], $\{$zijlin, jlou, borje.karlsson$\}[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'RelationCNN.bib'
title: '[GRN]{}: Gated Relation Network to Enhance Convolutional Neural Network for Named Entity Recognition[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is one of the fundamental tasks in natural language processing (NLP). It is designed to locate a word or a phrase that references a specific entity, like person, organization, location, etc., within a text sentence. It plays a critical role in NLP systems for question answering, information retrieval, relation extraction, etc. And many efforts have been dedicated to the field.
Traditional NER systems mostly adopt machine learning models, such as Hidden Markov Model (HMM) [@bikel1997nymble] and Conditional Random Field (CRF) [@mccallum2003early]. Although these systems can achieve high performance, they heavily rely on hand-crafted features or task-specific resources [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF], which are expensive to obtain and hard to adapt to other domains or languages.
With the development of deep learning, recurrent neural network (RNN) along with its variants have brought great success to the NLP fields, including machine translation, syntactic parsing, relation extraction, etc. RNN has proven to be powerful in learning from basic components of text sentences, like words and characters [@tran2017named]. Therefore, currently the vast majority of state-of-the-art NER systems are based on RNNs, especially long-short-term-memory (LSTM) [@hochreiter1997long] and its variant Bi-directional LSTM (BiLSTM). For example, Huang firstly used a BiLSTM to enhance words’ context information for NER and demonstrated its effectiveness. However, RNNs process the sentence in a sequential manner, because they typically factor the computation along the positions of the input sequence. As a result, the computation at the current time step is highly dependent on those at previous time steps. This inherently sequential nature of RNNs precludes them from fully exploiting the GPU parallelism on training examples, and thus can lead to higher time costs to train and test.
Unlike RNNs, convolutional neural network (CNN) can deal with all words in a feed-forward fashion, rather than composing representations incrementally over each word in a sentence. This property enables CNNs to well exploit the GPU parallelism. But in the NER community, little attention has been paid to performing NER with CNNs. It is mainly due to the fact that CNNs have the capacity of capturing local context information but they are not as powerful as LSTMs in capturing the long-term context information. Although the receptive field of CNNs can be expanded by stacking multiple convolution layers or using dilated convolution layers, the global context capturing issue still remains, especially for variant-sized text sentences, which hinders CNNs obtaining a comparable performance as LSTMs for NER.
In this paper, we propose a CNN-based network for NER, Gated Relation Network ([GRN]{}), which is more powerful than common CNNs for capturing long-term context information. Different from RNNs that capture the long-term dependencies in a recurrent component, our proposed [GRN]{} aims to capture the dependencies within a sentence by modelling the relations between any two words. Modelling word relations permits [GRN]{} to compose global context features without regard to the limited receptive fields of CNNs, enabling it to capture the global context information. This allows [GRN]{} to reach comparable performances in NER versus LSTM-based models. Moreover, without any recurrent layers, [GRN]{} can be trained by feeding all words concurrently into the neural network at one time, which can generally improve efficiency in training and test.
Specifically, the proposed [GRN]{} is customized into 4 layers, the representation layer, the context layer, the relation layer and the CRF layer. In the representation layer, like previous works, a word embedding vector and a character embedding vector extracted by a CNN are used as word features. In the context layer, CNNs with various kernel sizes are employed to transform the word features from the embedding space to the latent space. The various CNNs can capture the local context information at different scales for each word. Then, the relation layer is built on top of the context layer, which aims to compose a global context feature for a word via modelling its relations with all words in the sentence. Finally, we adopt a CRF layer as the loss function to train [GRN]{} in an end-to-end manner.
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed [GRN]{}, we conduct extensive experiments on two benchmark NER datasets, CoNLL-2003 English NER and OntoNotes 5.0. Experimental results indicate that [GRN]{} can achieve state-of-the-art performance on both CoNLL-2003 ($\rm F_1$=$91.44$ without external knowledge and $\rm F_1$=$92.34$ with ELMo [@peters2018deep] simply incorporated) and Ontonotes 5.0 ($\rm F_1$=$87.67$), meaning that using [GRN]{}, CNN-based models can compete with LSTM-based ones for NER. Moreover, [GRN]{} can also enjoy lower time costs for training and test, compared to the most basic LSTM-based model.
Our contributions are summarized as follows.
- We propose a CNN-based network, gated relation network ([GRN]{}) for NER. [GRN]{} is a simple but effective CNN architecture with a more powerful capacity of capturing the global context information in a sequence than common CNNs.
- We propose an effective approach for [GRN]{} to model the relations between words, and then use them as gates to fuse local context features into global ones for incorporating long-term context information.
- With extensive experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed CNN-based [GRN]{} can achieve state-of-the-art NER performance comparable to LSTM-based models, while enjoying lower training and test time costs.
Related Work
============
Traditional NER systems mostly rely on hand-crafted features and task-specific knowledge. In recent years, deep neural networks have shown remarkable success in the NER task, as they are powerful in capturing the syntactic dependencies and semantic information for a sentence. They can also be trained in an end-to-end manner without involving subtle hand-crafted features, thus relieving the efforts of feature engineering.
**LSTM-based NER System.** Currently, most state-of-the-art NER systems employ LSTM to extract the context information for each word. Huang firstly proposed to apply a BiLSTM for NER and achieved a great success. Later @ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF and @chiu2016named introduced character-level representation to enhance the feature representation for each word and gained further performance improvement. MacKinlay proposed to stack BiLSTMs with residual connections between different layers of BiLSTM to integrate low-level and high-level features. @Liu2018Empower further proposed to enhance the NER model with a task-aware language model.
Though effective, the inherently recurrent nature of RNNs/LSTMs makes them hard to be trained with full parallelization. And thus here we propose a CNN-based network, gated relation network ([GRN]{}), to dispense with the recurrence issue. And we show that the proposed [GRN]{} can obtain comparable performance as those state-of-the-art LSTM-based NER models while enjoying lower training and test time costs.
**Leveraging External Knowledge.** It has been shown that external knowledge can greatly benefit NER models. External knowledge can be obtained by means of external vocabulary resources or pretrained knowledge representation, etc. @chiu2016named obtained $\rm F_1$=$91.62\%$ on CoNLL-2003 by integrating gazetteers. @peters2017semi adopted a character-level language model pretrained on a large external corpus and gained substantial performance improvement. More recently, @peters2018deep proposed ELMo, a deep language model trained with billions of words, to generate *dynamic contextual* word features, and gained the latest state-of-the-art performance on CoNLL-2003 by incorporating it into a BiLSTM-based model. Our proposed [GRN]{} can also incorporate external knowledge. Specifically, experiments show that, with ELMo incorporated, [GRN]{} can obtain even slightly superior performance on the same dataset.
**Non-Recurrent Networks in NLP.** The efficiency issue of RNNs has started to attract attention from the NLP community. Several effective models have also been proposed to replace RNNs. @gehring2017convolutional proposed a convolutional sequence-to-sequence model and achieved significant improvement in both performance and training speed. @vaswani2017attention used self-attention mechanism for machine translation and obtained remarkable translation performance. Our proposed [GRN]{} is also a trial to investigate whether CNNs can get comparable NER performances as LSTM-based models with lower time costs for training and test. And different from [@gehring2017convolutional; @vaswani2017attention], we do not adopt the attention mechanism here, though [GRN]{} is a general model and can be customized into the attention mechanism easily. Iterated dilated CNN (ID-CNN), proposed by @strubell2017fast , also aims to improve the parallelization of NER models by using CNNs, sharing similar ideas to ours. However, although ID-CNN uses dilated CNNs and stacks layers of them, its capacity of modelling the global context information for a variant-sized sentence is still limited, and thus its performance is substantially inferior to those of the state-of-the-art LSTM-based models. In contrast, our proposed [GRN]{} can enhance the CNNs with much more capacity to capture global context information, which is mainly attributed to that the relation modelling approach in [GRN]{} allows to model long-term dependencies between words without regard to the limited receptive fields of CNNs. And thus [GRN]{} can achieve significantly superior performance than ID-CNN.
Proposed Model
==============
In this section, we discuss the overall NER system utilizing the proposed [GRN]{} in detail. To ease the explanation, we organize our system with 4 specific layers, the representation layer, the context layer, the relation layer and the CRF layer. We will elaborate on these layers from bottom to top in the following subsections.
Representation Layer
--------------------
Representation layer aims to provide informative features for the upper layers. The quality of features has great impacts on the system’s performance. Traditionally, features are hand-crafted obeying some elaborative rules that may not be applicable to other domains. Therefore, currently many state-of-the-art approaches tend to employ deep neural networks for automatic feature engineering.
As previous works like [@Ye2018HSCRF], the representation layer in [GRN]{} is comprised of only word-level features and character-level features. In this paper, we use pre-trained *static* word embeddings, GloVe[^2] [@pennington2014glove], as the initialized word-level feature. And during training, they will be fine-tuned. Here we denote the input sentence $\bm{s}$ as $\bm{s}=\{s_1,s_2,...,s_T\}$, where $s_i$ with $i=1,2,\ldots,T$ denotes the $i$th word in the sentence, and $T$ is the length of the sentence. We also use $\bm{y}=\{y_1,y_2,...,y_T\}$ to denote the corresponding entity labels for all words, $y_i$ corresponding to $s_i$. With each word $s_i$ represented as a one-hot vector, its word-level feature $w_i$ is extracted as below: $$\label{eq:word_embed}
w_i = E(s_i)$$ where $E$ is the word embedding dictionary, initialized by the GloVe embeddings and fine-tuned during training.
Furthermore, we augment the word representation with the character-level feature, which can contribute to ease the out-of-vocabulary problem [@rei2016attending]. Same as [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF], here we adopt a CNN to extract the character-level feature for each word $s_i$, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:char-cnn\].
![CNN to extract the character-level feature for a word. Best see in color.[]{data-label="fig:char-cnn"}](char-cnn.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Specifically, the $j$-th character in the word $s_i$ containing $n$ characters is firstly represented as an embedding vector $c^i_j$ in a similar manner as Eq. \[eq:word\_embed\], except that the character embedding dictionary is initialized randomly. Then we use a convolutional layer to involve the information of neighboring characters for each character, which is critical to exploiting n-gram features. Finally, we perform a max-over-time pooling operation to reduce the convolution results into a single embedding vector $c_i$: $$\label{eq:char_cnn}
\begin{aligned}
&\bar{c}^i_j = \text{conv}([c^i_{j-k/2},...,c^i_j,...,c^i_{j+k/2}])\\
& c_i = \text{pooling}([\bar{c}^i_0,...,\bar{c}^i_j,...,\bar{c}^i_n])\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is the kernel size of the convolutional layer. Here we fix $k=3$ as [@Ye2018HSCRF].
Note that RNNs, especially LSTMs/BiLSTMs are also suitable to model the character-level feature. However, as revealed in [@yang2018design], CNNs are as powerful as RNNs in modelling the character-level feature. Besides, CNNs can probably enjoy higher training and test speed than RNNs. Therefore, in this paper we just adopt a CNN to model the character-level feature.
We regard $c_i$ as the character-level feature for the word $s_i$. then we concatenate it to the word-level feature $w_i$ to derive the final word feature $z_i=[c_i,w_i]$.
Context Layer
-------------
Context layer aims to model the local context information among neighboring words for each word. The local context is critical for predicting labels, regarding that there could exist strong dependencies among neighboring words in a sentence. For example, a location word often co-occurs with prepositions like *in*, *on*, *at*. Therefore, it is of necessity to capture the local context information for each word.
And it is obvious that the local dependencies are not limited within a certain distance. Therefore, we should enable the context layer to be adaptive to different scales of local information. Here, like InceptionNet [@szegedy2015going], we design the context layer with different branches, each being comprised of one certain convolutionaly layer. Figure \[fig:inception\] shows the computational process of the context layer.
Specifically, we use three convolutional layers with the kernel size being 1, 3, 5, respectively. After obtaining the word feature $Z=\{z_1,z_2,...,z_T\}$ of a sentence $\bm{s}$, each branch firstly extracts the local information $\bar{z}_i^k$ within a window-size $k$ for each word $s_i$. Then a max-pooling operation is employed to select the strongest channel-wise signals from all branches. To add the non-linear characteristic, we also apply *tanh* after each branch.
$$\label{eq:inception}
\begin{aligned}
&\bar{z}_i^k = \text{conv}_k([z_{i-k/2},...,z_i,...,c_{i+k/2}])\\
& x_i = \text{pooling}([tanh(\bar{z}_i^1),tanh(\bar{z}_i^3),tanh(\bar{z}^5_i)])\\
\end{aligned}$$
where $k \in \{1,3,5\}$ is the kernel size. For each $k$, we use $k/2$ zero-paddings to ensure that each word can get the corresponding context feature. Here, we consider the output $x_i$ of the context layer as the context feature for word $s_i$.
![Branches with various convolutions for extracting the local context feature for words. Best see in colors.[]{data-label="fig:inception"}](inception.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Although with various kernel sizes, the context layer can capture different kinds of local context information, it still struggles to capture the global one. However, we will show that with the gated relation layer described in the following subsection, the global context information can be realized by a fusion of the local one, thus tackling the shortcoming of the context layer.
Relation Layer
--------------
It has been shown that both short-term and long-term context information in a sequence is very critical in sequence learning tasks. LSTMs leverage the memory and the gating mechanism [@hochreiter1997long] to capture both context information and gain significant success. However, conventional CNNs cannot well capture the long-term context information owing to the limited receptive fields, and thus existing CNN-based NER models cannot achieve comparable performance as LSTM-based ones.
In this subsection, we introduce the gated relation layer in our proposed [GRN]{}, which aims to enhance the conventional CNNs with global context information. Specifically, it models the relations between any two words in the sentence. Then, with the gating mechanism, it composes a global context feature vector by weighted-summing up the relation scores with their corresponding local context feature vectors, as shown in Figure \[fig:relation\]. Similar to the attention mechanism, our proposed [GRN]{} is effective in modelling long-term dependencies without regard to the limited CNN receptive fields. And importantly, [GRN]{} can allow computations to be performed in parallel across the entire sentence, which can generally help to reduce the time costs for training and test.
Given the local context features $\bm{x}=\{x_1,x_2,...,x_T\}$ from the context layer for a sentence $\bm{s}$, the relation layer firstly computes the relation score vector $r_{ij}$ between any two words $s_i$ and $s_j$, which is of the same dimension as any $x_i$. Specifically, it firstly concatenates the corresponding context features $x_i$ and $x_j$, and then uses a linear function with the weight matrix $W_{rx}$ and the bias vector $b_{rx}$ to obtain $r_{ij}$: $$r_{ij} = W_{rx}[x_i;x_j] + b_{rx}$$
Like [@santoro2017simple], we can directly average these relation score vectors as follows: $$r_i = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T r_{ij}
\label{eq:relation_sum_up}$$ where $r_i$ is the fused global context feature vector for the word $s_i$ by the direct feature fusion operation, averaging in Eq. \[eq:relation\_sum\_up\]. However, considering that non-entity words generally take up the majority of a sentence, this operation may introduce much noise and mislead the label prediction. To tackle that, we further introduce the gating mechanism, and enable the relation layer to learn to select other dependent words adaptively. Specifically, for the word $s_i$, we firstly normalize all its relation score vectors $r_{ij}$ with a sigmoid function to reduce their biases. Then we sum up the normalized relation score vectors $r_{ij}$ with the corresponding local context feature vector $x_j \in \bm{x}=\{x_1,x_2,...,x_T\}$ of any other word $s_j$. And similar to Eq. \[eq:relation\_sum\_up\], finally we normalize the sum by the length of the sentence, $T$. $$r_i = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T \sigma(r_{ij}) \odot x_j
\label{eq:relation_gate}$$ where $\sigma$ is a gate using sigmoid function, and $\odot$ means element-wise multiplication. Note that $r_{ij}$ is asymmetrical and different from $r_{ji}$, and the relation vector w.r.t $s_i$ itself, $r_{ii}$, is also incorporated in the equation above. Therefore, with $r_i$ consisting of all the information of other words in the sentence, it can be seen as the global context feature vector for $s_i$.
In a way, [GRN]{} can be seen as a channel-wise attention mechanism [@chen2017sca]. However, instead of using a softmax function, we leverage the gating mechanism on the relation score vectors to decide how all the words play a part in predicting the label for the word $s_i$. We can also customize Eq. \[eq:relation\_gate\] to the formula of attention with gating mechanism, where a gate is used to compute the attention weight for a word: $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_{ij} = \sigma(W_x[x_i;x_j]+b_x)\\
&r_i = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T \alpha_{ij} *x_j\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:relation_attention}$$ where $\alpha_{ij} \in R^1$ is an attention weight rather than a vector. To distinguish from the proposed [GRN]{} ( Eq. \[eq:relation\_gate\]), we name Eq. \[eq:relation\_sum\_up\] as Direct Fusion Network (DFN) and Eq. \[eq:relation\_attention\] as Gated Attention Network ([GAttN]{}). We will consider DFN and [GAttN]{} as two of our baseline models to show the superiority of the proposed [GRN]{}.
![Gated relation layer in [GRN]{} for composing the global context feature for each word. $r_{ij}$ denotes the relation score vector between word $s_i$ and word $s_j$. Best see in color.[]{data-label="fig:relation"}](relation.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Here we also add a non-linear function for $r_i$ as follows. $$\label{eq:pi}
p_i = tanh(r_i)$$ And we define $p_i$ as the final predicting feature for word $s_i$.
CRF Layer
---------
Modelling label dependencies is crucial for NER task [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF; @Liu2018Empower]. Following [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF; @huang2015bidirectional], we employ a conditional random field (CRF) layer to model the label dependencies and calculate the loss for training [GRN]{}.
Formally, for a given sentence $\bm{s}=\{s_1,s_2,...,s_T\}$ and its generic sequence of labels $\bm{y}=\{y_1,y_2,...,y_T\}$, we firstly use $\mathcal{Y}(\bm{s})$ to denote the set of all possible label sequences for $\bm{s}$. The CRF model defines a family of conditional probability $p(\bm{y}|\bm{s})$ over all possible label sequences $\bm{y}$ given $\bm{s}$: $$p(\bm{y}|\bm{s})=\frac{\prod_{i=1}^T\phi_i(y_{i-1},y_i,\bm{s})}{\sum_{y'\in \mathcal{Y}(\bm{s})}\prod_{i=1}^T\phi_i(y'_{i-1},y'_i,\bm{s})}$$ where $\phi_i(y_{i-1},y_i,s)=\text{exp}(f(s_i, y', y))$ with $f$ being a function that maps words into labels: $$f(s_i, y', y) = W_{y}p_i+b_{y',y}$$ where $p_i$ is derived as Eq. \[eq:pi\], $W_{y}$ is the predicting weights w.r.t $y$ and $b_{y',y}$ is the transition weight from $y'$ to $y$. Both $W_{y}$ and $b_{y',y}$ are parameters to be learned.
Loss of the CRF layer is formulated as follows.$$L=-\sum_{\bm{s}} \log p(\bm{y}|\bm{s})$$
And for decoding, we aim to find the label sequence $\bm{y}*$ with the highest conditional probability: $$\bm{y}*=\mathrm{\arg\max}_{\bm{y}\in \mathcal{Y}(\bm{s})}p(\bm{y}|\bm{s})$$ which can be efficiently derived via Viterbi decoding.
Experiments
===========
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed [GRN]{}, we conduct extensive experiments on two benchmark NER datasets: CoNLL-2003 English NER [@tjong2003introduction] and OntoNotes 5.0 [@hovy2006ontonotes; @pradhan2013towards].
- **CoNLL-2003 English NER** consists of 22,137 sentences totally and is split into 14,987, 3,466 and 3,684 sentences for the training set, the development set and the test set, respectively. It includes annotations for 4 types of named entities: `PERSON`, `LOCATION`, `ORGANIZATION` and `MISC`.
- **OntoNotes 5.0** consists of much more (76,714) sentences from a wide variety of sources (telephone conversation, newswire, etc.). Following [@chiu2016named], we use the portion of the dataset with gold-standard named entity annotations, and thus excluded the New Testaments portion. It also contains much more kinds of entities, including `CARDINAL`, `MONEY`, `LOC`, `PRODUCT`, etc.
Table \[tab:dataset\] shows some statistics of both datasets. Following [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF], we use the BIOES sequence labelling scheme instead of BIO for both datasets to train models. As for test, we convert the prediction results back to the BIO scheme and use the standard CoNLL-2003 evaluation script to measure the NER performance, $\rm F_1$ scores, etc.
[max width=0.8]{}
Network Training
----------------
We implement our proposed [GRN]{} with the Pytorch library [@paszke2017automatic]. And we set the parameters below following [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF].
**Word Embeddings.** The dimension of word embedding is set as $100$. And as mentioned, we initialize it with Stanford’s publicly available GloVe 100-dimensional embeddings. We include all words of GloVe when building the vocabulary, besides those words appearing at least $3$ times in the training set. For words out of the vocabulary (denoted as `UNK`) or those not in GloVe, we initialize their embeddings with kaiming uniform initialization [@he2015delving]. **Character Embeddings.** We set the dimension of character embeddings as $30$, and also initialize them with kaiming uniform initialization.
**Weight Matrices and Bias Vectors.** All weight matrices in linear functions and CNNs are initialized with kaiming uniform initialization, while bias vectors are initialized as $0$.
**Optimization.** We employ mini-batch stochastic gradient descent with momentum to train the model. The batch size is set as $10$. The momentum is set as $0.9$ and the initial learning rate is set as $0.02$. We use learning rate decay strategy to update the learning rate during training. Namely, we update the learning rate as $\frac{0.02}{1+\rho*t}$ at the $t$-th epoch with $\rho=0.02$. We train each model on training sets with $200$ epochs totally, using dropout = $0.5$. For evaluation, we select its best version with the highest performance on the development set and report the corresponding performance on the test set. To reduce the model bias, we carry out 5 runs for each model and report the average performance and the standard deviation.
**Network Structure.** The output channel number of the CNN in Eq. \[eq:char\_cnn\] and Eq. \[eq:inception\] is set as 30 and 400, respectively.
[max width=]{}
Model Mean($\pm std$) $\rm{F_1}$ Max $\rm{F_1}$ Mean P/R
---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------- -----------------------
[@collobert2011natural] 88.67
[@luo2015joint] 89.90
[@chiu2016named] 90.91 $\pm$ 0.20 90.75 / 91.08
[@zhuo2016segment] 88.12
[@rei2016attending] 84.09
[@lample2016neural] 90.94
[@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF] 91.21 **91.35** / 91.06
[@rei2017semi] 86.26
[@zukov2017neural] 89.83
[@liu2017capturing] 89.5
[@peters2017semi] 90.87
[@Liu2018Empower] 91.24 $\pm$ 0.12 91.35
[@Ye2018HSCRF] 91.38 $\pm$ 0.10 91.53
ID-CNN [@strubell2017fast] 90.54 $\pm$ 0.18
CNN-BiLSTM-CRF 91.17 $\pm$ 0.18 91.45
CNN-BiLSTM-Att-CRF 90.24 $\pm$ 0.15 90.48
**[GRN]{}** **91.44 $\pm$ 0.16** **91.67** 91.31 / **91.57**
[@collobert2011natural]\* 89.59
[@luo2015joint]\* 91.2
[@chiu2016named]\* 91.62 $\pm$ 0.33 91.39 / 91.85
[@peters2017semi]\* 91.93 $\pm$ 0.19
(Tran et al. 2010)\* 91.66
(Yang et al. 2017)\* 91.26
[@peters2018deep]\* 92.22 $\pm$ 0.10
**[GRN]{}\*** **92.34 $\pm$ 0.10** **92.45** **92.04** / **92.65**
: Performance comparison on CoNLL-2003. \* indicates models utilizing external knowledge beside the CoNLL-2003 training set and pre-trained word embeddings. P/R denotes precision and recall.[]{data-label="tab:compare_conll"}
Performance Comparison
----------------------
Here we first focus on the NER performance comparison between the proposed [GRN]{} and the existing state-of-the-art approaches.
**CoNLL-2003.** We compare [GRN]{} with various state-of-the-art LSTM-based NER models, including [@Liu2018Empower; @Ye2018HSCRF], etc. We also compare [GRN]{} with ID-CNN [@strubell2017fast], which also adopts CNNs without recurrent layers for NER. Furthermore, considering that some state-of-the-art NER models exploit external knowledge to boost their performance, here we also report the performance of [GRN]{} with ELMo [@peters2018deep] incorporated as the external knowledge. Note that ELMo is trained on a large corpus of text data and can generate *dynamic contextual* features for words in a sentence. Here we simply concatenate the output ELMo features to the word feature in [GRN]{}. The experimental results are reported in Table \[tab:compare\_conll\], which also includes the max $\rm F_1$ scores, mean precision and recall values if available. Note that CNN-BiLSTM-CRF is our re-implementation of [@ma2016CNNBLSTMCRF], and we obtain comparable performance as that reported in the paper. Therefore, by default we directly compare [GRN]{} with the reported performance of compared baselines. It should also be noticed that, since the relation layer in [GRN]{} can be related to the attention mechanism, here we also include some attention-based baselines, , [@rei2016attending] and [@zukov2017neural], and we further introduce a new baseline termed CNN-BiLSTM-Att-CRF, which adds a self-attention layer for CNN-BiLSTM-CRF as [@zukov2017neural].
As shown in Table \[tab:compare\_conll\], compared with those LSTM-based NER models, the proposed [GRN]{} can obtain comparable or even slightly superior performance, with or without the external knowledge, which well demonstrates the effectiveness of [GRN]{}. And compared with ID-CNN, our proposed [GRN]{} can defeat it at a great margin in terms of $\rm{F_1}$ score. We also try to add ELMo to the latest state-of-the-art model of [@Ye2018HSCRF] based on their published codes, and we find that the corresponding $\rm{F_1}$ score is $91.79\pm0.08$, which is substantially lower than that of [GRN]{}.
**OntoNotes 5.0.** On OntoNotes 5.0, we compare the proposed [GRN]{} with NER models that also reported performance on it, including [@chiu2016named; @shen2017deep; @durrett2014joint], etc. As shown in Table \[tab:compare\_OntoNote\], [GRN]{} can obtain the state-of-the-art NER performance on OntoNotes 5.0, which further demonstrates its effectiveness.
[width=0.95]{}
Model Mean($\pm std$) $\rm{F_1}$ Mean P/R
---------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------
[@chiu2016named] 86.28 $\pm$ 0.26 86.04 / 86.53
[@shen2017deep] 86.63 $\pm$ 0.49
[@durrett2014joint] 84.04 85.22 / 82.89
[@passos2014lexicon] 82.30
[@ratinov2009design] 83.45
CNN-BiLSTM-Att-CRF 87.25$\pm$0.17
ID-CNN [@strubell2017fast] 86.84 $\pm$ 0.19
[GRN]{} **87.67 $\pm$ 0.17** **87.79** / **87.56**
: Performance comparison on OntoNotes 5.0. P/R denotes precision and recall.[]{data-label="tab:compare_OntoNote"}
[max width=0.9]{}
Model Mean($\pm std$) $\rm{F_1}$ $\rm{F_1}$ Drop
------ --------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------
[GRN]{} w/o context 88.36 $\pm$ 0.21 3.08
[GRN]{} w/ $\rm branch_3$ 90.88 $\pm$ 0.22 0.56
[GRN]{} w/o relation 90.13 $\pm$ 0.28 1.31
DFN 90.72 $\pm$ 0.06 0.72
[GAttN]{} 87.11 $\pm$ 0.25 4.33
Full [GRN]{} **91.44 $\pm$ 0.16** 0
: Ablation study on CoNLL-2003.[]{data-label="tab:compare_ablation_conll"}
[max width=0.9]{}
Model Mean($\pm std$) $\rm{F_1}$ $\rm{F_1}$ Drop
------ --------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------
[GRN]{} w/o context 82.21 $\pm$ 0.23 5.46
[GRN]{} w/ $\rm branch_3$ 86.66 $\pm$ 0.21 1.01
[GRN]{} w/o relation 85.87 $\pm$ 0.16 1.8
DFN 85.81 $\pm$ 0.14 1.86
[GAttN]{} 79.83 $\pm$ 0.37 7.83
Full [GRN]{} **87.67 $\pm$ 0.17** 0
: Ablation study on OntoNotes 5.0.[]{data-label="tab:compare_ablation_ontonote"}
Overall, the comparison results on both CoNLL-2003 and OntoNotes 5.0 well indicate that our proposed [GRN]{} can achieve state-of-the-art NER performance with or without external knowledge. It demonstrates that, using [GRN]{}, CNN-based models can compete with LSTM-based ones for NER.
Ablation Study
--------------
Here we study the impact of each layer on [GRN]{}. Firstly, we analyze the context layer by introducing two baseline models: (1) [GRN]{} w/o context: wiping out the context layer and building the relation layer on top of the representation layer directly; (2) [GRN]{} w/ $\rm branch_3$: removing branches in the context layer, except the one with kernel size $= 3$. Then to analyze the relation layer and the importance of gating mechanism in it, we compare [GRN]{} with: (1) [GRN]{} w/o relation: wiping out the relation layer and directly building the CRF layer on top of the context feature; (2) DFN (see Eq. \[eq:relation\_sum\_up\]); (3) [GAttN]{} (see Eq. \[eq:relation\_attention\]). All compared baselines use the same experimental settings as [GRN]{}. Table \[tab:compare\_ablation\_conll\] and Table \[tab:compare\_ablation\_ontonote\] report the experimental results on both datasets, where the last column shows the absolute performance drops compared to [GRN]{}.
![Word relation visualization: the x-axis shows the sentence and the y-axis shows the entity words in it. Regions with deeper color means stronger relations between the corresponding pair of words.[]{data-label="fig:visualization"}](visualization.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
As shown in Table \[tab:compare\_ablation\_conll\] and Table \[tab:compare\_ablation\_ontonote\], when reducing the number of branches in the context layer, [GRN]{} w/o context and [GRN]{} w/ $\rm branch_3$ drop significantly, which indicates that modelling different scales of local context information plays a crucial role for NER.
Compared with [GRN]{} w/o relation, DFN and [GAttN]{}, the proposed [GRN]{} defeats them at a substantial margin in terms of $\rm F_1$ score, which demonstrates that the proposed gated relation layer is beneficial to the performance improvement. The comparison also reveals that the channel-wise gating mechanism in [GRN]{} is more powerful than the gated attention approach ( Eq. \[eq:relation\_attention\]) and the direct fusion approach ( Eq. \[eq:relation\_sum\_up\]) under the same experimental settings for NER.
Training/Test Time Comparison
-----------------------------
In this section, we further compare the training and test time costs of the proposed [GRN]{} with those of CNN-BiLSTM-CRF, which is the most basic LSTM-based NER model achieving high performance. We conduct our experiments on a physical machine with Ubuntu 16.04, 2 Intel Xeon E5-2690 v4 CPUs, and a Tesla P100 GPU. For fair comparison, we keep the representation layer and the CRF layer the same for both models, so that the input and output dimensions for the “BiLSTM layer” in CNN-BiLSTM-CRF would be identical to those of the “context layer + relation layer” in [GRN]{}. We train both models with random initialization for a total of 30 epochs, and after each epoch, we evaluate the learned model on the test set. For both training and test, batch size is set as $10$ as before. And here we use the average training time per epoch and the average test time to calculate speedups.
As shown in Table \[tab:time\_complexity\], [GRN]{} can obtain a speedup of more than $1.15$ during training and around $1.10$ during test on both datasets. The speedup may seem not so significant, because the time costs reported here also include those consumed by common representation layer, CRF layer, etc. For reference, the fast ID-CNN with a CRF layer ( ID-CNN-CRF) [@strubell2017fast] was reported to have a test-time speedup of $1.28$ over the basic BiLSTM-CRF model on CoNLL-2003. Compared to ID-CNN-CRF, [GRN]{} sacrifices some speedup for better performance, and the speedup gap between both is still reasonable. We can also see that the speedup on CoNLL-2003 is larger than that on OntoNotes 5.0, which can be attributed to that the average sentence length of CoNLL-2003 ($\sim 14$) is smaller than that of OntoNotes 5.0 ($\sim 18$) and thus the relation layer in [GRN]{} would cost less time for the former. The results above demonstrate that the proposed [GRN]{} can generally bring efficiency improvement over LSTM-based methods for NER, via fully exploiting the GPU parallelism.
[width=0.75]{}
Word Relation Visualization
---------------------------
Since the proposed [GRN]{} aims to boost the NER performance by modelling the relations between words, especially long-term ones, we can visualize the gating output in the relation layer to illustrate the interpretability of [GRN]{}. Specifically, we utilize the $L2$ norm of $r_{ij}$ to indicate the extent of relations between the word $s_i$ and the word $s_j$. Then we further normalize the values into $\left[0, 1\right]$ to build a heat map. Figure \[fig:visualization\] shows a visualization sample. We can find out that the entity words (y-axis) are more related to other entity words as well, even though they may be “far away” from each other in the sentence, like the 1st word “Sun” and the 8th word “Sidek” in the sample. Note that “Sun” and “Sidek” are not in an identical receptive field of any CNN used in our experiments, but their strong correlation can still be exploited with the relation layer in [GRN]{}. That concretely illustrates that, by introducing the gated relation layer, [GRN]{} is able to capture the long-term dependency between words.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we propose a CNN-based network, gated relation network ([GRN]{}), for named entity recognition (NER). Unlike the dominant LSTM-based NER models which process a sentence in a sequential manner, [GRN]{} can process all the words concurrently with one forward operation and thus can fully exploit the GPU parallelism for potential efficiency improvement. Besides, compared with common CNNs, [GRN]{} has a better capacity of capturing long-term context information. Specifically, [GRN]{} introduces a gated relation layer to model the relations between any two words, and utilizes gating mechanism to fuse local context features into global ones for all words. Experiments on CoNLL-2003 English NER and Ontonotes 5.0 datasets show that, [GRN]{} can achieve state-of-the-art NER performance with or without external knowledge, meaning that using [GRN]{}, CNN-based models can compete with LSTM-based models for NER. Experimental results also show that [GRN]{} can generally bring efficiency improvement for training and test.
Acknowledgements
================
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61571269).
[^1]: Work was done during an internship at Microsoft Research.
[^2]: http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the reachability problem for timed automata. A standard solution to this problem involves computing a search tree whose nodes are abstractions of zones. For efficiency reasons, they are parametrized by the maximal lower and upper bounds ($LU$-bounds) occurring in the guards of the automaton. We propose an algorithm that is updating $LU$-bounds during exploration of the search tree. In order to keep them as small as possible, the bounds are refined only when they enable a transition that is impossible in the unabstracted system. So our algorithm can be seen as a kind of lazy CEGAR algorithm for timed automata. We show that on several standard benchmarks, the algorithm is capable of keeping very small $LU$-bounds, and in consequence reduce the search space substantially.'
author:
- 'F. Herbreteau, B. Srivathsan, and I. Walukiewicz'
bibliography:
- 'm.bib'
title: Lazy abstractions for timed automata
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
How to reconcile the classical Heston model with its rough counterpart? We introduce a lifted version of the Heston model with $n$ [multi-factors, sharing]{} the same Brownian motion but mean reverting at different speeds. Our model nests as extreme cases the classical Heston model (when $n = 1$), and the rough Heston model (when $n$ goes to infinity). We show that the lifted model enjoys the best of both worlds: Markovianity and satisfactory fits of implied volatility smiles for short maturities with very few parameters. Further, our approach speeds up the calibration time and opens the door to time-efficient simulation schemes.\
[[*Keywords:*]{} Stochastic volatility, implied volatility, affine Volterra processes, Riccati equations, rough volatility]{}. 1
author:
- 'Eduardo [Abi Jaber]{}[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'biblifting.bib'
title: '[Lifting the Heston model]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Conventional one-dimensional continuous stochastic volatility models, including the renowned Heston model [@heston1993closed]: $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t &= S_t \sqrt{V_t}dB_t, \quad S_0>0, \label{eq:Heston S}\\
dV_t &= \lambda (\theta - V_t) dt + \nu \sqrt{V_t}dW_t, \quad V_0 \geq 0, \label{eq:Heston V}\end{aligned}$$ have struggled in capturing the risk of large price movements on a short timescale. In the pricing world, this translates into failure to reproduce the at-the-money skew observed in the market [as illustrated on the following figure.]{}
 \[fig:skew intro\]
In view of improving the overall fit, several directions have been considered over the past decades. Two of the most common extensions are adding jumps [@conttankov; @gatheral2011volatility] and stacking additional random factors [@bergomi2005smile; @fouque2011multiscale], in order to jointly account for short and long timescales. While the two approaches have structural differences, they both suffer from the curse of dimensionality, as more parameters are introduced, slowing down the calibration process. Recently, rough volatility models have been introduced as [a fresh substitute with remarkable fits of the implied volatility surface, see [@gatheral2014volatility; @Bayeretal2016; @euch2017roughening].]{} [The rough variance process involves a one-dimensional Brownian motion, keeps the number of parameters small and enjoys continuous paths.]{} [However, the price to pay is that rough volatility models leave the realm of semimartingale and Markovian models, which makes pricing and hedging a challenging task, while degrading the calibration time.]{} Here, the curse of dimensionality hits us straight in the face in the non-Markovianity of the process. [Indeed, the rough model can be seen as an infinite dimensional Markovian model, as shown in [@AJEE18b; @cuchiero2018generalized].]{} 2
Going back to the standard Heston model -, despite its lack of fit for short maturities, [it remains increasingly popular among practitioners. This is due to its high tractability, by virtue of the closed form solution of the characteristic function, allowing for fast pricing and calibration by Fourier inversion techniques [@carr1999option; @fang2008novel].]{} Recently, El Euch and Rosenbaum [@euch2016characteristic] combined the tractability of the Heston model with the flexibility [of rough volatility models, to elegantly concoct a rough counterpart of -, dubbed the rough Heston model.]{} More precisely, the rough model is constructed by replacing the variance process by a fractional square-root process as follows $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t &= S_t \sqrt{V_t}dB_t, \quad S_0>0, \label{eq:rough price}\\
V_t &= V_0 + \frac{1}{\Gamma(H+1/2)}\int_0^t (t-s)^{H - 1/2} \left( \lambda( \theta - V_s)ds + \nu\sqrt{V_s}dW_s\right), \label{eq:rough variance}
\end{aligned}$$ [where $H \in (0,1/2]$ has a physical interpretation, as it measures the regularity of the sample paths of $V$, see [@gatheral2014volatility; @BLP:16], the case $H=1/2$ corresponding to the standard Heston model. More precisely, the sample paths of $V$ are locally Hölder continuous of any order strictly less than $H$.]{} As for the standard Heston model, the characteristic function of the log-price is known, but only up to the solution of a certain fractional Riccati Volterra equation. [Indeed, both models belong to the tractable and unifying class of affine Volterra processes introduced in [@ALP17].]{} [The following table summarizes the characteristics of the two models.]{} 22222
Characteristics Heston Rough Heston
---------------------------- -------- --------------
Markovian
Semimartingale
Simulation
Affine Volterra process
Characteristic function
Calibration
Fit short maturities
Regularity of sample paths
: Summary of the characteristics of the models.[]{data-label="tablecomparisonintro"}
[ In the present paper, we introduce a conventional multi-factor continuous stochastic volatility model: *the lifted Heston model*. [The variance process is constructed as a weighted sum of $n$ factors, driven by the same one-dimensional Brownian motion, but mean reverting at different speeds, in order to accommodate a full spectrum of timescales. At first glance, the model seems over-parametrized, with already $2n$ parameters for the mean reversions and the weights. Inspired by the approximation results of [@AJEE18a]]{}, we provide a good parametrization of these $2n$ parameters in terms of one single parameter $H$, which is nothing else [but]{} the Hurst index of a limiting rough [Heston]{} model -, obtained after sending the numbers of factors to infinity.]{}2
[The lifted model not only nests as extreme cases the classical Heston model (when $n = 1$) and the rough Heston model (when $n$ goes to infinity), but also enjoys the best of both worlds: the flexibility of rough volatility models, and the Markovianity of their conventional counterparts.]{} Further, the model remains tractable[, as it also belongs to the class of affine Volterra processes.]{} Here, the characteristic function of the log-price is known up to a solution of a finite system of Riccati ordinary differential equations. From a practical viewpoint, we demonstrate that the *lifted Heston model*:
- reproduces the same volatility surface as the rough Heston model for maturities ranging from one week to two years,
- mimics the explosion of the at-the-money skew for short maturities,
- calibrates twenty times faster than its rough counterpart,
- is easier to simulate than the rough model.
All in all, the *lifted Heston model* can be more easily implemented than its rough counterpart, while still retaining the precision of implied volatility fits of the rough Heston model. Further, the *lifted Heston model* is able to generate a volatility surface, which cannot be generated by the classical Heston model, with only one additional parameter. Finally, the stock price and the variance process enjoy continuous paths and only depend on a two-dimensional Brownian motion, leading to simple and feasible hedging strategies.2
The paper is outlined as follows. In Section \[S:lifted heston\] we introduce our *lifted Heston model* and provide its existence, uniqueness and its affine Fourier-Laplace transform. Exploiting the limiting rough model, we proceed in Section \[S:parameter reduction\] to a reduction of the number of parameters to calibrate. [Numerical experiments for the model, with $n=20$ factors, are illustrated in Section \[S:numerics\], both for [calibration]{} and simulation. Finally, some technical material is postponed to Appendices \[eq:appendix existence\]-\[A:scheme\].]{}
The lifted Heston model {#S:lifted heston}
=======================
We fix $n \in \mathbb N$ and we define the *lifted Heston model* as a conventional stochastic volatility model, with $n$ factors for the variance process: $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t^n &= S_t^n \sqrt{V^n_t} dB_t, \quad S_0^n>0, \label{eq:liftedS}\\
V^n_t &= g_0^n(t) + \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i U^{n,i}_t, \label{eq:liftedV}\\
dU_{t}^{n,i} &= \left( -x^n_i U^{n,i}_t -\lambda V^n_t \right) dt + \nu \sqrt{V^n_t} dW_t, \quad U^{n,i}_0 =0, \quad i=1,\ldots,n, \label{eq:liftedU}\end{aligned}$$ with parameters the function $g_0^n$, $\lambda,\nu \in\R_+ $, $c^n_i,x^n_i \geq 0$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, and $B=\rho W + \sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^{\perp}$, with $(W,W^{\perp})$ a two dimensional Brownian motion on a fixed filtered probability space $(\Omega, \Fc, \F:=(\Fc_t)_{t \geq 0}, \Q)$, with $\rho \in [-1,1]$. 2
We stress that all the factors $(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ start from zero[^2] and share the same dynamics, with the same one-dimensional Brownian motion $W$, except that they mean revert at different speeds $(x_i^n)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$. Further, the deterministic input curve $g_0^n$ allows one to plug-in initial term-structure curves. More precisely, taking the expectation in leads to the following relation $$\E[V^n_t] + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i \int_0^t e^{-x^n_i (t-s)} \E[V^n_s] ds = g_0^n(t), \quad t \geq 0.$$ [In practice, the forward variance curve, up to a horizon $T>0$, can be extracted from variance swaps observed in the market and then plugged-in in place of $(\E[V^n_t])_{t \leq T}$ in the previous expression.]{}2 For a suitable choice of continuous curves $g_0^n$, for instance if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g0 example 1}
g^n_0 \mbox{ is non-decreasing such that } g^n_0(0) \geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g0 example 2}
g_0^n:t\to V_0 + \sum_{i=1}^n c_i^n \int_0^t e^{-x_i^n(t-s)} \theta (s) ds, \mbox{ with } V_0 , \theta \geq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ there exists a unique continuous $\F$-adapted strong solution $(S^n,V^n,(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n})$ to -, such that $V^n_t \geq 0$, for all $t \geq 0$, and $S^n$ is a $\F$-martingale. [We refer to Appendix \[eq:appendix existence\] for more details and the exact definition of the set of admissible input curves $g_0^n$.]{} 2
Since [our main objective is to compare the lifted model to other existent models, we will restrict to the case of input curves of the form]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: flat curve}
g_0^n:t\to V_0 + \theta \sum_{i=1}^n c_i^n \int_0^t e^{-x_i^n(t-s)} ds , \quad \mbox{with } V_0,\theta \geq 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Setting $n=1$, $c^1_1= 1$ and $x^1_1=0$, the *lifted Heston model* degenerates into the standard Heston model -. So far, the multi-factor extensions of the standard Heston model have been considered by stacking additional square-root processes as in the double Heston model[^3] of [@christoffersen2009shape] and the multi-scale Heston model of [@fouque2011fast], or by considering a Wishart matrix-valued process as in [@da2008multifactor]. [In both cases, the dimension of the driving Brownian motion for the variance process, along with the number of parameters, grows with the number of factors.]{} Clearly, the *lifted Heston model* differs from these extensions, [one can compare - for $n=2$ with -.]{} 2
[Just like the classical Heston model, the *lifted Heston model* remains tractable. Specifically, fix $u \in \mathbb C$ such that $\mbox{Re}(u) \in [0,1]$.]{} [By virtue of Appendix \[S: appendix full fourier\],]{} the Fourier-Laplace transform of the log-price is exponentially affine with respect to the factors $(U^{n,i})_{ 1 \leq i \leq n}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:char function log S}
\E\left[ \exp\left(u \log S^n_t \right) {{\ \Big|\ }}\Fc_t \right] = \exp\left({\phi^n(t,T) + u \log S^n_t + \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i\psi^{n,i} (T-t) U^{n,i}_t }\right),
\end{aligned}$$ for all $t \leq T$, where $(\psi^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ solves the following $n$-dimensional system of Riccati ordinary differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psi xi}
(\psi^{n,i})' = - x^n_i \psi^{n,i} + F\left(u, \sum_{j=1}^n c^n_j \psi^{n,j} \right),\quad \psi^{n,i}(0)=0, \quad i=1,\ldots, n,\end{aligned}$$ with $$F(u,v) = \frac{1}{2}(u^2 - u) + (\rho \nu u - \lambda) v + \frac{\nu^2}{2} v^2,$$ and $$\phi^n(t,T) = \int_0^{T-t} F\left(u,\sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i\psi^{n,i}(s) \right)g^n_0 (T-s) ds, \quad t \leq T.$$
In particular, for $t=0$, since $U^{n,i}_0=0$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$, the unconditional Fourier-Laplace transform reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:char function log S t=0}
\E\left[ \exp\left(u \log S^n_t \right)\right] = \exp\left( {u \log S^n_0} + \int_0^{T} F\left(u,\sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i\psi^{n,i}(s) \right)g^n_0 (T-s) ds \right).
\end{aligned}$$
A similar formula holds for the Fourier-Laplace transform of the joint process $(\log S^n, V^n)$ with integrated log-price and variance, we refer to the Appendix \[S: appendix full fourier\] for the precise expression.2
Consequently, the Fourier-Laplace transform of the *lifted Heston model* is known in closed-form, up to the solution of a deterministic $n$-dimensional system of ordinary differential equations , which can be solved numerically. Once there, standard Fourier inversion techniques can be applied on to deduce option prices. This is illustrated in the following sections.
Parameter reduction and the choice of the number of factors {#S:parameter reduction}
===========================================================
[In this section, we proceed to a reduction of the number of parameters to calibrate. Our inspiration stems from rough volatility. In a first step, for every $n$, we provide a parametrization of the weights and the mean reversions $(c^n_i,x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ in terms of the Hurst index $H$ of a limiting rough volatility model and one additional parameter $r_n$. Then, we specify the number of factors $n$ and the value of the additional parameter $r_n$ so that the lifted model reproduces the same volatility surface as the rough Heston model for maturities ranging from one week up to two years, while calibrating twenty times faster than its rough counterpart. Benchmarking against rough volatility models is justified by the fact that one of the main strengths of these models is their ability to achieve better fits of the implied volatility surface than conventional stochastic volatility models. This has been illustrated on real market data in [@Bayeretal2016; @euch2017roughening]. Finally, for the sake of completeness, we provide a comparison with the standard Heston model. ]{}
Parametrization in terms of the Hurst index
-------------------------------------------
[For [an initial input curve of the form , the *lifted Heston model* - has the same five parameters $(V_0, \theta, \lambda, \nu, \rho)$ of the Heston model, plus $2n$ additional parameters for the weights and the mean reversions $(c^n_i,x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$.[^4]]{} At first sight, the model seems to suffer from the curse of dimensionality, as it requires the calibration of $(2n+5)$ parameters. This is where the exciting theory of rough volatility finally comes into play. Inspired by the approximation result [@AJEE18a Theorem 3.5], we suggest to use a parametrization of $(c^n_i,x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ in terms of two well-chosen parameter. By doing so, we reduce the $2n$ additional parameters to calibrate to only two effective parameters.]{} 2
[Qualitatively, we choose the weights and mean reversions $(c^n_i,x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ in such a way that sending the number of factors $n \to \infty$ would yield the convergence of the *lifted Heston model* towards a rough Heston model -, with parameters $(V_0, \theta, \lambda, \nu, \rho,H)$. The additional parameter $H \in (0,1/2)$ is the so-called Hurst index of the limiting fractional variance process , and it measures the regularity of its sample paths.]{}2
More precisely, for a fixed even number of factors $n$, we fix $r_n>1$ and we consider the following parametrization for the weights and the mean reversions [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: ci and xi}
c^n_i=\frac{(r_n^{1-\alpha}-1)r_n^{(\alpha-1)(1+n/2)}}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(2-\alpha)} r_n^{(1-\alpha)i} \;\;\mbox{ and }\;\; x^n_i= \frac{1-\alpha}{2-\alpha}\frac{r_n^{2-\alpha}-1}{r_n^{1-\alpha}-1} r_n^{i-1-n/2}, \;\; i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\alpha:=H+1/2$ for some $H\in (0,1/2)$.[^5]2
[If in addition, the sequence $(r_n)_{n \geq 1}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rn cond}
r_n \downarrow 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad n \ln r_n \to \infty, \quad \mbox{as } n\to \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ then, Theorem \[T:convergence rHeston\] in the Appendix ensures the convergence of the lifted model towards the rough Heston model, as $n$ goes to infinity. We refer to Appendix \[A:limiting model\] for more details.]{}2
[In order to visualize this convergence, we first define the following sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:r_n choice 1}
r_n =1+ 10\,n^{-0.9}, \quad n \geq 1,\end{aligned}$$ which clearly satisfies .]{} Then, we generate our benchmark implied volatility surface, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{for $9$ maturities $T \in \{\mbox{1w, 1m, 2m, 3m, 6m, 9m, 1y, 1.5y, 2y}\}$}, \label{eq:T}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \mbox{with up to $80$ strikes $K$ per maturity,} \label{eq:K}\end{aligned}$$ with a rough Heston model[^6] with parameters $\Theta_0:=(V_0,\theta,\lambda,\nu,\rho,H)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: 5parameters}
V_0=0.02, \quad \theta= 0.02, \quad \lambda = 0.3, \quad \nu=0.3, \quad \rho=-0.7 \quad \mbox{and} \quad H=0.1. \end{aligned}$$ The generated implied volatility is kept fixed and is denoted by $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_0)$, for every pair $(K,T)$ in -. 2
Then, for each $n \in \{10,20,50,100,500\}$, we generate the implied volatility surface of the *lifted Heston model*[^7] with $n$-factors, with the same set of parameters $\Theta_0$ as in , and plugged in . For each $n$, the generated surface is denoted by $\sigma_n(K,T;r_n,\Theta_0)$, for every pair $(K,T)$ in -. 2
Because the sequence $(r_n)_{n \geq 1}$ defined in satisfies condition , as $n$ grows, $$\sigma_{n}(K,T;r_n,\Theta_0) \to \sigma_{\infty}(K, T;\Theta_0),$$ by virtue of Theorem \[T:convergence rHeston\] in the Appendix. This convergence phenomenon is illustrated in Figure \[fig:convergence factors\] below for two maturity slices, one week and one year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:convergence factors\]
In view of assessing the proximity between the implied volatility surface $\sigma_{n}(K,T;r_n,\Theta_0)$ of the *lifted Heston model* and that of the [rough Heston model]{} $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_0)$, we compute the mean squared error (MSE) between the two volatility surfaces defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sum_{(K',T')} w(K',T')} \sum_{(K,T)} w(K,T) (\sigma_n(K,T;r_n,\Theta_0) - \sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_0))^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we sum over all pairs $(K,T)$ as in -. Here, $w$ stands for a matrix of weights, where we put more weight on options near the money and with short time to maturity (one could also set $w(K,T)=1$ for all $(K,T)$).2
The corresponding mean squared errors of Figure \[fig:convergence factors\] are reported in Table \[tableconvergence\] below, along with the computational time[^8] for generating the whole volatility surface, for all pairs $(K,T)$ as in -, that is, for $9$ maturities slices with up to $80$ strikes per maturity.[^9]
$n$ $r_n=1+10\,n^{-0.9}$ Time (seconds) MSE
-- ---------------- ---------------------- ---------------- ----------
$10$ 2.26 3.9 1.20e-03
[20]{} 1.67 [4.4]{} 1.85e-04
$50$ 1.3 5.2 6.81e-05
$100$ 1.16 6.6 2.54e-05
$500$ 1.04 17.4 3.66e-06
$n \to \infty$ $r_n \downarrow 1$ 106.8
: Convergence of the lifted model towards its rough counterpart for $r_n=1+10\, n^{-0.9}$, with the corresponding computational time in seconds for generating the implied volatility surface -.[]{data-label="tableconvergence"}
All in all, we notice that the number of effective parameters remains constant and does not depend on the number of factors $n$. [This has to be contrasted with the usual multi-factor extensions: the double Heston model - already has 10 parameters $(U^i_0,\theta_i, \lambda_i , \nu_i, \rho_i )_{i \in \{1,2\}}$, the multi-scale model of [@fouque2011fast] also suffers from over-parametrization.]{}2
[In the subsequent subsection, we will explain how to fix $n$ and $r_n$, so that the parameters to calibrate are reduced to only six effective parameters $(V_0,\theta,\lambda, \nu, \rho, H)$, one additional parameter than the standard Heston model!]{}
Practical choice of $n$ and $r_n$
---------------------------------
[We suggest to fix the following values]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:choice n r}
n=20 \quad \mbox{ and } \quad r_{20}=2.5.\end{aligned}$$ [Our choice will be based on the numerical comparison with the rough Heston model of the previous section.]{} 2
We start by explaining our choice for the number of factors $n$ in . Based on Table \[tableconvergence\], we choose $n$ with a good trade-off between time-efficiency and proximity to the rough volatility surface. Fixing $n=20$ seems to be a good choice. Visually, as already shown on Figure \[fig:convergence factors\], the two implied volatility slices have almost identical shapes. Whence, one would expect that by letting the parameters $r_{20}$ free, one could achieve a perfect fit of the rough surface with only $n=20$ factors. This can be formulated as follows: keeping the six parameters of the lifted model fixed as in , can one find $ {r^*_{20}(\Theta_0)}>1$ such that $$\sigma_{20}(K,T; r^*_{20}(\Theta_0), \Theta_0 ) \approx \sigma_{\infty}(K, T;\Theta_0), \quad \mbox{for all } K,T?$$
The next subsection provides a positive answer.
### Mimicking roughness by increasing $r_{20}$
[First, one needs to understand the influence of the parameter $r_n$ on the *lifted Heston model*.]{} Increasing $r_n$ has the effect of boosting the parameters $(c^n_i,x_i^n)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ in , leading to an increase of the vol-of-vol parameter of the lifted model given by $\nu \sum_{i=1}^n c_i^n, $ together with faster mean-reversions $(x_i^n)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ for the factors. In analogy with conventional stochastic volatility models, such as the standard Heston model -, increasing the vol-of-vol parameter together with the speed of mean reversion yields a steeper skew at the short-maturity end of the volatility surface. Consequently, increasing the parameter $r_n$ in the lifted model should steepen the implied volatility slice for short-maturities. Figure \[fig:convergence 20factors r\] below confirms that this is indeed the case when one increases the value of $r_{20}$ from $1.67$ to $2.8$, for the $20$-dimensional lifted model, as the two slices now almost perfectly match:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:convergence 20factors r\]
The corresponding mean squared errors of Figure \[fig:convergence 20factors r\] are collected in Table \[table n=20\] below.
---------- ----------
$r_{20}$ MSE
1.67 1.85e-04
1.90 4.16e-05
2.20 8.72e-06
2.50 3.64e-06
2.80 2.81e-06
---------- ----------
: Mean squared errors between the $20$-dimensional lifted model $\sigma_{20}(k,T;r_{20},\Theta_0)$ and the rough model $\sigma_{\infty}(k,T;\Theta_0)$, for different values of $r_{20}$. []{data-label="table n=20"}
Because $r_n$ has to converge to $1$, when $n$ goes to infinity, recall , we seek to keep $r_n$ as small as possible. For $n=20$, fixing $r^*_{20}(\Theta_0)=2.5$ yields already satisfactory results, improving the mean squared error of 1.85e-04 in Table \[tableconvergence\] to 3.64e-06. Further, this choice yields the same order of precision as with $n=500$ factors given in Table \[tableconvergence\]. 2
Before moving to a physical justification of the choice of $r_{20}$, we proceed to the full calibration of the *lifted Heston model* with $n=20$ and $r_{20}=2.5$ to the rough volatility surface $\sigma_{\infty}(K, T;\Theta_0)$. That is, we let the six effective parameters $(V_0,\theta, \lambda, \nu, \rho, H)$ of the lifted model free. The calibrated values $\hat \Theta_0:=(\hat V_0,\hat \theta,\hat \lambda, \hat \nu, \hat \rho, \hat H)$, provided in Table \[table:calibrate lifted\], agree with . At the visual level, as shown on Figure \[fig:lifted vs rough\] in the Appendix, the calibrated lifted surface is indistinguishable from the rough surface $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_0)$ for all maturities ranging from one week to two years, with a mean squared error of order 4.01e-07.
Parameters Calibrated values
---------------- -------------------
$\hat V_0$ 0.02012504
$\hat \theta$ 0.02007956
$\hat \lambda$ 0.29300681
$\hat \nu$ 0.30527694
$\hat \rho$ -0.70241116
$\hat H$ 0.09973346
: Calibrated *lifted Heston model* parameters.[]{data-label="table:calibrate lifted"}
We now provide another physical justification for the choice of $r_{20}$ based on an infinite-dimensional Markovian representation of the limiting rough variance process due to [@AJEE18b], which we recall in the following remark.
\[R:representation\] The fractional kernel appearing in the limiting [rough process]{} admits the following [Laplace representation]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{t^{H- 1/2}}{\Gamma(H+1/2)} =\int_0^{\infty} e^{-xt} {\mu(dx)}, \quad \mbox{with }\; {\mu(dx) = \frac{x^{- H - 1/2}}{\Gamma(1/2-H) \Gamma(H+1/2)}},
\end{aligned}$$ so that the stochastic Fubini theorem, after setting $V_0\equiv0$ in , leads to $$\begin{aligned}
V_t &= \int_0^{\infty} {U_t(x)} {\mu(dx)}, \quad x >0,
\end{aligned}$$ where, for all $x>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{U_t(x):=\int_0^t e^{-x(t-s)} \left(\lambda ( \theta - V_s) ds + \nu \sqrt{V_s} dW_s \right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ This can be seen as the [mild formulation]{} of the following stochastic partial differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
d{U_t(x)}&= \left({-xU_t(x)} + \lambda \left( \theta -\int_0^{\infty} U_t(y) \mu(dy) \right)\right) dt + \nu \sqrt{\int_0^{\infty} U_t(y) \mu(dy)} dW_t, \label{eq:spde U1}\\
U_0(x)&=0, \quad x>0. \label{eq:spde U2}
\end{aligned}$$ Whence, the [rough process]{} can be reinterpreted as a superposition of infinitely many factors ${(U_{\cdot}(x))_{x>0}}$ sharing the same dynamics but mean reverting at [[different speeds $x \in (0,\infty)$]{}.]{} We refer to [@AJEE18b] for the rigorous treatment of this representation. One makes the following observations:
- [multiple timescales]{} are naturally encoded in rough volatility models, which can be a plausible explanation for their ability to achieve better fits than conventional one-dimensional models,
- the largest mean reversions going to infinity characterize the factors responsible of the [roughness]{} of the process.
We notice that for the [lifted model]{}, the mean reversions in satisfy $${x^n_i}\geq r^{i-1-n/2}_n, \quad {i=1,\ldots,n }.$$ Therefore, based on Remark \[R:representation\], for $n=20$, one would like to force $x^{20}_{20}$ to be large enough in order to mimic [roughness]{} and account for very short timescales, while having $x^{20}_1$ small enough to accommodate a whole palette of timescales. Setting $$r_{20} \approx 2.5,$$ would cover mean reversions between $10^{-4}$ and $10^4$.2
The previous justification suggests that once $n=20$ is fixed, one can choose $r_{20}$ independently of the parameters $\Theta$. The next experiment shows that this is indeed the case.
### Robustness of $r_{20}$: a numerical test
Throughout this section, we fix the three parameters $V_0,\theta=0.02$ and $\lambda =0$. In order to verify experimentally the robustness of $r_{20}=2.5$, we proceed as follows.
1. Simulate $M=500$ set of parameters $(\Theta_k:=(0.02,0.02,0,\nu_k,\rho_k,H_k))_{k=1,\ldots,M}$ uniformly distributed with the following bounds $$\quad 0.05\leq \nu\leq 0.5, \quad -0.9 \leq \rho \leq -0.5, \quad 0.05 \leq H \leq 0.2.$$
2. For each $k=1,\ldots,M$:
1. Generate the rough volatility surface $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_k)$, for all pairs $(T,K)$ in -,
2. Generate the lifted volatility surface $\sigma_{20}(K,T;r_{20}=2.5,\Theta_k)$, for all pairs $(T,K)$ in -,
3. Compute the mean squared error between the two volatility surfaces: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{MSE}_k:=\frac{1}{\sum_{(K',T')} w(K',T')} \sum_{(K,T)} w(K,T) (\sigma_{20}(K,T;r_{20}=2.5,\Theta_k) - \sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_k))^2.
\end{aligned}$$
The scatter plot and the empirical distribution of the mean squared error $(\mbox{MSE}_k)_{k=1,\ldots,M}$ are illustrated in Figure \[fig:mse simulated\] below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:mse simulated\]
The first twenty values of the simulated set of parameters with the corresponding mean squared error are provided in Table \[table random20\] in the Appendix. We observe that the lifted surfaces are quite close to the rough surface, for any value of the simulated parameters. This is confirmed by Table \[table random\] below, where we collect the descriptive statistics of the computed mean squared errors $(\mbox{MSE}_k)_{k=1,\ldots,M}$.
MSE
-------------- ----------
Minimum 1.81e-06
1st Quantile 3.83e-06
Median 5.48e-06
3rd Quantile 4.91e-05
Maximum 2.42e-04
: Descriptive statistics of the mean squared error $(\mbox{MSE}_k)_{k=1,\ldots,M}$ of the $M=500$ simulated set of parameters $(\Theta_k)_{k=1,\ldots,M}$.[]{data-label="table random"}
We now show that the mean squared errors can be improved by letting the three parameters $(\nu,\rho,H)$ of the lifted model free. Specifically, consider the worst mean squared error of Table \[table random\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maxmse}
\max_{\Theta_k} \mbox{MSE}_k = 2.42\mbox{e-}04,\end{aligned}$$ which is attained for the set of parameters $\Theta_{101}$ with $$\nu_{101}= 0.1537099, \quad \rho_{101}=-0.8112745 \; \mbox{ and } \; H_{101}=0.1892725.$$ Keeping the first three parameters fixed $V_0,\theta=0.02$ and $\lambda=0$, we proceed to the calibration of the lifted model to the rough surface $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_{101})$. The calibration yields $$\hat \nu=0.1647801, \quad \hat \rho= -0.7961080 \; \mbox{ and } \; \hat H=0.1957235,$$ improving the previous mean squared error to 1.62e-06. This shows that, by fine tuning the parameters of the lifted model, for any rough volatility surface $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T; \Theta)$ with a realistic set of parameters $\Theta$, one can find a set of parameters $\hat \Theta$, not too far from $\Theta$, such that $$\sigma_{20}(K,T; r_{20}=2.5, \hat \Theta) \approx \sigma_{\infty}(K,T; \Theta), \quad \mbox{for any pair } (K,T) \mbox{ in } \eqref{eq:T}\mbox{-}\eqref{eq:K}.$$
To sum up, we showed so far that the *lifted Heston model*, with $n=20$ and $r_{20}=2.5$, is able to produce the same volatility surfaces of the rough Heston model, for any realistic set of parameters, for maturities ranging between one week and two years. Consequently, it can be used directly to fit real market data instead of the rough Heston model. $$\mbox{\textit{Why is it more convenient to use the lifted Heston model rather than its rough counterpart?}}$$ On the one hand, it speeds-up calibration time. Indeed, solving numerically the $20$-dimensional system of Riccati ordinary differential equations is up to twenty times faster than the Adams scheme for the fractional Riccati equation. On the other hand, the lifted model remains Markovian and semimartingale, which opens the door to time-efficient recursive simulation schemes for pricing and hedging more complex exotic options. [Before testing the lifted model in practice, we compare it to the standard Heston model.]{}2
Comparison with the standard Heston model
-----------------------------------------
For the sake of comparison, we calibrate a standard Heston model - to the full rough volatility surface $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_0)$, with $\Theta_0$ as in . Recall that the standard Heston model corresponds to the case $n=1$, $x^1_1=0$ and $c^1_1=1$. The calibrated parameters of the standard Heston are provided in Table \[table:calibrate Heston\] below. We observe that the calibrated values of $(\hat V_0,\hat \theta, \hat \rho)$ have the same magnitude as the ones of . This is not surprising since these parameters have the same interpretation in the two models: the first two parameters $(\hat V_0,\hat \theta)$ govern the level of the term structure of forward variance at time $0$ while $\rho$ dictates the leverage effect between the stock price and its variance.
Parameters Calibrated values
---------------- -------------------
$\hat V_0$ 0.019841
$\hat \theta$ 0.032471
$\hat \lambda$ 3.480784
$\hat \nu$ 0.908037
$\hat \rho$ -0.710067
: Calibrated Heston model parameters.[]{data-label="table:calibrate Heston"}
Despite the extreme values of the calibrated mean reversion and vol-of-vol parameters $(\hat \lambda, \hat \nu)$, [the Heston model is not able to reproduce the steepness of the skew]{} for short maturities as shown on Figure \[fig:calibrated heston surface\] in the Appendix, with a mean squared error of order 2.06e[-03]{}. For long maturities, the fit is fairly good. 2
In order to compare our findings with the observed stylized fact of Figure \[fig:skew intro\], we plot on Figure \[fig:skew\] below the term structure of the at-the-money skew of the three models: the rough Heston with parameters as in , the calibrated *lifted Heston* model of Table \[table:calibrate lifted\] and the calibrated Heston model of Table \[table:calibrate Heston\]. The Heston model fails in reproducing the explosive behavior of the term structure of the at-the-money skew observed in the market. On the contrary, this feature is captured by the lifted and rough counterparts. For long maturities, all three model have the same behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:skew\]
In the sequel, we will show that, for $n=20$ factors, the *lifted Heston model* provides an appealing trade-off between consistency with market data and tractability. We stress that $r_{20}=2.5$ is kept fixed in the lifted model, which now has only six effective parameters to calibrate $(V_0,\theta,\lambda,\nu,\rho,H)$. Again, in practice, $V_0$ and $\Theta_0$ can be eliminated by specifying the initial forward variance curve as input and $\lambda$ can be set to $0$, as mean reversions at different speeds are naturally encoded in the lifted model through the family $(x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$. By doing so, one reduces the effective number of parameters to only three $(\nu,\rho,H)$, as already done in [@euch2017roughening] for the rough Heston model.
Calibration on market data and simulation {#S:numerics}
=========================================
In this section, we fix the number of factors to $n=20$ and set $r_{20}=2.5$ in . We demonstrate that the *lifted Heston model*:
- [captures the explosion of the at-the-money skew observed in the market,]{}
- is easier to simulate than the rough model,
- tricks the human eye as well as the statistical estimator of the Hurst index.
Calibration to the at-the-money skew
------------------------------------
Going back to real market data, we calibrate the lifted model to the at-the-money skew of Figure \[fig:skew intro\]. Keeping the parameters $V_0=0.02$, $\theta=0.02$ and $\lambda=0$ fixed, the calibrated parameters are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:calibrated skew lifted}
\hat \nu = 0.3161844, \quad \hat \rho=-0.6852625 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \hat H= 0.1104290.\end{aligned}$$ The fit is illustrated on Figure \[fig:skew calibrated\] below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:skew calibrated\]
We notice the calibrated value $\hat H$ in is coherent with the value $(0.5-0.41)=0.09$, which can be read off the power-law fit of Figure \[fig:skew intro\]. Consequently, in the pricing world, the parameter $H$ quantifies the explosion of the at-the-money skew through a power-law $t\to C t^{0.5-H}$, see also [@fukasawa2017short].2
[We discuss briefly the simulation procedure of our lifted model in the next subsection.]{}
Simulation and estimated roughness
----------------------------------
[Until now, there is no existing scheme to simulate the variance process of the rough Heston model, the crux resides in the non-Markovianity of the variance process, the singularity of the kernel and the square-root dynamics. In contrast, numerous approximation schemes have been developed for the simulation of the standard square-root process , see [@Al15 Chapters 3 and 4] and the references therein.]{} Because the *lifted Heston model* - is a Markovian and semimartingale model, one can adapt standard recursive Euler-Maruyama schemes to simulate the variance process $V^n$ first, and then the stock price $S^n$. For $T>0$, we consider the modified explicit-implicit scheme - detailed in the Appendix for the variance process $V^n$. 2
We observe on Figure \[fig:simfactors\] below that the factors $(U^{20,i})_{1 \leq i \leq 20}$ are highly correlated. We can distinguish between the short-term factors with fast mean reversions, responsible of the ‘roughness’, and the long-term factors, with slower mean reversions, determining the level of the variance process. The variance process is then obtained by aggregating these factors with respect to . [We also notice that some of the factors $(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ become negative, but that the aggregated process $V^n$ remains nonnegative at all time.]{}
\[R:nonnegativity\] Looking at the stochastic differential equation -, it is not straightforward at all why $V^n$ should stay nonnegative at all time, even for the zero initial curve $g_0 \equiv 0$. Indeed, some of the factors $(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ may become negative, but surprisingly enough, their aggregated sum $V^n$ remains nonnegative, at all time. This is due to a very special underlying structure: equations - can be recast as a stochastic Volterra equation of convolution type for a suitable kernel, we refer to Appendix \[eq:appendix existence\] for more details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:simfactors\]
Visually, the sample path of the variance process seems rougher than the one of a standard Brownian motion. As shown on Figure \[fig:sim comparison\] below, at the daily timescale, the simulated volatility process of the *lifted Heston model* not only tricks the human eye, but also misleads the statistical estimator of the Hurst index constructed in [@BLP:16]. [Specifically, the estimator recognizes a semimartingale model for the simulated volatility of the Heston model, with an estimated $\hat H$ close to $0.5$. However, it fails to do so for the lifted model, the estimator displays $\hat H=0.18$. The [lifted model]{} is therefore capable of mimicking, up to some extent, the ‘roughness’ of the volatility observed on the market, at least at the daily timescale. This should be paralleled with the explosive-like behavior of the at-the-money skew encountered earlier on Figures \[fig:skew\]-\[fig:skew calibrated\].]{} [Stated otherwise, if one is only provided the lower graph of Figure \[fig:sim comparison\], one cannot say if the path has been generated by a rough volatility model with Hurst index $H=0.18$ or by our lifted model with $H=0.1$. As the step size of the discretization scheme goes to $0$, the estimated $H$ of the lifted model has to converge to $0.5$, since $V^n$ is a semimartingale, and therefore has the same regularity as a standard Brownian motion. The convergence is illustrated on Figure \[fig:estimatedH\] below.]{} 2
[On another note, the upper graph of Figure \[fig:sim comparison\] highlights the physical interpretation of the parameter $H$ as it measures the roughness of the empirical realized volatility. [[Indeed, empirical studies on a very wide range of assets volatility time-series in [@gatheral2014volatility; @BLP:16]]{} revealed that the dynamics of the log-volatility are close to that of a fractional Brownian motion with a ‘universal’ Hurst parameter $H$ of order $0.1$, from intra-day up to daily timescales.]{}]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^(a)^The realized volatility data series can be downloaded from <https://realized.oxford-man.ox.ac.uk/>. \[fig:sim comparison\]
Conclusion
==========
We introduced *the lifted Heston model*, a conventional multi-factor stochastic volatility model, where the factors share the same one-dimensional Brownian motion but mean revert at different speeds corresponding to different timescales. The model nests as extreme cases the standard [Heston model]{} (for $n=1$ factor), and the rough Heston model (when $n$ goes to infinity). Inspired by rough volatility models, we provided a good parametrization of the model reducing the number of parameters to calibrate: the model has only one additional effective parameter than the standard Heston model, independently of the number of factors. The first five parameters have the same interpretation as in the standard Heston model, whereas the additional one has a physical interpretation as it is linked to the regularity of the sample paths and the explosion of the at-the-money skew.2
This sheds some new light on the reason behind the remarkable fits of rough volatility models. Indeed, a rough variance process can be seen as a superposition of infinitely many factors sharing the same one-dimensional Brownian motion but mean reverting at different speeds ranging from $0^+$ to $\infty$. Each factor corresponds to a certain timescale. Therefore, time multi-scaling is naturally encoded in rough volatility models, which explains why these models are able to jointly handle different maturities in a satisfactory fashion.[^10] 2
[Finally, Table \[tablecomparisonmodels conclusion\] below compares the characteristics of the three different models. As it can be seen, the *lifted Heston model* possesses an appealing trade-off between flexibility and tractability!]{}
Stochastic volatility models
----------------------------- -------- ------------------------------ -----------------
Characteristics Heston Rough Heston Lifted Heston
Markovian
Semimartingale
Simulation
[Affine Volterra process]{}
Characteristic function n-Riccati
Calibration ^(a)^
Fit short maturities
Estimated daily regularity $H \approx 0.2$
: Summary of the characteristics of the different models. [^(a)^for $n=20$. ]{}[]{data-label="tablecomparisonmodels conclusion"}
Existence and uniqueness {#eq:appendix existence}
========================
[ In the sequel, the symbol $*$ stands for the convolution operation, that is $(f*\mu)(t)= \int_0^t f(t-s) \mu(ds)$ for any suitable function $f$ and measure $\mu$. For a right-continuous function $f$ of locally bounded variation, we denote by $df$ the measure induced by its distributional derivative, that is $f(t) = f(0) + \int_{(0,t]} df(s)$.2]{}
[ We provide in this appendix the strong existence and uniqueness of -, for a fixed $n \in \mathbb N$. We start by noticing that is equivalent to $$S^n_t = \mathcal E\left(\int_0^t V^n_s dB_s\right), \quad t \geq 0,$$ where $\mathcal E$ is the Doléans-Dade exponential. Therefore, it suffices to prove the existence and uniqueness of -. Formally, starting from a solution to -, the variation of constants formula on yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: volterra Un}
U^{n,i}_t = \int_0^t e^{-x^n_i (t-s)} \left(-\lambda V^n_s ds+ \nu \sqrt{V^n_s} dW_s \right), \quad i=1,\ldots,n, \end{aligned}$$ so that reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:volterra Vn}
V^{n}_t = g^n_0(t) + \int_0^t K^n(t-s) \left(-\lambda V^n_s ds+ \nu \sqrt{V^n_s} dW_s \right), \end{aligned}$$ where $K^n$ is the following completely monotone[^11] kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kernel Kn}
K^n(t) = \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i e^{- x^n_i t }, \quad t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Whence, if one proves the uniqueness of , then, uniqueness of follows by virtue of . Conversely, if one proves the existence of a nonnegative solution $V^n$ to , then, one can define $(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ as in , showing that $(V^n,(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n})$ is a solution to -. Therefore, the problem is reduced to proving the existence and uniqueness for the stochastic Volterra equation .]{} 2
[In [@AJEE18b], the existence of a nonnegative solution to is proved, provided the initial input curve $g^n_0$ satisfies a certain ‘monotonicity’ condition. This condition is related to the resolvent of the first kind $L^n$ of the kernel , which is defined as the unique measure satisfying $$\int_0^t K^n(t-s)L^n(ds)=1, \quad t \geq 0.\footnote{{The existence of $L^n$ is ensured by the complete monoticity of $K^n$, see \cite[Theorem 5.5.4]{GLS:90}.}}$$ More precisely, denoting by $\Delta_h$ the semigroup of right shifts acting on continuous functions, i.e. $\Delta_h f=f(h+ \cdot)$ for $h\geq 0$, $g_0^n$ should satisfy $$\label{Croissance}
\Delta_h g^n_0 - (\Delta_hK^n * L^n)(0) g^n_0 - d(\Delta_hK^n * L^n) * g^n_0 \geq 0, \quad h \geq 0, \footnote{
{One can show that $\Delta_hK^n*L^n$ is right-continuous and of locally bounded variation, thus the associated measure $d(\Delta_hK^n*L^n)$ is well defined.}}$$ leading to the following definition of the set $\Gc_{K^n}$ of [admissible input curves]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
{\Gc_{K^n} = \left\{ g_0^n \mbox{ H\"older continuous of any order less than 1/2,} \mbox{ satisfying } \eqref{Croissance} \mbox{ and } g^n_0(0) \geq 0 \right\}.}
\end{aligned}$$ It is shown in [@AJEE18b Example 2.2] that the two specifications of input curves - provided earlier satisfy .]{}2
[We now provide the rigorous existence and uniqueness result.]{}
Fix $n \in \mathbb N$, $S_0^n >0$ and assume that $g_0^n \in \Gc_{K^n}$. Then, the stochastic differential equation - has a unique continuous strong solution $( S^n,V^n,(U^{n,i})_{1 \leq i \leq n})$ such that $V^n_t \geq 0$, for all $t\geq 0$, almost surely. Further, the process $S^n$ is a martingale.
By virtue of the variation of constants formula on the factors, the [lifted Heston model]{} is equivalent to a Volterra Heston model in the sense of [@AJEE18b] of the form $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t^n &= S_t^n \sqrt{ V_t^n} dB_t , \quad S_0^n> 0, \label{E:Sn} \\
V^n_t&= g^n_0(t)+ \int_0^t K^n(t-s) \left( -\lambda V^n_sds + \nu \sqrt{ V^n_s}dW_s \right), \label{E:Vn}
\end{aligned}$$ with $K^n$ given by . Since $K^n$ is locally Lipschitz and completely monotone, the assumptions of [@AJEE18b Theorem 2.1] are met. Consequently, the stochastic Volterra equation - has a unique $ \R_+^2$-valued weak continuous solution $(S^n,V^n)$ on some filtered probability space $(\Omega^n, \Fc^n, (\Fc^n_t)_{t \geq 0},\Q^n)$ for any initial condition $S_0^n >0$ and [admissible input curve]{} $g^n_0 \in \Gc_{K^n}$. Moreover, since $K^n$ is differentiable, strong uniqueness is ensured by [@AJEE18a Proposition B.3]. The claimed existence and uniqueness statement now follows from . Finally, the martingality of $S^n$ follows along the lines of [@ALP17 Theorem 7.1(iii)].
The rough limiting model
------------------------
\[A:limiting model\] We now discuss the convergence of the *lifted Heston model* towards the rough Heston model -, as the number of factors goes to infinity, we refer to [@AJEE18a] for more details. We fix $H \in (0,1/2)$ and we denote by $K_H:t \to t^{H- \frac 12}/\Gamma(H+ 1/2)$ the fractional kernel of the rough Heston model appearing in . The kernel $K_H$ can be re-expressed as a Laplace function $$K_H(t) = \int_0^{\infty} e^{-xt}\mu(dx), \quad t \geq 0,$$ with $\mu(dx)=\frac{x^{-\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(1-\alpha)}$ and $\alpha=H+1/2$. On the one hand, for a fixed $n$, the parametrization is linked to $\mu$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cxmu}
c_i^n= \int_{\eta^n_{i-1}}^{\eta^n_{i}} \mu(dx), \quad x^n_i = \frac{1}{c_i^n} \int_{\eta^n_{i-1}}^{\eta^n_{i}} \mu(dx), \quad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta^n_i=r_n^{i-n/2}$, for $i=0,\dots,n$. We will show that, under , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:conv L2}
K^n \to K_H, \quad \mbox{as $n$ goes to infinity,} \quad \mbox{in the } L^2 \mbox{ sense}.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, for each $n \in \mathbb N$, we have proved the existence of a solution to . One would therefore expect from the convergence of the sequence of solutions of towards the solution of . This is indeed the case, as illustrated by the following theorem, which adapts [@AJEE18a Theorem 3.5] to the geometric partition.
\[T:convergence rHeston\] Consider a sequence $(r_n)_{n \geq 1}$ satisfying $\eqref{eq:rn cond}$, and set $g_0^n$ as in and $(c^n_i,x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ as in , for every even $n=2p$, with $p \geq 1$. Assume $S_0^n=S_0$, for all $n$, then, the sequence of solutions $(S^{n},V^{n})_{n=2p,p\geq 1}$ to - converges weakly, on the space of continuous functions on $[0,T]$ endowed with the uniform topology, towards the rough Heston model -, for any $T>0$.
We will only sketch the proof for the $L^2$ convergence of the kernels , in order to highlight the small adjustments that one needs to make to the proof of [@AJEE18a Theorem 3.5]. Indeed, since $\eta_0^n \neq 0$ in our case, [@AJEE18a Theorem 3.5] cannot be directly applied, compare with [@AJEE18a Assumption 3.1] where the left-end point of the partition is zero. The following lemma adapts [@AJEE18a Proposition 3.3] to the geometric partition. The rest of the proof of Theorem \[T:convergence rHeston\] follows along the lines of [@AJEE18a Theorem 3.5] by making the same small adjustments highlighted below, mainly to treat the integral chunk between $[0,\eta_0^n]$.
Let $(r_n)_{n \geq 1}$ as in $\eqref{eq:rn cond}$, and $(c^n_i,x^n_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ given by . Define $K^n$ by , then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:convL2}
\|K^n - K_H\|_{L^2(0,T)} \to 0, \quad \mbox{as } n \to \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $T>0$.
Set $\eta^n_i=r_n^{i-n/2}$, for $i=0,\ldots,n$. Using , we start by decomposing $(K_H-K^n)$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
K_H-K^n&=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-x(\cdot)} \mu(dx)-\sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i e^{-x^n_i(\cdot)} \\
&= \int_0^{\eta_0^n}e^{-x(\cdot)} \mu(dx) + \left(\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{\eta_{i-1}^n}^{\eta_i^n}\left(e^{-x(\cdot)} - e^{-x^n_i(\cdot)}\right)\mu(dx) \right) + \int_{\eta_n^n}^{\infty} e^{-x(\cdot)} \mu(dx)\\
&:= J_1^n + J_2^n + J_3^n,
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\|K_H-K^n\|_{L^2(0,T)} \leq I_1^n + I_2^n + I_3^n,
\end{aligned}$$ with $I^n_k=\|J^n_k\|_{L^2(0,T)}$, for $k=1,2,3$. We now prove that each $I^n_{k} \to 0$, as $n$ tends to $\infty$. Relying on a second order Taylor expansion, along the lines of the proof of [@coutin2007approximation Proposition 7.1], we get the following bound $$\left | \int_{\eta_{i-1}^n}^{\eta^n_i} \left( e^{-x t}-e^{-x_i^n t}\right) \mu(dx) \right | \leq C \, t^2 \, r_n^{1/2} \, (r_n-1)^2 \, \int_{\eta_{i-1}^n}^{\eta^n_i} (1 \wedge x^{-1/2}) \mu(dx) , \quad t \leq T,$$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, where $C$ is a constant independent of $n$, $i$ and $t$. Summation over $i=1,\ldots,n$ leads to $$I^n_{2} \leq C \, \frac{T^{5/2}}{\sqrt{5}} \, r_n^{1/2} \, (r_n-1)^2 \, \int_{0}^{\infty} (1 \wedge x^{-1/2}) \mu(dx),$$ so that $I^n_2 \to 0 $, as $n \to \infty$, by virtue of the first condition in . On another note, $$I_1^n \leq \int_0^{\eta_0^n} \mu(dx)=\frac{(\eta_0^n)^{1-\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(2-\alpha)}= \frac{r_n^{-(1-\alpha)n/2}}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(2-\alpha)} \to 0, \quad \mbox{when } n \to \infty,$$ thanks to the second condition in . Similarly, $$I_3^n \leq \int_{\eta_n^n}^{\infty} \sqrt{\frac{1-e^{-2xT}}{2x}} \mu(dx) \leq \frac{r_n^{(1/2-\alpha)n/2}}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(1-\alpha)(1/2-\alpha)} \to 0, \quad \mbox{when } n \to \infty.$$ Combining the above leads to .
The full Fourier-Laplace transform {#S: appendix full fourier}
==================================
We provide the full Fourier-Laplace transform for the joint process $X^n:=(\log S^n,V^n)$ extending . The formula can be used to price path-dependent options on the stock price $S^n$ and the variance process $V^n$.2
[Once again, this is a particular case of [@AJEE18b Section 4], by observing that $K^n$ defined in is the Laplace transform of the following nonnegative measure $$\mu^n(dx)= \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i \delta_{x^n_i}(dx) .$$]{}
Fix row vectors $u=(u_1,u_2) \in \mathbb C^2$ and $f\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\R_+,(\mathbb C^2))$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\text{${\rm Re\,} (u_1+1*f_1) \in[0,1]$, \; ${\rm Re\,} u_2 \le0$ \; and \; ${\rm Re\,} f_2\le0$,}\end{aligned}$$ then, [it follows from [@AJEE18b Remark 4.3] with $\mu=\sum_{i=1}^n c_i^n \delta_{x^n_i}$]{} that the Fourier-Laplace transform of $X^n=(\log S^n, V^n)$ is exponentially affine with respect to the family $(U^{n,i})_{ 1 \leq i \leq n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\E\left[ \exp\left(u X^n_T + (f*X^n)_T\right) {{\ \Big|\ }}\Fc_t \right] = \exp\left({\phi^n(t,T) + \psi_1(T-t) \log S^n_t + \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i\psi_2^{n,i} (T-t) U^{n,i}_t }\right),\end{aligned}$$ for all $t \leq T$, where $(\psi_1,(\psi^{n,i}_2)_{1 \leq i \leq n})$ are the unique solutions of the following system of Riccati ordinary differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1 &= u_1+1*f_1, \\
(\psi^{n,i}_2)' &= - x^n_i \psi^{n,i}_2 + F\left(\psi_1, \sum_{j=1}^n c^n_j \psi^{n,j}_2 \right),\quad \psi^{n,i}_2(0)=u_2, \quad i=1,\ldots, n,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
F(\psi_1,\psi_2) &= f_2+\frac12\left( \psi_1^2-\psi_1\right) +(\rho \nu \psi_1- \lambda) \psi_2 + \frac{\nu^2}{2} \psi^2_2\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^n(t,T) &= u_2 g^n_0(T ) + \int_0^{T-t} F\left(\psi_1,\sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i\psi_2^{n,i}(s)\right) g^n_0(T-s) ds + \int_0^t f(T-s)X_s ds , \quad t \leq T.\end{aligned}$$
Discretization schemes {#A:scheme}
======================
Riccati equations
-----------------
The aim of this section is to design an approximation scheme of the $n$-dimensional Riccati system of equations . In order to gain some insights, consider first the case where $F \equiv 0$ so that reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Riccati F=0}
(\psi^{n,i})' = - x^n_i \psi^{n,i} , \quad i=1, \ldots , n,\end{aligned}$$ and the solution is given by $$\psi^{n,i}(t)= \psi^{n,i}(0) e^{-x^n_i t} , \quad i=1, \ldots , n.$$ One could start with an explicit Euler scheme for , that is $$\hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k+1}} = \hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k}} - x^n_i \Delta t \hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_k} = \left(1-x^n_i \Delta t \right ) \hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k}}, \quad i=1, \ldots , n,$$ for a regular time grid $t_k=(kT)/N$ for all $k= 1, \ldots , N$, where $T$ is the terminal time, $N$ the number of time steps and $\Delta t = T/N$. A sufficient condition for the stability of the scheme reads $$\Delta t \leq \min_{1 \leq i \leq n} \frac{1}{x^{n}_i}.$$ Recall from that $x^n_n$ grows very large as $n$ increases. For instance, for $n=20$, $r_{20}=2.5$ and $H=0.1$, $x^n_n= 6417.74$. Consequently, if one needs to ensure the stability of the explicit scheme, one needs a very large number of time steps $N$. In contrast, the implicit Euler scheme $$\hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k+1}} = \hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k}} - x^n_i \Delta t \, \hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k+1}}, \quad i=1, \ldots , n,$$ is stable for any number of time steps $N$ and reads $$\hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k+1}} = \frac{1}{1+ x^n_i \Delta t }\hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k}}, \quad i=1, \ldots , n.$$ For this reason, we consider the following explicit-implicit discretization scheme of the $n$-dimensional Riccati system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:explicit implicit riccati}
\hat \psi^{n,i}_0 &= 0, \quad
\hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k+1}} = \frac{1}{1+ x^n_i \Delta t } \left(\hat \psi^{n,i}_{t_{k}} + \Delta t \, F\left(u, \sum_{j=1}^n c^n_j \hat \psi^{n,j}_{t_{k}} \right) \right), \quad i=1,\ldots, n,\end{aligned}$$ for a regular time grid $t_k=k \Delta t$ for all $k= 1, \ldots , N$, with time step size $\Delta t = T/N$, terminal time $T$ and number of time steps $N$. Alternatively, one could also consider the exponential scheme for the Riccati equations by replacing the term $1/(1+x^n_i \Delta t)$ with $e^{-x^n_i \Delta t}$. One can also combine more involved discretization schemes for the explicit part involving the quadratic function $F$, for instance higher order Runge-Kutta methods can be used, see [@lambert1991numerical].
Stochastic process {#S: sim Vn}
------------------
Similarly, we suggest to consider the following modified explicit-implicit scheme for the variance process $V^n$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat V^n_{t_k} &= g_0^n(t_k) + \sum_{i=1}^n c^n_i \hat U^{n,i}_{t_k}, \quad \; \hat U^{n,i}_0 =0, \label{eq:simliftedV}\\
\hat U_{t_{k+1}}^{n,i} &= \frac{1}{1+ x^n_i \Delta t } \left(\hat U_{t_{k}}^{n,i} -\lambda \hat V^n_{t_k} \Delta t + \nu \sqrt{\left(\hat V^n_{t_k}\right)^+} \left(W_{t_{k+1}}-W_{t_k}\right)\right), \quad i=1,\ldots,n, \label{eq:simliftedU}\end{aligned}$$ for a regular time grid $t_k=k \Delta t$, $k=1 \ldots N$, $\Delta t = T/N$ and [$ (W_{t_{k+1}}-W_{t_k}) \sim \mathcal N (0,\Delta t)$.]{} Notice that we take the positive part $(\cdot)^+$ since the simulated process can become negative. Once there, simulating the spot-price process $S^n$ is straightforward. We leave the theoretical study of convergence and stability for future work. [Numerically, the scheme seems stable.]{} Alternatively, one could also consider the exponential scheme for the stochastic process by replacing the term $1/(1+x^n_i \Delta t)$ with $e^{-x^n_i \Delta t}$. As a final remark, one notices that - corresponds to the space-time discretization of the integro-differential stochastic partial differential equation -. This is illustrated on Figure \[fig:spde\] below.
22222222222222222222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:spde\]
22222222222222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:lifted vs rough\]
22222222222222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:calibrated heston surface\]
22222222222222222222222222222222222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:estimatedH\]
22222222222222 22222222222
$\nu$ $\rho$ $H$ MSE
------- -------- ------ -- ----------
0.22 -0.67 0.09 3.63e-06
0.14 -0.54 0.19 5.34e-06
0.35 -0.65 0.19 8.17e-06
0.14 -0.83 0.06 9.74e-05
0.22 -0.59 0.15 4.60e-06
0.37 -0.50 0.12 4.55e-06
0.40 -0.53 0.11 4.56e-06
0.34 -0.85 0.08 3.45e-04
0.22 -0.89 0.09 1.25e-04
0.44 -0.76 0.11 2.79e-04
0.32 -0.70 0.12 4.56e-06
0.42 -0.63 0.08 5.22e-06
0.10 -0.61 0.17 3.69e-06
0.42 -0.64 0.11 4.81e-06
0.30 -0.69 0.17 5.96e-06
0.06 -0.71 0.17 2.98e-06
0.36 -0.71 0.16 6.14e-06
0.25 -0.80 0.18 1.63e-04
0.09 -0.77 0.06 2.87e-06
0.35 -0.74 0.13 1.44e-04
: [**Robustness of $r_{20}=2.5$:** First $20$ values of the simulated parameters and the corresponding mean squared error between the implied volatility surface of the lifted model $\sigma_{20}(K,T;2.5,\Theta_k)$ and the rough model $\sigma_{\infty}(K,T;\Theta_k)$, for $k=1,\ldots,20$.]{}[]{data-label="table random20"}
[^1]: [email protected]. [I would like to thank Bruno Bouchard and Camille Illand for very fruitful discussions and insightful comments.]{}
[^2]: Notice that the initial value of the variance process $V^n$ is $g_0^n(0)$.
[^3]: The double Heston model is defined in [@christoffersen2009shape] as follows $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t^n &= S_t^n\left( \sqrt{U^1_t} dB^1_t + \sqrt{U_t^2} dB^{2}_t\right), \label{eq:doubleS}\\
dU^i_t &= \lambda_i(\theta_i- U^i_t )dt + \nu_i \sqrt{U^i_t} dW^i_t, \quad U^i_0 \geq 0, \quad i \in \{1,2\} \label{eq:doubleU}, \end{aligned}$$ where $B^i = \rho_i W^i + \sqrt{1-\rho^2_i} W^{i,\perp} $ with $\rho_i \in [-1,1]$ and $(W^1,W^2,W^{1,\perp},W^{2,\perp})$ a four-dimensional Brownian motion.
[^4]: [[If one chooses $g^n_0$ to match the forward variance curve, then, the parameters $(V_0,\theta)$ can be eliminated from both models.]{}]{}
[^5]: [[This corresponds to equation (3.6) in [@AJEE18a] with the geometric partition $\eta^n_i=r_n^{i-n/2}$ for $i=0,\dots,n$, which is in the spirit of [@CCM00] for the approximation of the factional Brownian motion.]{}]{}
[^6]: The implied volatility surface is generated by first solving numerically the corresponding fractional Riccati equations with the Adams Predictor-Corrector scheme [@diethelm2002predictor] with 200 time steps, see [@euch2017roughening Appendix A] for more details. Then, call prices are computed via the cosine method [@fang2008novel] for the inversion of the characteristic function. We note that other Fourier inversion techniques can be used for the second step, for instance, the Carr-Madan method [@carr1999option], as done in [@euch2017roughening]. As illustrated in [@fang2008novel], for the same level of accuracy, the cosine method is approximately 20 times faster than the Carr-Madan method, and needs drastically less evaluation points of the characteristic function $(E\left[\exp\left(u_i \log S^n_t\right)\right])_{i \in \mathcal I}$ ($|\mathcal I|=160$ for the cosine methods and $|\mathcal I|=4096$ for the Carr-Madan method). This latter point is crucial in our case since, for every $i \in \mathcal I$, evaluation of $E\left[\exp\left(u_i \log S^n_t\right)\right]$ requires a numerical discretization of the corresponding Riccati equation.
[^7]: The implied volatility surface is generated by first solving numerically the $n$-dimensional Riccati equations with the explicit-implicit scheme detailed in the Appendix with a number of time steps $N=300$. As before, the call prices are then computed via the cosine method [@fang2008novel] for the inversion of the characteristic function.
[^8]: [All cpu times are computed on a laptop with Intel core i7 processor at 2.2GHz and 16GB of memory. The code, written in R, is far from being optimized.]{}
[^9]: [One cannot draw definite quantitative conclusions regarding the comparison between the computational times of the lifted surface and the one of the rough surface. Indeed, one needs a more careful study of the discretization errors of the corresponding Riccati equations before comparing the computational times needed to reach the same level of accuracy. We omit to do so here. However, even if one reduces the number of time steps from 200 to 150 in the Adams scheme, it still takes 67.2 seconds to compute the rough surface. Recall that we used $N=300$ time steps for the $n$-dimensional Riccati equation of the lifted model. In any case, it should be clear that solving the $20$-dimensional Riccati equations is considerably faster then solving the fractional Riccati equation.]{}
[^10]: Multiple timescales in the volatility process have been identified in the literature, see for instance [@fouque2011multiscale Section 3.4].
[^11]: [A function $f$ is said to be completely monotone, if it is infinitely differentiable on $(0,\infty)$ such that $(-1)^p f^{(p)} \geq 0$, for all $p \in \mathbb N$.]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
A relativistic deep space positioning system has been proposed using four or more pulsars with stable repetition rates. (Each pulsar emits pulses at a fixed repetition period in its rest frame.) The positioning system uses the fact that an event in spacetime can be fully described by emission coordinates: the proper emission time of each pulse measured at the event. The proper emission time of each pulse from four different pulsars—interpolated as necessary—provides the four spacetime coordinates of the reception event in the emission coordinate system. If more than four pulsars are available, the redundancy can improve the accuracy of the determination and/or resolve degeneracies resulting from special geometrical arrangements of the sources and the event.
We introduce a robust numerical approach to measure the emission coordinates of an event in any arbitrary spacetime geometry. Our approach uses a continuous solution of the eikonal equation describing the backward null cone from the event. The pulsar proper time at the instant the null cone intersects the pulsar world line is one of the four required coordinates. The process is complete (modulo degeneracies) when four pulsar world lines have been crossed by the light cone.
The numerical method is applied in two different examples: measuring emission coordinates of an event in Minkowski spacetime using pulses from four pulsars stationary in the spacetime; and measuring emission coordinates of an event in Schwarzschild spacetime using pulses from four pulsars freely falling toward a static black hole.
These numerical simulations are merely exploratory, but with improved resolution and computational resources the method can be applied to more pertinent problems. For instance one could measure the emission coordinates, and therefore the trajectory, of the Earth.
author:
- Darius Bunandar
- 'Scott A. Caveny'
- 'Richard A. Matzner'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Measuring emission coordinates in a pulsar-based relativistic positioning system'
---
Introduction
============
Pulsars—spinning neutron stars that emit directional electromagnetic radiation with an intriguingly stable period—in principle can be used as reliable interstellar lighthouses for spacecraft navigation in the Solar System and beyond [@1981TDAPR..63...22C; @2005PhDT........30S; @2006JGCD; @coll; @ruggiero; @2011AdSpR..47..645T; @2006ION]. Pulsar spacecraft navigation has begun to be experimentally investigated by observing X-ray pulsars [@2006JGCD] from satellites, comparing these observations to satellite ephemerides. Rovelli [@2002PhRvD..65d4017R] suggested a method to construct this fully-relativistic universal coordinate system based on the proper emission times of the emissions from sources that he called “satellites". The concept of coordinates based on the emission times of pulses is identical in concept to the global positioning system (GPS). However, we treat a fully relativistic formulation, while the current GPS system treats relativistic effects only as perturbations from a Newtonian framework. A number of authors have developed the idea of a completely relativistic satellite positioning system; see [@2003jsrs...14...34C; @2009arXiv0905.3798T; @2009arXiv0912.4418D; @2010esaRpt]. Delva *et al.* [@2011arXiv1106.3168Dsummary] gave a recent review of this idea, including an extensive reference list.
Consider four pulsars, in motion in space, broadcasting pulses at a constant rate as measured in their proper times. The intersections between the world lines of these pulsars and the past light cone of a reception event $\mathcal{R}$ give the proper emission times of the pulses from each pulsar that will be recorded at the event $\mathcal{R}$. (We elaborate on the definition of the pulsar proper time, and on the interpolation between pulses in Section \[sec:gauge\] below.) The event $\mathcal{R}$, then, can be described by the coordinates $(\tau^1, \tau^2, \tau^3, \tau^4)$ called the *emission coordinates*, where $\tau^1$ refers to the proper emission time of the pulse from pulsar \#1, $\tau^2$ refers to the proper emission time of the pulse from pulsar \#2, and so on. A spacecraft recording the proper emission times of pulses from the four pulsars will then be able to determine its coordinates—and therefore its trajectory—in spacetime.
These emission coordinates can then in principle be converted into more conventional spacetime coordinates $(t, x, y, z)$. This paper provides a proof of concept numerical demonstration of determining the emission coordinates, and converting these coordinates to more standard spacetime coordinates.
Our method makes use of level set solutions of the eikonal equation describing the past light cone of the event $\mathcal{R}$. This method was originally developed by Caveny, Anderson, and Matzner to track black hole event horizons in computational simulation of black hole interactions [@cav], and is similar to approaches in Refs. [@1994PhRvD..49.4004H] and [@1995PhRvL..74..630A]. In the present paper, we show that the same numerical approach can address the problem of interconverting spacetime coordinates and the respective emission coordinates. This approach is complete in the sense that a single method can be used to measure these emission coordinates even when the observer at $\mathcal{R}$—our spacecraft—and the pulsars are moving in an [*arbitrary*]{} spacetime geometry.
The problem of converting between conventional and emission coordinates naturally arises as one begins to develop an intuition for emission coordinates. It was treated extensively by Delva and Olympio [@2009arXiv0912.4418D]; they have in mind that the source is a navigational satellite in the Schwarzschild spacetime representing the Earth’s gravitational field. Our eikonal solution for the backward null cone of the reception event $\mathcal{R}$ adds a new method to determine the emission coordinates of $\mathcal{R}$, in addition to those of [@2009arXiv0912.4418D].
Our method is given in a proof-of-principle form, with moderate computational accuracy; we discuss means to improve its accuracy (Section \[sec:compAccuracy\] below). Its advantages are that it is general and robust in [*any*]{} spacetime (we give flat space and Schwarzschild examples); it involves no “shooting" or other iterative methods; it involves no approximations except discretization for computational integration; it builds up the entire past null cone; if the past null cone intersects the source world line, the intersection, and hence the emission coordinate, will be found. To emphasize to the generality of the method: the Minkowski and the Schwarzschild examples differ [*only*]{} in the metric used. The spinning Kerr spacetime could be treated similarly by inserting the Kerr metric instead. And the method will straightforwardly work with a metric given only computationally, for instance the result of a simulation of the gravitational field of a binary pulsar.
This work is organized as follows: Section \[sec:eikonal\] outlines the theoretical framework. Section \[sec:numerical\] describes the implementation of the numerical description of the eikonal equation. Our numerical approach uses a second-order artificial viscosity term, as in Caveny *et al.* [@cav]. Section \[sec:minkowski\] presents the results of a numerical simulation where all pulsars are placed stationary in flat Minkowski space. Section \[sec:schwarzschild\] presents the results of a curved space numerical simulation where the pulsars are freely falling toward a Schwarzschild black hole. In both Section \[sec:minkowski\] and Section \[sec:schwarzschild\], we actually measure the emission times from [*five*]{} pulsars. This allows us to construct a configuration which is easy to plot: four pulsars in the conventional coordinate plane $z=0$, a configuration which however has an obvious degeneracy between $\pm z$ when determining the emission coordinates (see Figures \[fig:minkowski\] and \[fig:schwarzschild\] below). The fifth pulsar is chosen out of the $z=0$ plane, and emission coordinates based on pulses from the fifth and any three of the first four pulsars are free of the $z=0$ degeneracy. [*But*]{} such a system is difficult to plot graphically, and we do not try. The multiple coordinate systems constructed in this way are related to one another by finite coordinate transformations. Section \[sec:gauge\] discusses this and the continuous [*gauges*]{} in which the emission coordinates are measured, and some improvements that are required when constructing a more practical pulsar-based positioning system. Section \[sec:compAccuracy\] discusses future improvements to the current code that will improve the code’s numerical accuracy. Conclusions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
We use geometrical units throughout, so the Newton constant $G$ and the speed of light $C$ are set equal to unity. We also use the Einstein summation convention so that repeated (one up, one down) indices are summed over their range. Greek lower case indices range and sum over $\{0,..,3\}$; Latin lower-case indices range and sum over $\{1,2,3\}$.
The eikonal equation {#sec:eikonal}
====================
See Ref. [@cav]. The world line of a photon can be described by the equation of motion, $${\frac{ \mathrm{d} }{ \mathrm{d}\tau } } \left( {\frac{\partialL}{\partial \dot{x}^{\alpha}}} \right) - {\frac{\partialL}{\partialx^{\alpha}}} = 0,$$ where $\tau$ is an affine parameter and $\dot{x}^{\alpha} = {\frac{ \mathrm{d}x^{\alpha} }{ \mathrm{d}\tau } }$. Since the Lagrangian of a null geodesic motion, $L = \frac{1}{2} g_{\alpha \beta} \dot{x}^{\alpha} \dot{x}^{\beta} = 0$ has only kinetic terms, it is equal to the associated Hamiltonian—obtained using the Legendre transformation: $$\label{eq:ham}
H = \frac{1}{2} g^{\alpha \beta} p_{\alpha} p_{\beta} = L.$$
We introduce the 3+1 Arnowitt-Deser-Misner variables $\alpha$, $\beta_j$ and $\gamma_{ij}$, $$\label{eq:ADM1}
\gamma_{ij} \equiv g_{ij}, \hspace{.5cm} \beta_{i} \equiv g_{ti}, \hspace{.5cm} \alpha^2 \equiv \beta_i \beta^i - g_{tt},$$ where indices on $\beta_i$ are raised by $\gamma^{ij}$ (the three-dimensional inverse of $\gamma_{ij}$) and lowered by $\gamma_{ij}$. Equation (\[eq:ADM1\]) implies $$\label{eq:ADM2}
g^{tt} = - \frac{1}{\alpha^2}, \hspace{.5cm} g^{ti} = \frac{\beta^i}{\alpha^2}, \hspace{.5cm} g^{ij} = \gamma^{ij} - \frac{\beta^i \beta^j}{\alpha^2}.$$
For a photon, which follows a null geodesic motion, the Hamiltonian has value zero and we can solve for $p_t$ to find $$\label{eq:mom}
p_t = \beta^i p_i \pm \alpha \sqrt{\gamma^{ij} p_i p_j}.$$
The eikonal equation can be obtained by making simple direct substitutions $p_t \rightarrow {\frac{\partialS}{\partialt}} = S_{,t}$ and $p_i \rightarrow {\frac{\partialS}{\partialx^i}} = S_{,i}$ in Eq. (\[eq:ham\]) (dropping the factor of 1/2): $$g^{\alpha \beta} S_{,\alpha} S_{,\beta} = 0$$ which can be solved for $S_{,t}$. Using Eqs. (\[eq:ADM1\]) and (\[eq:ADM2\]), we obtain the following symmetric hyperbolic partial differential equation $$\label{eq:eikonal}
S_{,t} = \beta^i S_{,i} \pm \alpha \sqrt{\gamma^{ij} S_{,i} S_{,j}} = - \overline{H}.$$ The bar is used to distinguish the Hamiltonian used here from the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:ham\]). $\overline{H}$ is homogeneous of degree 1 in $S_{,i}$. The characteristic curves along which the level sets $\Gamma$ of $S$ are propagated are therefore $${\frac{ \mathrm{d}x^i }{ \mathrm{d}t } } = - \beta^i \mp \alpha \frac{ \gamma^{ij} p_j}{\sqrt{\gamma^{kl}p_k p_l}} = {\frac{\partial\overline{H}}{\partialS_{,i}}}$$ and $${\frac{ \mathrm{d}S_{,i} }{ \mathrm{d}t } }= -{\frac{\partial}{\partialx^i}} \left( \beta^k S_{,k} \pm \alpha \sqrt{\gamma^{kj} S_{,k} S_{,j}} \right) = - {\frac{\partial\overline{H}}{\partialx^{i}}},$$ which are the null geodesic equations. The integral curves of the gradients of $S$ and $\Gamma$ are then also the null geodesics: $${\frac{ \mathrm{d}x^i(\lambda) }{ \mathrm{d}\lambda } } = g^{i \alpha} p_{\alpha} = g^{i \alpha} S_{,\alpha} = S^{,i}(\lambda, x^j (\lambda))$$ where $\lambda$ is the affine parameter in this case.
Solutions to the eikonal equation fall into topologically equivalent classes. This means that any smooth function $\psi(S)$ topologically equivalent to $S$ is also a solution. Note the following relations, $$\label{eq:reinit1}
\psi_{,i} (S) = {\frac{\partial\psi}{\partialS}} {\frac{\partialS}{\partialx^i}} = \lambda(S) S_{,i}$$ and $$\label{eq:reinit2}
\psi_{,t} (S) = {\frac{\partial\psi}{\partialS}} {\frac{\partialS}{\partialt}} = \lambda(S) S_{,t}.$$
The above relations are true because Eq. (\[eq:eikonal\]) is homogeneous of degree 1 in momentum. The above results guarantee that a smoothly related initial data $S_0 \rightarrow S_0' = \psi(S_0)$ have smoothly related solutions.
The solutions of the eikonal equation also guarantee the equivalence of ingoing and outgoing solutions under time reversal. Referring to Eq. (\[eq:eikonal\]), propagation of data for $S$ describing an ingoing or outgoing null surface is completely specified by:
1. a definition of the direction of time,
2. choices of $\alpha$ and $\beta^i$, and
3. a choice of the sign of the root.
Numerical method using the eikonal {#sec:numerical}
==================================
Our numerical method makes use of the time evolution equation for the solutions $S$, $$\label{eq:evolve}
S_{,t} = - \overline{H}(t,x^i, S_{,j}),$$ which allows for relatively fast calculations while being sufficiently accurate.
The eikonal equation, however, shows singular behavior and as described by Ehlers and Newman [@newman], the eikonal equation generally breaks down on caustic and other sets. To address this problem, we make use of an explicit artificial viscosity term to control the appearances of such singularities. Adding the artificial viscosity at the level of the finite difference approximation corresponds to replacing the time evolution Eq. (\[eq:evolve\]) with the evolution equation $$\label{eq:visc}
S_{,t} = \epsilon \nabla^2 S - \overline{H}(t,x^i, S_{,j})$$ where $\epsilon$—the artificial viscosity—is a small quantity of the order of $h^2$ ($h$ denotes the resolution of the numerical mesh) and $\nabla^2$ is any second-order, linear derivative operator. We use a second-order finite difference approximation to the Laplacian.
The null surface $\Gamma$, at any given time level, can be extracted from the level set section of the eikonal solution $S$, say $S = 1$. This problem of extraction is an inverse problem, since it requires that points $(x, y, z)$ are found such that $S(x,y,z) = 1$. Nevertheless, a combination of ordinary bisection and interpolation method is sufficient to extract the approximate null surface $\hat{\Gamma}$. In this method, the surface $\hat{\Gamma}$ can be represented in spherical coordinates $( u(\theta, \phi), \theta, \phi)$, where $r = u(\theta, \phi)$ is the surface function for a given center $c^i$ contained within the surface $\hat{\Gamma}$.
Numerical simulation in Minkowski space {#sec:minkowski}
=======================================
The first application of our numerical method to measure emission coordinates is done in the simplest configuration possible: the pulsars are stationary in flat Minkowski space and we are measuring the emission coordinates of an event $\mathcal{R}$ at the spatial origin $(t, x, y, z) = (0.1, 0, 0, 0)$. Although Minkowski space has no natural timescale, we may take the coordinates to have units of seconds.
As described in Section II, defining the numerical simulation requires the choices of the direction in time, $\alpha$, $\beta^i$ (determined from our Minkowski coordinates as $\alpha = 1$ and $\beta_i=0$), and the sign of the root in Eq. (\[eq:eikonal\]). To measure the emission coordinates—the intersections between the past light cone and the world lines of the pulsars—we need to choose the sign of the root to be negative so that the propagation of $S$ describes an outgoing null surface when the direction of time is pointing to the past.
The simulation is done in a three-dimensional computational domain of $N^3$ points with $N = 361$. The outer boundaries are located at $[ -2.5, +2.5 ]$ in the $x, y, z$ directions. The resolution of this finite difference mesh is then $h = 5/360$ sec. A Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy factor of $\lambda = 1/4$ with an iterated Crank Nicholson scheme [@teu] is used in the finite difference approximation of the time evolution equation (\[eq:visc\]). Here the artificial viscosity parameter $\epsilon$ is set to be equal to $h^2/16$. We found that applying $\approx$ 400 numerical evolution steps (stopping at the time slice $t = -1.388$ sec) was more than enough to measure the emission coordinates.
In this simulation, the stationary pulsars are located at:
1. pulsar \#1: $(t, x, y, z) = (t, -0.50, 0, 0)$,
2. pulsar \#2: $(t, x, y, z) = (t, 1.00, 0, 0)$,
3. pulsar \#3: $(t, x, y, z) = (t, 0, -0.75, 0)$,
4. pulsar \#4: $(t, x, y, z) = (t, 0, 1.25, 0)$, and
5. pulsar \#5: $(t, x, y, z) = (t, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50)$.
The first four create a quadrilateral in the $z=0$ plane surrounding the observer at $x = y = z = 0$, which will generally produce a $\pm z$ degeneracy when determining the emission coordinates. This configuration is easy to plot; see Figure \[fig:minkowski\]. Including pulses from the fifth pulsar with those from three of the others create emission coordinates without the $\pm z$ degeneracy. Alternately one can combine data from more than four (e.g. five) pulsars by a kind of least squares fitting. That is the subject of work by Tarantola *et al.* [@2009arXiv0905.3798T]. We assume that the proper time of each pulsar is precisely the Minkowski coordinate time $t$; this choice is available only in Minkowski spacetime, but not in curved spacetime (see Sections \[sec:schwarzschild\] and \[sec:gauge\]).
In order to avoid the focal point singularity at the vertex $\mathcal{R}$ of the null cone, we represent the event by positing a spherically symmetric null surface $\Gamma$ centered at the origin with radius $\rho = 0.1$ sec at time $t=0$ sec. We thus assume (trivially correct in Minkowski space) that near the event under consideration, spacetime is sufficiently flat so that the light cone is spherical around the event, and set the data a small amount of time (here $0.1$ sec) in the past of the event we are coordinatizing.
Data for the eikonal equation are set in the spherically symmetric form $$\label{eq:initialdata}
S(t = 0, x^i) = 1 + \tanh{\left( \frac{r_c - r}{c} \right)}$$ where $r_c$ is the radius of the initial surface $\Gamma$ and is equal to $0.1$ sec in this case, while $c$ controls the steepness of the hyperbolic tangent function. We set $c$ to $0.1$ sec in our experiment.
After every 75 iterations, we reinitialize the data for the eikonal equation with a function that is similar to Eq. (\[eq:initialdata\]), $$\label{eq:numReinit}
S(t, x^i) = 1 + \tanh{ \left( \frac{u(\theta, \phi, t) - r}{c'} \right)}$$ to ensure the smoothness of the data: reinitialization allows us to set viscosity parameter $\epsilon$ to be arbitrarily small while avoiding the onset of singularity. Here $c'$ denotes a new steepness of the function and our simulation uses $c' = c$. Recall that $u(\theta, \phi, t)$ is the surface function for a given center $c^i$ contained within the discrete null surface $\hat{\Gamma}$.
We know for a fact that the reinitialized solution $S$ is also a solution to the eikonal equation by virtue of Eqs. (\[eq:reinit1\]) and (\[eq:reinit2\]). What Eq.(\[eq:numReinit\]) accomplishes is to smooth the function $S$ near the location of the null surface (where $S=1$) to produce data for a solution which are both analytic and smooth, and which describe the same null cone.
For the resolution used in our simulations, we find no difference in behavior in the Minkowski case, whether or not this reinitialization is carried out. However, in the Schwarzschild curved spacetime case, the reinitialization is necessary, as discussed below.
Table \[table:minkowski\] shows the results of our measurements to determine the emission coordinates of the event $(t, x, y, z) = (0.1, 0, 0, 0)$.
Figure \[fig:minkowski\] depicts the intersections of the past light cone generated by our numerical simulation in the equator $(z = 0)$ with the world lines of pulsars \#1 through \#4, depicted by the four bold lines. The dots mark the events when each pulsar emits its pulse, which will later be recorded by the observer at the event $\mathcal{R}$ we are coordinatizing.
Pulsar \# $\tau$ $t$ $x$ $y$ $z$
----------- -------------------- -------------------- -------- -------- -------
1 $-0.399 \pm 0.003$ $-0.399 \pm 0.003$ -0.500 0.000 0.000
2 $-0.903 \pm 0.003$ $-0.903 \pm 0.003$ 1.000 0.000 0.000
3 $-0.653 \pm 0.003$ $-0.653 \pm 0.003$ 0.000 -0.750 0.000
4 $-1.156 \pm 0.003$ $-1.156 \pm 0.003$ 0.000 1.250 0.000
5 $-0.615 \pm 0.003$ $-0.615 \pm 0.003$ 0.300 0.400 0.500
: Results of emission coordinates in Minkowski spacetime of an event $\mathcal{R}=(t, x, y, z) = (0.1, 0, 0, 0)$. $\tau$ denotes the proper time of the pulsar when the pulsar world line intersects the observer’s past light cone. Any four of the five proper times listed in the table constitute the emission coordinates in a particular emission coordinate system, of the event point $\mathcal{R}$. The coordinates $t, x, y$, and $z$ are the Minkowski space coordinates of the pulsars when the intersections occur.[]{data-label="table:minkowski"}
![Rays: plot of null surface $\hat{\Gamma}$ (the past light cone of $\mathcal{R}$ in Minkowski spacetime). Star marks the location of the event $\mathcal{R} = (t,x,y,z) = (0.1, 0, 0, 0)$ that we are coordinatizing. Bold lines: world lines of the four stationary $z=0$ pulsars in Minkowski spacetime. Dots mark the intersections between the null surface and the pulsars. The coordinates of the intersections are recorded in Table \[table:minkowski\]. Analytic methods are used to substitute for the null cone between $\mathcal{R}$ and the top of the computed (truncated) null cone. See the discussion in the text.[]{data-label="fig:minkowski"}](figure1.png){width=".48\textwidth"}
Comparing our results with analytical calculations, the errors in our results are mainly of the order of a few time resolutions of the finite difference mesh, $dt = \lambda \cdot h = 0.0035$. Simple analytical calculations show that world lines of pulsars \#1, \#2, \#3, \#4 and \#5 are expected to intersect the null surface at $t = -0.400$ sec$, -0.900$ sec$, -0.650$ sec, $-1.150$ sec, and $-0.607$ sec, respectively. The errors can be attributed to the numerical accuracy of the simulations, mainly due to: (1) the interpolation routine that extracts the discrete surface $\hat{\Gamma}$, and (2) the resolution of the underlying three dimensional grid.
Numerical simulation in Schwarzschild geometry {#sec:schwarzschild}
==============================================
Our numerical method has been successful in measuring the emission coordinates in Minkowski spacetime but in general spacetime is not flat. To investigate the change in the emission coordinates in a curved spacetime, we evaluate the numerical method in a Schwarzschild geometry containing a stationary black hole of mass $M=0.25$.
We use the Eddington-Finkelstein [@1924Natur.113..192E; @1958PhRv..110..965F] coordinate system in describing the Schwarzschild geometry to avoid the coordinate singularity at areal distance $r = 2M$ from the black hole. The standard Eddington-Finkelstein form of the Schwarzschild solution is centered at the spatial origin of the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. In order to maintain our event position at $(x,y,z) = (0,0,0)$, we offset the black hole coordinates, putting it at $(x_0, y_0, z_0) = (2.5, 0, 0)$ to provide a strong gravitational attraction at $(0,0,0)$. The Schwarzschild metric in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (in Kerr-Schild form) is [@2002PhRvD..66h4024H]: $$g_{\alpha \beta} = \eta_{\alpha \beta} + \frac{2M}{r} l_\alpha l_\beta
\label{31}$$ where $r=\sqrt{(x-x_0)^2 +(y-y_0)^2 + (z-z_0)^2}$ is the areal coordinate distance from the center of the black hole. Here $\eta_{\alpha \beta} = \text{diag}(-1, 1, 1, 1)$ is the Minkowski metric and $l_\alpha$ is an outgoing null vector with respect to both the Minkowski and the Schwarzschild metric; the outgoing null vector written explicitly in terms of the coordinates $(t, x, y, z)$ has the form $$l_\alpha \rightarrow \left( 1, \frac{x-x_0}{r},\frac{y-y_0}{r}, \frac{z-z_0}{r} \right).
\label{32}$$
In Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, the quantities $\alpha (> 0)$ and $\beta_i$ are: $$\alpha^2 = \frac{1}{1+2M/r},
\label{33}$$ and $$\beta_i = \frac{2M}{r^2}\left(x-x_0, y-y_0 , z-z_0\right).
\label{34}$$
The computational parameters of the simulation are the same as in the previous section: $N^3$ points with $N = 361$; outer boundary locations at $[-2.5, +2.5]$ in the $x, y, z$ directions; a Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy factor of $\lambda = 1/4$; and artificial viscosity parameter of $\epsilon = h^2/16$. However, $\approx 550$ evolution steps to the $t = -1.910$ sec time slice are needed in this particular case because of the shear of the null cone and the movements of the pulsars, both of which will be discussed later in this section.
As noted in Section \[sec:minkowski\], the vertex of the null cone is difficult to handle because of the finite resolution of the grid used to evolve the null cone into the past. In the flat Minkowski space treated in Section \[sec:minkowski\], the null cone can be described analytically, and is a shear-free metric sphere expanding from the vertex, with radius equal to the elapsed Minkowski time. Thus in Section \[sec:minkowski\] we set the data at a Minkowski time that is $0.1$ sec earlier ($\Delta t = -0.1$ sec) than the event we are coordinatizing—when the backward light cone sphere had a radius of $0.1$ sec. This sphere is sufficiently large so that our discretization adequately resolves it, and as we follow the expanding light cone into the past, the relative resolution becomes even better. In the Minkowski case this data setting method contributes to minimal total errors (a few times the discretization size).
We use a similar method to initialize the null “cone" here in the black hole spacetime. (The null cone here is not a spherical cone because of shear due to the presence of the black hole.) Again we analytically set the boundary condition at a small coordinate time ($0.1$ sec) in the past of the event we are coordinatizing. To provide a technique for general spacetime, we define an approximate method that will work in any spacetime: we evaluate the metric at the event being coordinatized, and assume that it is constant in the small region needed to propagate the null surface backward for a small arbitrary coordinate time.
In the current example, we will find the emission coordinates of the event given by $(t, x, y, z)=(0.1,0,0,0)$ in the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates where the black hole is offset to $(x_0, y_0, z_0) = (2.5,0,0)$ and has a mass $M = 0.25$. Therefore, $2M/r= 1/5$ at $(0.1,0,0,0)$, and from Eqs. (\[31\]), (\[32\]) the metric at that point is $g_{tt}=-4/5;$ $g_{tx}=-1/5;$ $g_{xx}=6/5;$ $g_{yy}=g_{zz}=1$.
One proceeds by choosing a small interval of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate time $\Delta t$ (here $-0.1$ sec) and then solving for the values of the 3-space points ($\Delta x,\Delta y, \Delta z$) that satisfy $$0= g_{tt}\Delta t^2 +2g_{tx}\Delta t \Delta x + g_{ij} \Delta x^i \Delta x^j,$$ using the constant values of the metric coefficients defined above. The 3-space points found define the shape of the $t=$ constant $= \Delta t$ slice of the backward null cone, which initializes the eikonal data for further evolution into the past.
Contrary to the Minkowski case, now the pulsars are freely falling toward the black hole located at $(x_0, y_0, z_0) = (2.5, 0, 0)$. As an initial condition we demand that at time $t = 0$ sec, all five pulsars are located at coordinate positions with the same values as used in the previous section, with zero velocity. However, due to black hole gravitational acceleration, the pulsars are moving at other times. Because they begin at rest in the black hole frame, the pulsars have only a radial velocity—and no angular velocity—toward the black hole. Therefore, to measure the emission coordinates of an event at the origin, we need to first understand the radial geodesic motion of the freely-falling pulsars.
The Schwarzschild metric written in spherical Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ef}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = &- \left( 1- \frac{2M}{r} \right) \mathrm{d}t^2 + \frac{4M}{r} \; \mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}t + \left( 1 + \frac{2M}{r} \right) \mathrm{d}r^2 \nonumber \\
&+ r^2 ( \mathrm{d}\theta^2 + \sin^2{\theta} \; \mathrm{d}\varphi^2 )\end{aligned}$$ and the Schwarzschild metric written in the Schwarzschild coordinates is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:schwarzschild}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = &- \left( 1- \frac{2M}{r} \right) \mathrm{d}\bar{t}^2 + \left( 1- \frac{2M}{r} \right)^{-1} \mathrm{d}r^2 \nonumber \\
&+ r^2 ( \mathrm{d}\theta^2 + \sin^2{\theta} \; \mathrm{d}\varphi^2 ).\end{aligned}$$ The bar on $\bar{t}$ here is used to distinguish the Schwarzschild coordinate time $\bar{t}$ from the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate time $t$.
From the expressions of Schwarzschild metric in the two coordinate systems, it is clear that the area coordinate $r$ in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates is the same area coordinate $r$ in Schwarzschild coordinates. This guarantees that a pulsar’s radial geodesic motion found using Schwarzschild coordinates, when expressed in terms of the pulsar proper time $\tau$, will have identically the same expression in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. Let us proceed in the Schwarzschild coordinates.
Purely radial geodesic motion of a freely falling pulsar can be described by the parametric equations [@mtw]: $$\label{eq:reta}
r = \frac{R}{2}( 1 + \cos{\eta} ),$$ $$\label{eq:taueta}
\tau = \frac{R}{2} \left( \frac{R}{2M} \right)^{1/2} ( \eta + \sin{\eta} ),$$ and
$$\label{eq:tbareta}
\bar{t} = \left[ \left( \frac{R}{2} + 2M\right) \left( \frac{R}{2M} - 1 \right)^{1/2} \right] \eta + \frac{R}{2} \left( \frac{R}{2M} - 1 \right)^{1/2} \sin{\eta} + 2M \ln \left| \frac{ (R/2M -1)^{1/2} + \tan{(\eta/2)} }{ (R/2M -1)^{1/2} - \tan{(\eta/2)} }\right|$$
where $\eta$ is the parameterization, and $R$ is the apastron—the areal distance at which the pulsar has zero velocity. Note that both $\bar t=0$ and $\tau =0$ when $\eta =0$. As a specific choice in our simulation, we also specify that $\tau=0$, for each pulsar, occurs at Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate time $t=0$.
We have obtained the expression for Schwarzschild time, but the Schwarzschild metric we supplied to the numerical simulation is expressed in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. Thus, we need to relate the Eddington-Finkelstein time and the Schwarzschild time, which can be done by relating the spacetime interval in Eqs. (\[eq:ef\]) and (\[eq:schwarzschild\]) to obtain $$\mathrm{d}\bar{t}^2 = \left[ \mathrm{d}t - \frac{2M/r}{1-2M/r} \; \mathrm{d}r \right]^2.$$ Taking the positive root of this equation and integrating, we obtain the expected expression: $$t = \bar{t} + 2M \ln{(r - 2M)} + C$$ where $C$ is an arbitrary constant that depends on the initial condition. In our simulation, the initial condition is at $t = \bar{t} = 0$, $r = R$. Substituting this and solving for $C$, we obtain the final equation that relates the Schwarzschild time $\bar{t}$ with the Eddington-Finkelstein time $t$, $$\label{eq:teta}
t = \bar{t} + 2M \ln{(r - 2M)} - 2M \ln{(R - 2M)}.$$ Notice that $R$ depends on which pulsar is under consideration, so we are setting data that have $t=0=$ constant, but have a different $\bar{t}$ for each pulsar. We now have the complete relations needed to describe the purely radial geodesic motion of the pulsars.
As we run our simulation to obtain the null surface $\hat{\Gamma}$, the pulsars move along the geodesics as described by Eqs. (\[eq:reta\]), (\[eq:tbareta\]), and (\[eq:teta\]). Figure \[fig:schwarzschild\] depicts the intersections of the past light cone generated by the simulation at the equator, $z = 0$. The world lines of the first four pulsars are again depicted by four bold lines and their intersections with the null cone by dots.
The curvature of pulsar \#2’s world line is most evident in Figure \[fig:schwarzschild\]. Note also in Figure \[fig:schwarzschild\], the shape of the light cone: the light cone moves further away from the black hole as we go further into the past, as expected from intuition. (It is falling into the black hole as time goes forward.) The cone also flattens out as we go further into the past due to the tidal field of the black hole. These movements of the light cone are a main reason why the measured emission coordinates in Table \[table:schwarzschild\], the results of the measurements in Schwarzschild geometry, differ from the results in Table \[table:minkowski\]. The proper times $\tau^\alpha$ in Table \[table:schwarzschild\] could in principle be obtained by integration back along the pulsar world lines. However, with the analytic results, $\tau^\alpha$ are in fact obtained by computing $\eta$ for each pulsar at the event at which it intersects the null cone from Eqs. (\[eq:reta\]), (\[eq:tbareta\]), and (\[eq:teta\]), and then obtaining $\tau$ from Eq. (\[eq:taueta\]).
Although we do not develop a complete analytical solution for the photons in this case (see [@2009arXiv0912.4418D] for such a solution), the configuration is qualitatively comparable to the Minkowski case discussed earlier. Therefore, we assume a similar level of error in the Schwarzschild case and indicate that in Table \[table:schwarzschild\].
![Rays: the past null cone $\hat{\Gamma}$ of the measurement event $\mathcal{R}$. We use Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates in a Schwarzschild spacetime. Star marks the location of event $\mathcal{R} = (t,x,y,z) = (0.1, 0, 0, 0)$ that we are coordinatizing. Bold lines: world lines of four $z=0$ pulsars freely falling toward a stationary black hole located to the right of the volume plotted at $(x_0, y_0, z_0) = (2.5, 0, 0)$. Dots mark the intersections between the null surface and the pulsar world lines. The coordinates of these intersections are recorded in Table \[table:schwarzschild\]. See the text for a discussion of the gap between $\mathcal{R}$ and the top of the (truncated) null cone.[]{data-label="fig:schwarzschild"}](figure2.png){width=".48\textwidth"}
Pulsar \# $\tau$ $t$ $x$ $y$ $z$
----------- -------------------- -------------------- -------- -------- -------
1 $-0.364 \pm 0.003$ $-0.399 \pm 0.003$ -0.498 0.000 0.000
2 $-1.432 \pm 0.003$ $-1.840 \pm 0.003$ 1.170 0.000 0.000
3 $-0.641 \pm 0.003$ $-0.715 \pm 0.003$ 0.007 -0.748 0.000
4 $-1.112 \pm 0.003$ $-1.233 \pm 0.003$ 0.017 1.241 0.000
5 $-0.618 \pm 0.003$ $-0.701 \pm 0.003$ 0.309 0.398 0.498
: Results of emission coordinates of an event $\mathcal{R} = (t,x,y,z) = (0.1,0,0,0)$ in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates in Schwarzschild spacetime. The pulsars are freely falling toward a static black hole located at $(x_0, y_0, z_0) = (2.5, 0, 0)$. $t$ denotes the Eddington-Finkelstein times when the pulsar world lines intersect with the observer’s past light cone; at $t = 0$, all pulsars have zero velocity. $\tau$ lists the proper times: the emission coordinates of the reception event $\mathcal{R}$ can be recorded as the collection of any four of the $\tau^\alpha$. $x, y$, and $z$ are the Eddington-Finkelstein spatial coordinates of the pulsars when the intersections occur.[]{data-label="table:schwarzschild"}
The numerical reinitialization described in Eq.(\[eq:numReinit\]) was necessary for the stability of this curved space simulation. The eikonal evolution suffered abrupt failures after $\sim 200$ integration steps; reinitializing every $75$ integration steps controlled this behavior. Results were independent of the frequency of reinitialization, so long as it was no less frequent than every $75$ steps.
Astrophysical Application: Fixing Gauge {#sec:gauge}
=======================================
Any set of four proper emission times may be used as emission coordinates, which we generically call $\zeta^\alpha$. Since here we collect pulses from five pulsars, there are five such sets and we introduce a numbering ${}_i\zeta^\alpha$ over all coordinate systems created by combining selected $\tau^\beta$. A typical set in our case might be: ${}_2\zeta^\alpha = \{ \tau^2, \tau^3, \tau^4,\tau^5\}$; we restrict the possible choices by requiring the numbering to be ordered, increasing, in the quadruple. We note again that [@2009arXiv0905.3798T] shows how to combine results from more than four pulsar sources in a way that produces coordinates with reduced uncertainties.
Since we are dealing with a particular event $\mathcal{R}$ in a given spacetime, all the ${}_i\zeta^\alpha$ are coordinate transformations of one another. Since the source pulsars are independent, the transformations are discontinuous: no continuous path of small transformations joins them. But besides these transformations, once a set of source pulsars is decided on, there is another group of continuous gauge transformations, which we will discuss below.
The emission coordinates—say $(\tau^1,\tau^2,\tau^3,\tau^4)$—form a quadruple of proper emission times of the measured pulses. For now we assume that the pulses are closely enough spaced such that each $\tau^{\alpha}$ can be viewed as a continuous time signal determined to arbitrary precision. (Our simulations made this assumption and we used other means—not pulse counting—to determine the source proper times.) In practice one would interpolate; the interpolation process will be discussed briefly below.
It is clear that this coordinate system has a gauge group: affine transformations on each of the $\tau^\alpha \rightarrow A^\alpha \tau^\alpha +B^\alpha$ (no sum on $\alpha$), where $A^\alpha$ and $B^\alpha$ are finite and we restrict $A^\alpha$ to be positive. Clearly $B^\alpha$ is an offset (e.g. Eastern time vs Pacific time) and $A^\alpha$ is a clock rate factor, or could be viewed as a function of the time unit chosen (e.g. seconds vs hours).
To construct a consistent coordinate system, $A^\alpha$ and $B^\alpha$ must be chosen and held fixed for all reception events. (In our simulations we set $A^\alpha=1$, and defined $B^\alpha$ by demanding that $\tau^\alpha$ = 0 when the pulsar coordinate time $t=0$.)
Setting the gauge is intertwined with other steps in establishing the emission coordinates. For practical purposes, one may choose to construct a consistent coordinate system, using one or more central master stations, by proceeding as follows:
1. Accumulate data on potential source pulsars. Compare pulse arrival stability against the best atomic clock. This will require the removal of known detector motion in the Solar System, and further polynomial fitting of the pulse arrival times. Transfer time of arrival solutions to a fiducial point, such as the barycenter of the Solar System.
2. Using good atomic clocks which hold stability over many pulse periods, interpolate the intervals between source pulses.
3. Define $\tau^\beta =0$ to correspond to the arrival of a specific pulse from each source $\beta$ at the receiver. It is intended that this is done at some finite specific time, while the pulse stability is being observed.
Steps 1 and 2 provide precise interpolation into the intervals between source pulses, and partly imply a gauge (defining $A^\alpha$) for the coordinate system. Step 3 defines the origin of the emission coordinate system, including fixing the offset $B^\alpha$. As the receiving station $\mathcal{R}$ ages and moves, its emission coordinates will move in a smooth way.
Computational Accuracy {#sec:compAccuracy}
======================
To provide a proof of principle, we have concentrated on the eikonal formalism and its generality of application; our numerical accuracy in examples is only moderate. By contrast the analysis of [@2009arXiv0912.4418D] (based on a different approach) is carried out essentially to machine precision for the Schwarzschild case. A number of approaches are being implemented to improve our code accuracy. The current code employs second-order discretization. This is being improved stepwise to fourth and ultimately to eighth order discretization. The current code is a unigrid code, so the same numerical error limit applies at all points of the grid. The backward wavefront (backward null cone) curvature is greatest near the event $\mathcal{R}$, but is small for most of the evolution from sources to $\mathcal{R}$. We will implement multiresolution so that the regions where the null cone is most highly curved are well resolved. Even with this improvement, we still require setting data on a small “sphere" just to the past of the event $\mathcal{R}$. Care will be taken that this data setting is consistently convergent with the rest of the computation. Additionally we are studying the behavior of the eikonal differential equation, to optimize for accuracy its translation into computational terms.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have presented a robust numerical method to measure the emission coordinates of an event in any generic spacetime configuration. Our method uses a computational evolution of the eikonal equation describing the backward light cone.
We applied our method in two different numerical simulations: one in Minkowski spacetime and one in Schwarzschild spacetime. In both simulations, we found that our methods are reliable in measuring the emission coordinates. Errors in the measurements can be attributed to the numerical accuracy of the simulations, mainly due to the interpolation routine and the resolution of the three dimensional finite difference mesh. We anticipate that with a higher resolution, we will be able to reduce the errors in our calculation of the emission coordinates.
Although these numerical simulations are preliminary, the same method can be used for pertinent problems, such as measuring the emission coordinates of the Earth, and therefore the Earth’s trajectory.
Acknowledgments {#sec:acknowledgment}
===============
We acknowledge DARPA and its XTIM team members for their significant contributions and suggestions for this work, especially the past DARPA program manager Derek Tournear, and NASA for its current support of XTIM technology development. We thank the anonymous referee for very helpful comments on this work.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We calculate the chiral and thermal susceptibilities for two confining Dyson-Schwinger equation models of QCD with two light flavours, a quantitative analysis of which yields the critical exponents, $\beta$ and $\delta$, that characterise the second-order chiral symmetry restoration transition. The method itself is of interest, minimising the influence of numerical noise in the calculation of the order parameter for chiral symmetry breaking near the critical temperature. For the more realistic of the two models we find: $T_c \approx 153\,$MeV, and the non-mean-field values: $\beta
= 0.46 \pm 0.04$, $\delta = 4.3\pm 0.3$ and $1/(\beta \delta)= 0.54 \pm
0.05$, which we discuss in comparison with the results of other models.
address: |
Fachbereich Physik, Universität Rostock, D–18051 Rostock, Germany\
Physics Division, Bldg. 203, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL 60439-4843, USA
author:
- 'D. Blaschke, A. Höll, C.D. Robertsand S. Schmidt'
date: 'Pacs Numbers: 11.10.Wx, 12.38.Mh, 24.85.+p, 05.70.Fh '
title: Analysis of chiral and thermal susceptibilities
---
Introduction
============
Phase transitions are characterised by the behaviour of an order parameter, $\langle X \rangle$, the expectation value of an operator. In the ordered phase of a system: $\langle X \rangle \neq 0$, whereas in the disordered phase $\langle X \rangle = 0$. A phase transition is first-order if $\langle
X \rangle \to 0$ discontinuously, whereas it is second-order if $\langle X
\rangle \to 0$ continuously. For a second-order transition, the length-scale associated with correlations in the system diverges as $\langle X \rangle \to
0$ and one can define a range of critical exponents that characterise the behaviour of certain macroscopic properties at the transition point. For example, in a system that is ferromagnetic for temperatures less than some critical value, $T_c$, the magnetisation, $M$, in the absence of an external magnetic field, behaves as $M \propto (T_c-T)^\beta$ for $T\sim T_c^-$, where $\beta$ is the critical exponent. At the critical temperature the behaviour of the magnetisation in the presence of an external field, $h\to 0^+$, defines another critical exponent, $\delta$: $M \propto h^{(1/\delta)}$. In a system that can be described by mean field theory these critical exponents are $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{\rm MF}= 0.5\,,\; & & \delta^{\rm MF} = 3.0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Equilibrium, second-order phase transitions can be analysed using the renormalisation group, which leads to scaling laws that reduce the number of independent critical exponents to just two: $\beta$ and $\delta$ [@cpbook]. It is widely conjectured that the values of these exponents are fully determined by the dimension of space and the nature of the order parameter. This is the notion of [*universality*]{}$\,$; i.e., that the critical exponents are [*independent*]{} of a theory’s microscopic details and hence all theories can be grouped into a much smaller number of universality classes according to the values of their critical exponents. If this is the case, the behaviour of a complicated theory near criticality is completely determined by the behaviour of a simpler theory in the same universality class. So, when presented with an apparently complicated theory, the problem is reduced to only that of establishing its universality class.
Quantum chromodynamics is an asymptotically free theory; i.e., there is an intrinsic, renormalisation-induced mass-scale, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, and for squared momentum transfer $Q^2 \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the interactions between quarks and gluons are weaker than Coulombic: $\alpha_{\rm S}(Q^2)\to
0$ as $Q^2 \to \infty$. The study of QCD at finite temperature and baryon number density proceeds via the introduction of the intensive variables: temperature, $T$; and quark chemical potential, $\mu$. These are additional mass-scales, with which the coupling can [*run*]{} and hence, for $T\gg
\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and/or $\mu\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, $\alpha_{\rm
S}(Q^2=0,T,\mu)\sim 0$. It follows that, at finite temperature and/or baryon number density, there is a phase of QCD in which quarks and gluons are weakly interacting, [*irrespective*]{} of the momentum transfer [@collinsperry]; i.e., a quark-gluon plasma phase. Such a phase of matter existed approximately one microsecond after the big-bang.
At $T,\mu = 0$ the strong interaction is characterised by confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB), effects which are tied to the behaviour of $\alpha_{\rm S}(Q^2)$ at small-$Q^2$; i.e., its long-range behaviour. In a phase of QCD in which the coupling is uniformly small for all $Q^2$, these effects are absent and the nature of the strong interaction spectrum is qualitatively different.
The path followed in the transition to the plasma is also important because it determines some observational consequences of the plasma’s existence. For example [@krishna], the time-scale for the expansion of the early universe: $\sim 10^{-5}\, {\rm s}$, is large compared with the natural time-scale in QCD: $1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim 1\,{\rm fm}/c \sim
10^{-23}\,{\rm s}$, hence thermal equilibrium is maintained throughout the QCD transition. Therefore if the transition is second-order the ratio $B
:=\,$baryon-number/entropy, remains unchanged from that value attained at an earlier stage in the universe’s evolution. However, a first-order transition would be accompanied by a large increase in entropy density and therefore a reduction in $B$ after the transition. Hence the order of the QCD transition constrains the mechanism for baryon number generation in models describing the formation of the universe, since with a second-order transition this mechanism is only required to produce the presently observed value of $B$ and need not allow for dilution. In the absence of quarks, QCD has a first-order deconfinement transition, while with three or four massless quarks a first-order chiral symmetry restoration transition is expected [@krishna]. What of the realistic case with two light quark flavours?
Based on the global chiral symmetry of QCD with two light quark flavours, it has been argued [@krishna] that this theory and the $N=4$ Heisenberg magnet are in the same universality class. As a field theory, the $N=4$ Heisenberg magnet is characterised by an interaction of the form $$\sum_{i=1}^4\, \left\{ \case{1}{2} \mu^2 \phi_i^2(x)
+ \case{1}{4} \lambda^4 \phi_i^4(x) \right\}\,,$$ where $\mu^2$ is a function of temperature: $\mu^2\geq 0$ at or above the critical temperature, $T_c^H$, but $\mu^2 <0$ for $T<T_c^H$. If the interaction strength, $\lambda$, depends smoothly on $T$ and remains positive then, for $T<T_c^H$, the classical minimum of this potential is at $$\phi_{\rm cl}^2 = \frac{-\mu^2}{\lambda} > 0\,.$$ This model is familiar as the nonlinear $\sigma$-model, often used to describe low-energy phenomena in QCD. It has been explored thoroughly and has a second order phase transition with critical exponents [@neqfour] $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^H= 0.38 \pm 0.01\,,\; & & \delta^H = 4.82 \pm 0.05\,.\end{aligned}$$
One can examine the hypothesis that this model and QCD with two light quark flavours are in the same universality class via numerical simulations. Such studies on an $8^3\times 4$ lattice suggest a second-order chiral phase transition with critical exponents [@kl94] $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{\rm lat}= 0.30 \pm 0.08\,,\; & & \delta^{\rm lat} = 4.3 \pm 0.5\end{aligned}$$ but do not decide the question.[^1] These results were obtained through an analysis of the chiral and thermal susceptibilities; a technique that can be applied in the study of any theory. Herein we illustrate the method via an analysis of two Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE) models of QCD, which also allows us to explore the hypothesis further.
Dyson-Schwinger equations provide a renormalisable, nonperturbative, continuum framework for the exploration of strong interaction effects and have been used extensively at $T=0$ [@rw94] in the study of confinement and DCSB, and in the calculation of hadron observables [@tandy; @pichowsky; @ivanov]. They have recently [@prl; @thermo] found successful application at $T\neq 0$ and it is these two models that we employ as exemplars herein. In Sec. II we describe the models and in Sec. III the analysis of their chiral and thermal susceptibilities, and the evaluation of the associated critical exponents. We summarise and conclude in Sec. IV.
Two Models
==========
Using a Euclidean metric, with $\{\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu\}=2\,\delta_{\mu\nu}$ and $\gamma_\mu^\dagger = \gamma_\mu$, the renormalised dressed-quark propagator at $T\neq 0$ takes the form $$S(p_{\omega_k}) := -i\vec{\gamma}\cdot \vec{p}\,\sigma_A(p_{\omega_k}) -
i\gamma_4 \omega_k \,\sigma_C(p_{\omega_k}) + \sigma_B(p_{\omega_k})\,,$$ where $(p_{\omega_k}):= (\vec{p},\omega_k)$ with $\omega_k= (2 k + 1)\,\pi T$ the fermion Matsubara frequency, and $\sigma_{\cal F}(p_{\omega_k})$, ${\cal
F}=A,B,C$, are functions only of $|\vec{p}|^2$ and $\omega_k^2$. The propagator is obtained as a solution of the quark DSE $$\begin{aligned}
S^{-1}(p_{\omega_k}) & :=& i\vec{\gamma}\cdot \vec{p} \,A(p_{\omega_k})
+ i\gamma_4\,\omega_k \,C(p_{\omega_k} ) + B(p_{\omega_k} )\\
&= &Z_2^A
\,i\vec{\gamma}\cdot \vec{p} + Z_2 \, (i\gamma_4\,\omega_k + m_{\rm bm})\, +
\Sigma^\prime(p_{\omega_k} ),
\label{qDSE} \end{aligned}$$ $m_{\rm bm}$ is the Lagrangian current-quark bare mass and the regularised self energy is $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^\prime(p_{\omega_k}) &=& i\vec{\gamma}\cdot
\vec{p}\,\Sigma_A^\prime(p_{\omega_k} )
+ i\gamma_4\,\omega_k\,\Sigma_C^\prime(p_{\omega_k} ) +
\Sigma_B^\prime(p_{\omega_k})\,, \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{\cal F}^\prime(p_{\omega_k}) =\int_{l,q}^{\bar\Lambda}\,
\case{4}{3}\,g^2\,D_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p}-\vec{q},\omega_k-\omega_l)
\,\case{1}{4}{\rm tr}\left[{\cal P}_{\cal F} \gamma_\mu
S(q_{\omega_l})\Gamma_\nu(q_{\omega_l};p_{\omega_k})\right]\,,
\label{regself}\end{aligned}$$ where: ${\cal F}=A,B,C$; ${\cal P}_A:= -(Z_1^A/|\vec{p}|^2)i\vec{\gamma}\cdot
\vec{p}$, ${\cal P}_B:= Z_1 $, ${\cal P}_C:= -(Z_1/\omega_k)i\gamma_4$; and $\int_{l,q}^{\bar\Lambda}:=\, T
\,\sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty\,\int^{\bar\Lambda}d^3q/(2\pi)^3$, with $\int^{\bar\Lambda}$ a mnemonic to represent a translationally invariant regularisation of the integral and $\bar\Lambda$ the regularisation mass-scale. In Eq. (\[regself\]), $\Gamma_\nu(q_{\omega_l};p_{\omega_k})$ is the renormalised dressed-quark-gluon vertex and $
D_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p},\Omega_k)$ is the renormalised dressed-gluon propagator. ($\Omega_k = 2 k\, \pi T$ is the boson Matsubara frequency.)
In renormalising the quark DSE we require that $$\label{subren}
\left.S^{-1}(p_{\omega_0})\right|_{|\vec{p}|^2+\omega_0^2=\zeta^2} =
i\vec{\gamma}\cdot \vec{p} + i\gamma_4\,\omega_0 + m_R\;,$$ which entails that the renormalisation constants are $$\begin{aligned}
Z_2^A(\zeta,\bar\Lambda)
& = & 1- \Sigma_A^\prime(\zeta^-_{\omega_0};{\bar\Lambda}),\\
Z_2(\zeta,\bar\Lambda)
& = & 1- \Sigma_C^\prime(\zeta^-_{\omega_0};{\bar\Lambda}),\\
m_R(\zeta) & = & Z_2 m_{\rm bm}({\bar\Lambda}^2) +
\Sigma_B^\prime(\zeta^-_{\omega_0};{\bar\Lambda}),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\zeta^-_{\omega_0})^2 := \zeta^2 - \omega_0^2$, and the renormalised self energies are $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\cal F}(p_{\omega_k};\zeta) & = &
\xi_{\cal F} + \Sigma_{\cal F}^\prime(p_{\omega_k};{\bar\Lambda})
- \Sigma_{\cal F}^\prime(\zeta^-_{\omega_0};{\bar\Lambda})\,,
\end{array}$$ ${\cal F}=A,B,C$, $\xi_A = 1 = \xi_C$ and $\xi_B=m_R(\zeta)$.
So far no approximations or truncations have been made but to continue we must know the form of $\Gamma_\nu(q_{\omega_l};p_{\omega_k})$ and $D_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p},\Omega_k)$ in Eq. (\[regself\]). These Schwinger functions satisfy DSEs. However, the study of those equations is rudimentary even at $T=0$ and there are no studies for $T\neq 0$. To proceed we use the $T=0$ results as a qualitative guide and employ exploratory [*Ansätze*]{} for $\Gamma_\nu(q_{\omega_l};p_{\omega_k})$ and $D_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p},\Omega_k)$. This is where model parameters enter.
The structure of the dressed fermion-gauge-boson vertex has been much considered [@ayse97]. As a connected, irreducible three-point function it should be free of light-cone singularities in covariant gauges; i.e., it should be regular at $(\vec{p}-\vec{q})^2 + (\omega_k-\omega_l)^2=0$. A range of [*Ansätze*]{} with this property have been proposed and employed [@hawes94] and it has become clear that the judicious use of the rainbow truncation $$\label{rainbow}
\Gamma_\nu(q_{\omega_l};p_{\omega_k}) = \gamma_\nu$$ in Landau gauge provides reliable results [@mr97]. This is the [*Ansatz*]{} employed in Refs. [@prl; @thermo] and we use it herein. With this truncation a mutually consistent constraint is $Z_1 = Z_2$ and $Z_1^A =
Z_2^A$ [@mr97].
With $\Gamma_\nu(q_{\omega_l};p_{\omega_k})$ regular, the analytic properties of the kernel in the quark DSE are determined by those of $D_{\mu\nu}(p_{\Omega_k})$, which in Landau gauge has the general form $$g^2 D_{\mu\nu}(p_{\Omega_k}) =
P_{\mu\nu}^L(p_{\Omega_k} ) \Delta_F(p_{\Omega_k} ) +
P_{\mu\nu}^T(p_{\Omega_k}) \Delta_G(p_{\Omega_k} ) \,,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mu\nu}^T(p_{\Omega_k}) & \equiv &\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
0; \; \mu\;{\rm and/or} \;\nu = 4,\\
\displaystyle
\delta_{ij} - \frac{p_i p_j}{p^2}; \; \mu,\nu=i,j\,=1,2,3\;,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ with $P_{\mu\nu}^T(p_{\Omega_k}) + P_{\mu\nu}^L(p_{\Omega_k}) =
\delta_{\mu\nu}- p_\mu p_\nu/{\sum_{\alpha=1}^4 \,p_\alpha p_\alpha}$; $\mu,\nu= 1,\ldots, 4$. A “Debye-mass” for the gluon appears as a $T$-dependent contribution to $\Delta_F$. Considering $D_{\mu\nu}(k)$ at $T=0$, a perturbative analysis at two-loop order provides a quantitatively reliable estimate for $k^2 > 1$-$2\,$GeV$^2$, with higher order terms providing corrections of only $\sim 10$%. However, for $k^2<1\,$GeV$^2$ nonperturbative methods are necessary. Studies of the gluon DSE in axial gauge [@atkinson], where ghost contributions are absent, or in Landau gauge [@pennington], when their contributions are small, indicate that $D_{\mu\nu}(k)$ is significantly enhanced in the vicinity of $k^2 = 0$ relative to a free gauge-boson propagator, and that the enhancement persists to $k^2 \sim 1\,$GeV$^2$. Due to the truncations involved these studies are not quantitatively reliable but this behaviour has been modelled successfully as a distribution located in the vicinity of $k^2 = 0$ [@mr97; @fr].
Infrared-dominant Model
-----------------------
A particularly simple and illustratively useful model is obtained with $$\label{dmn}
\Delta_F(p_{\Omega_k}) = \Delta_G(p_{\Omega_k})
= 2 \pi^3 \,\frac{\eta^2}{T}\, \delta_{k0}\, \delta^3(\vec{p})\,,$$ which is a generalisation to $T\neq 0$ of the model introduced in Ref. [@mn83], where $\eta\approx 1.06\,$GeV is a mass-scale parameter fixed by fitting $\pi$- and $\rho$-meson masses. As an infrared-dominant model Eq. (\[dmn\]) does not represent well the behaviour $D_{\mu\nu}(p_{\Omega_k})$ away from $p_{\Omega_k}^2 \simeq 0$, and hence there are some model-dependent artefacts. However, these artefacts are easily identified and, because of its simplicity, the model has provided a useful means of elucidating many of the qualitative features of more sophisticated [*Ansätze*]{}.
Using Eqs. (\[rainbow\]) and (\[dmn\]) the quark DSE is ultraviolet-finite, the cutoff can be removed and the renormalisation point taken to infinity, so that Eq. (\[qDSE\]) becomes the algebraic equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beqnfour}
\eta^2 m^2 & = & B^4 + m\, B^3 + \left(4 p_{\omega_k}^2 - \eta^2 -
m^2\right) B^2 -m\,\left( 2\,{{\eta }^2} + {m^2} +
4\, p_{\omega_k}^2 \right)B \,, \\
%
A(p_{\omega_k}) & = & C(p_{\omega_k}) =
\frac{2 B(p_{\omega_k})}{m +B(p_{\omega_k})}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $Z_2^A= 1 = Z_2$ and $m=m_R=m_{\rm bm}$: $m=0$ defines the chiral limit. This DSE-model of QCD has coincident, second-order deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration phase transitions at a critical temperature $T_c^{\rm
IR}\approx 0.16\,\eta$ [@thermo].
Ultraviolet-improved Model {#secuvi}
--------------------------
An improvement over Eq. (\[dmn\]) is obtained by correcting the large-$p_{\Omega_k}^2$ behaviour so as to better represent the interaction at short-distances. The one-parameter model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uvpropf}
\Delta_F(p_{\Omega_k}) & = & {\cal D}(p_{\Omega_k};m_D)\,,\\
\label{uvpropg}
\Delta_G(p_{\Omega_k}) & = & {\cal D}(p_{\Omega_k};0)\,,\\
\label{delta}
{\cal D}(p_{\Omega_k};m) & := & \case{16}{9}\,\pi^2 \, \left[
\frac{2\pi}{T} m_t^2 \delta_{0\,k} \delta^3(\vec{p}) +
\frac{1-{\rm e}^{
\left[-\right(|\vec{p}|^2+\Omega_k^2+ m^2 \left)/(4m_t^2)\right]}}
{|\vec{p}|^2+\Omega_k^2+ m^2} \right]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{\rm D}^2 = (8/3)\, \pi^2 T^2$ is the perturbatively evaluated “Debye-mass”[^2], achieves this. This gluon propagator provides a generalisation to $T\neq 0$ of the model explored in Ref. [@fr] where the parameter $m_t$ is a mass-scale that marks the boundary between the perturbative and nonperturbative domains. The value $m_t=0.69\,{\rm GeV}=1/0.29\,{\rm fm}$ is fixed by requiring a good description of a range of $\pi$- and $\rho$-meson properties. In this case the DSE yields a pair of coupled, nonlinear integral equations that must be solved subject to the renormalisation boundary conditions, and $m_R=0$ defines the chiral limit. This model also has coincident, second-order deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration transitions, with the critical temperature $T_c^{\rm UV}\approx 0.15\,$GeV [@prl].
Chiral and Thermal Susceptibilities
===================================
In the study of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking an order parameter often used is the quark condensate, $\langle \bar q q\rangle_\zeta$. In QCD in the chiral limit this order parameter is defined via the quark propagator [@mr97]: $$\label{qbarq}
-\langle \bar q q\rangle_\zeta:= N_c\,
\lim_{\bar\Lambda\to \infty}
Z_4(\zeta,\bar\Lambda)\,
\int_{l,q}^{\bar\Lambda}
\frac{B_0(p_{\omega_l})}
{|\vec{p}|^2 A_0(p_{\omega_l})^2
+ \omega_l^2 C_0(p_{\omega_l})^2
+ B_0(p_{\omega_l})^2}\,,$$ for each massless quark flavour, where the subscript “$0$” denotes that the scalar functions: $A_0$, $B_0$, $C_0$, are obtained as solutions of Eq. (\[qDSE\]) in the chiral limit, and $Z_4(\zeta,\bar\Lambda)$ is the mass renormalisation constant: $Z_4(\zeta,\bar\Lambda) \,m_R(\zeta) =
Z_2(\zeta,\bar\Lambda)\, m_{\rm bm}(\bar\Lambda)$. The functions have an implicit $\zeta$-dependence. From Eq. (\[qbarq\]) it is clear that an equivalent order parameter for the chiral transition is $${\cal X} := B_0(\vec{p}=0,\omega_0)\,,$$ which was used in Refs. [@prl; @thermo]. Thus the zeroth Matsubara mode determines the character of the chiral phase transition, a conjecture explored in Ref. [@jackson96].
To accurately characterise the chiral symmetry restoration transitions in the two models introduced above, we examine closely the chiral and thermal susceptibilities and their scaling behaviour near the critical point. This allows a determination of the critical temperature, $T_c$, and exponents $\beta$ and $\delta$, as we explain in the appendix. In the notation of the appendix, the “magnetisation” is $$M(t,h):= B(\vec{p}=0,\omega_0)\,,$$ i.e., the value in the infrared of the scalar piece of the quark self energy obtained as the $m_R$- and $T$-dependent solution of Eq. (\[qDSE\]).
Critical Exponents of the Infrared-dominant Model {#secir}
-------------------------------------------------
In the chiral limit, Eq. (\[beqnfour\]) has the Nambu-Goldstone mode solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ngsoln}
B(p_{\omega_k}) & = &\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\sqrt{\eta^2 - 4 p_{\omega_k}^2}\,,
& & p_{\omega_k}^2<\case{\eta^2}{4}\\
0\,, & & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.\\
C(p_{\omega_k}) & = &\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
2\,, & & p_{\omega_k}^2<\case{\eta^2}{4}\\
\case{1}{2}\left( 1 + \sqrt{1 + \case{2 \eta^2}{p_{\omega_k}^2}}\right)
\,,& & {\rm otherwise}\,,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\label{MIR}
M(t,0)= 2 \pi\,\left(\frac{\eta}{2\pi} + T\right)^{\case{1}{2}}
\left(\frac{\eta}{2\pi} - T\right)^{\case{1}{2}}\,.$$ From Eq. (\[MIR\]) we read that $$\label{mnexa}
T_c^{\rm IR}= \frac{\eta}{2\pi}\approx 0.159155\,\eta\,,\;
\beta^{\rm IR}= \frac{1}{2}\,.$$ To determine $\delta$ we use Eq. (\[beqnfour\]) at $T=T_c$ to obtain $$\eta^2 m^2 = M(0,h)^4 + m\, M(0,h)^3 +
m^2\, M(0,h)^2 - m (3\eta^2 + m^2)\, M(0,h)$$ and suppose that, for $m\sim 0$, $M(0,h) = a \,m^{1/\delta}$. Consistency requires $$\label{mnexb}
\delta^{\rm IR} = 3\,.$$ That the chiral symmetry restoration transition in this model is characterised by mean field critical exponents is not surprising because the interaction described by Eq. (\[dmn\]) is a constant in configuration space. Mean field critical exponents are also obtained in chiral random matrix models of QCD [@jackson96; @wettig97].
To illustrate the evaluation of the critical temperature and exponents using the chiral and thermal susceptibilities we use Eqs. (\[beqnfour\]), (\[defchih\]) and (\[defchit\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chihmn}
\chi_h(T,h) & = & - \frac{2\,M(T,h)\,T\,b_-\,[1-M(T,h)\,b_-]- M(T,h)\,T\,b_+}
{2\,M(T,h)\,b_-\,b_+\,[1-M(T,h)\,b_-] - b_-\,b_+ - M(T,h)\,b_-}\,,\\
%
\label{chiTmn}
\chi_T(T,h) &= &\frac{8\pi^2\,T\,M(T,h)^2\,b_-^2 - 2\,M(T,h)\,b_-\,b_+
h\,[1-M(T,h)\,b_-]- M(T,h)\,h\,b_+^2}
{2\,M(T,h)\,b_-\,b_+\,[1-M(T,h)\,b_-] - b_-\,b_+ - M(T,h)\,b_-}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $b_\pm := M(T,h) \pm h T$. In Fig. \[mncs\] we plot the chiral susceptibility. The temperature dependence is typical of this quantity, with the peak increasing in height and becoming narrower as $h\to 0^+$; i.e., as the external source for chiral symmetry breaking is removed. To understand this behaviour, recall that the chiral susceptibility is the derivative of the order parameter with-respect-to the explicit chiral symmetry breaking mass. Denote the typical mass-scale associated with DCSB by $M_\chi$. For $h \gg M_\chi$, explicit chiral symmetry breaking dominates, with the order parameter ${\cal X}\sim h$ and insensitive to $T$, and hence $\chi_h
\approx\,$const. For $h \sim M_\chi$, ${\cal X}$ begins to vary with $T$ because the origin of its magnitude changes from the explicit mass to the DCSB mechanism as $T$ passes through the pseudocritical temperature, $T_{\rm
pc}^h$. This is reflected in $\chi_h$ as the appearance of a peak at $T_{\rm
pc}^h$. For $h\ll M_\chi$, ${\cal X}\sim h$ until very near $T_{\rm pc}^h$ when the scale of DCSB overwhelms $h$ and ${\cal X}\sim M_\chi$. The change in ${\cal X}$ is rapid leading to the behaviour observed in $\chi_h$. The thermal susceptibility is plotted in Fig. \[mnts\] and has qualitatively similar features.
In Table \[taba\] we present the pseudocritical points and peak heights obtained for $h$ in the scaling window, defined as the domain of $h$ for which $$\frac{t_{\rm pc}^h}{t_{\rm pc}^t} = {\rm const.}\,;$$ i.e., the values of $h$ for which Eqs. (\[pch\]) and (\[pct\]) are valid. Based on Eqs. (\[deltaslope\]) and (\[betaslope\]), using the tabulated values, one obtains $z_h^{\rm IR}$ and $z_t^{\rm IR}$ from linear fits to the curves: $\log \chi_h^{\rm pc}$-versus-$\log h$ and $\log \chi_T^{\rm
pc}$-versus-$\log h$, respectively. This yields $$\label{zedsir}
z_h^{\rm IR} = 0.666,\; z_t^{\rm IR} = 0.335\,,$$ and hence $\beta_\chi^{\rm IR} = 0.499$ and $\delta_\chi^{\rm IR} = 2.99$, as listed in Table \[tabc\]. These values are in excellent agreement with the exact (mean field) results, Eqs. (\[mnexa\]) and (\[mnexb\]). With the value of $$\frac{1}{(\beta\delta)^{\rm IR}} = 1 - z_h^{\rm IR} + z_t^{\rm IR} = 0.670\,,$$ $T_c^{\rm IR}$ can be obtained in a variational procedure based on Eq. (\[pch\]): it is that value which minimises the standard deviation between $\log(T^h_{\rm pc}-T_c^{\rm IR}) - 1/(\beta\delta)^{\rm IR}\,\log h$ and a constant. This yields $ T_c^{\rm IR} = 0.159155\,\eta$ again in excellent agreement with Eq. (\[mnexa\]). The value in Table \[tabc\] is obtained with $\eta=1.06\,$GeV [@mn83]. Applying the same procedure to , yields $T_c^{\rm IR} = 0.159151\,\eta$.
Critical Exponents of the Ultraviolet-improved Model
----------------------------------------------------
In this case the quark DSE must be solved numerically, as in Refs. [@prl; @fr]. In these calculations we used a $3$-momentum grid with $96$ points and we renormalised at $\zeta=9.47\,$GeV, the value at which the parameter $m_t(=0.69\,$GeV$)$ was fixed [@fr]. The chiral and thermal susceptibilities for a range of values of $h$ are plotted in Figs. \[frcs\] and \[frts\], and the pseudocritical points and peak heights obtained for values of $h$ in the scaling window are presented in Table \[tabb\].
As observed in Sec. \[secir\], one obtains $z_h^{\rm UV}$ and $z_t^{\rm
UV}$ from linear fits to the curves $\log \chi_h^{\rm pc}$-versus-$\log h$ and $\log \chi_T^{\rm pc}$-versus-$\log h$, respectively. The data and fits are presented in Fig. \[figchis\] and yield $$\label{zeds}
z_h^{\rm UV} = 0.77 \pm 0.02\,,\; z_t^{\rm UV} = 0.28 \pm 0.04\,,$$ with the corresponding results for $\beta$ and $\delta$ listed in the first column of Table \[tabc\].[^3] For this model only, as a check and demonstration of consistency, the values of $T_c^{\rm UV}$ and $1/(\beta\delta)^{\rm UV}$ were calculated using a variational procedure based on Eqs. (\[pch\]) and (\[pct\]): the values of $T_c^{\rm UV}$ and $1/(\beta\delta)^{\rm UV}$ were varied in order to minimise the standard deviation in a linear fit to . The difference between using $T_{\rm pc}^h$ and $T_{\rm pc}^T$ is less than the error quoted in the table.
In Ref. [@prl] the values of $\beta$ and $T_c$ in the ultraviolet-improved model were calculated directly from the magnetisation order parameter; i.e., using Eq. (\[Mtzero\]), with the results $\beta =
0.33 \pm 0.3$ and $T_c \approx 152\,$MeV. There is a discrepancy in the value of $\beta$. We expect that the result obtained herein is more accurate because our method avoids the numerical noise associated with establishing the precise behaviour of the order parameter in the vicinity of the critical temperature.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
A primary purpose of this study was an illustration of the method by which one can calculate the critical exponents that characterise a chiral symmetry restoration transition, $\beta$ and $\delta$, using the chiral and thermal susceptibilities. For this purpose we chose two Dyson-Schwinger equation models of two-light-flavour QCD that have been applied successfully [@prl; @thermo; @basti] in phenomenological studies of QCD at finite temperature and density. The method is reliable and should have a wide range of application because it is more accurate in the presence of numerical noise than a straightforward analysis of the chiral symmetry (magnetisation) order parameter.
We established that our finite temperature extension of the infrared-dominant model of Ref. [@mn83] is characterised by mean field critical exponents, listed in Table \[tabc\]. It is therefore not in the universality class expected [@krishna; @kl94] of two-light-flavour lattice-QCD. However, the critical temperature is consistent with that estimated in lattice simulations. This fits an emerging pattern that DSE models whose mass-scale parameters are fixed by requiring a good description of hadron observables at $T=0$, yield a reliable estimate of the critical temperature for chiral symmetry restoration. It is a quantity that is not too sensitive to details of the model.
Consistent with this observation, the critical temperature in the ultraviolet improved model of Ref. [@fr] also agrees with that estimated in lattice simulations. The critical exponent $\delta$ agrees with the value obtained for two-light-flavour lattice-QCD and is consistent with that of the $N=4$ Heisenberg magnet. However, the difference between the value of $\beta$ obtained in the model and that in lattice simulations is significant. It is unlikely that numerical errors in our study are the cause of this discrepancy. The values of the critical exponents, and their product, establish that this model is not mean field in character. They also establish that the ultraviolet-improved model, which provides a good description of low-energy $\pi$- and $\rho$-observables, is not in the same universality class as the $N=4$ Heisenberg magnet.
The difference between the infrared-dominant model and the ultraviolet-improved one is the value of $m_t$; i.e., the mass scale that marks the boundary between strong and weak coupling. In the limit $m_t\to
\infty$, the infrared-dominant model is recovered from the ultraviolet-improved one: in this limit the interaction is always strong. Our results therefore demonstrate that the critical exponents are sensitive to the particular manner in which the theory makes the transition from strong to weak coupling. This should be expected since that evolution is a determining characteristic of the $\beta$-function of a renormalisable theory, one which a chiral symmetry restoration transition must be sensitive to.
The large-$p^2$ behaviour of the gluon propagator in the ultraviolet-improved model, although better than that in the infrared-dominant model, is still inadequate. Its renormalisation group properties are more like those of quenched-QED than QCD because of the absence of the logarithmic suppression of the running coupling characteristic of asymptotically free theories. This is corrected in the model of Ref. [@mr97], which has more in common with QCD at $T=0$ and whose finite temperature properties can therefore assist in better understanding the details of the chiral symmetry restoration transition in two-light-flavour QCD.
D.B. and S.S. acknowledge the hospitality of the Physics Division at Argonne National Laboratory, and C.D.R. that of the Department of Physics at the University of Rostock during visits in which parts of this work were conducted. We are also grateful to the faculty and staff at JINR-Dubna for their hospitality during the workshop on [*Deconfinement at Finite Temperature and Density*]{} in October 1997. This work was supported in part by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst; the US Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract number W-31-109-ENG-38; the National Science Foundation under grant no. INT-9603385; and benefited from the resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.
Critical Exponents from Susceptibilities {#critical-exponents-from-susceptibilities .unnumbered}
========================================
Consider the free energy of a theory, represented by $$f=f(t,h)\,,$$ where $t:= T/T_c - 1$ is the reduced temperature and $h:= m/T$ is the explicit source of chiral symmetry breaking measured in units of the temperature; it is analogous to an external magnetic field. Since correlation lengths diverge in a second-order transition it follows that for $t,h\to 0$ the free energy is a generalised homogeneous function; i.e., $$f(t,h) = \frac{1}{b}\,f(t \,b^{y_t},h \,b^{y_h}) \,.$$ This entails the following behaviour of the “magnetisation” $$\begin{aligned}
M(t,h) & := &
\left.\frac{\partial\, f(t,h)}
{\!\!\!\!\!\!\partial h}\right|_{t\;{\rm fixed}}\,,\\
M(t,h) & = & b^{y_h-1}\,M(t \,b^{y_t},h \,b^{y_h})\,.\end{aligned}$$ The scaling parameter, $b$, is arbitrary and along the trajectory $|t|
b^{y_t}= 1$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
M(t,h) & = &|t|^{(1-y_h)/y_t}\,M({\rm sgn}(t), h \,|t|^{-y_h/y_t})\,, \\
\label{Mtzero}
M(t,0) & \propto& |t|^\beta\,,\; \beta:= \frac{1-y_h}{y_t}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, along the trajectory $h b^{y_h}= 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
M(t,h) & = &h^{(1-y_h)/y_h}\,M(t \,h^{-y_t/y_h},1)\,, \\
M(0,h) & \propto& h^{1/\delta}\,,\; \delta:= \frac{y_h}{1-y_h}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This defines the critical behaviour and provides that direct means of extracting the critical exponent $\beta$ employed in Refs. [@prl; @thermo]. However, because of numerical noise, it can be difficult to extract quantitatively accurate results using this method.
The critical exponents can also be determined by studying the pseudocritical behaviour of the chiral and thermal susceptibilities, defined respectively as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defchih}
\chi_h(t,h)& := &
\left.\frac{\partial\, M(t,h)}
{\!\!\!\!\!\!\partial h}\right|_{t\;{\rm fixed}}\,,\\
\label{defchit}
\chi_t(t,h) &:= &
\left.\frac{\partial\, M(t,h)}
{\!\!\!\!\!\!\partial t}\right|_{h\;{\rm fixed}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ For convenience, we often use $\chi_T(T,h):= (1/T_c)\,\chi_t(t,h)$.
For $t,h\to 0^+$, along $h b^{y_h}= 1$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chih}
\chi_h(t,h) & = & h^{(1-2y_h)/y_h}\,\chi_h(t \,h^{-y_t/y_h},1)\,,\\
\label{chit}
\chi_t(t,h) & = & h^{(1-y_h - y_t)/y_h}\,\chi_t(t \,h^{-y_t/y_h},1)\,.\end{aligned}$$
At each $h$, $\chi_h(t,h)$ and $\chi_t(t,h)$ are smooth functions of $t$. Suppose they have maxima at $t_{\rm pc}^h$ and $t_{\rm pc}^t$, respectively, described as the pseudocritical points. Consider the chiral susceptibility. At its maximum $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \chi_h(t,h) \right|_{t_{\rm pc}^h}\\
& = & \left.
h^{(1-2y_h)/y_h}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\left(t \,h^{-y_t/y_h}\right)\,
\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\chi_h(z,1)
\right]_{z=t \,h^{-y_t/y_h}}\,\right|_{t_{\rm pc}^h}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which entails that $$\label{pch}
t_{\rm pc}^h = K_h\, h^{y_t/y_h} = K_h\, h^{1/(\beta \delta)}\,,$$ where $K_h$ is an undetermined constant. Similarly, $$\label{pct}
t_{\rm pc}^t = K_t\, h^{y_t/y_h} = K_t\, h^{1/(\beta \delta)}\,.$$ Since $\beta\delta >0$, it follows that the pseudocritical points approach the critical point, $t=0$, as $h\to 0^+$. It follows from Eqs. (\[pch\]) and (\[pct\]) that at the pseudocritical points $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltaslope}
\chi_h^{\rm pc} & := & \chi_h(t_{\rm pc}^h,h) \propto h^{-z_h}\,,\;
z_h:= 1 - \case{1}{\delta} \,,\\
\label{betaslope}
\chi_t^{\rm pc} & := & \chi_t(t_{\rm pc}^t,h)
\propto h^{-z_t}\,,
\;z_t:= \case{1}{\beta\delta}\,(1-\beta)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Thus by locating the pseudocritical points and plotting the peak-height of the susceptibilities as a function of $h$ one can obtain values of $T_c$, $\beta$ and $\delta$.
[99]{} R. J. Creswick, H. A. Farach and C. P. Poole, [*Introduction to Renormalization Group Methods in Physics*]{} (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1992). J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**34**]{}, 1353 (1975) K. Rajagopal, “The Chiral Phase Transition in QCD: Critical Phenomena and Long-wavelength Pion Oscillations”, in [*Quark-gluon plasma*]{}, ed. R. C. Hwa (World Scientific, New York, 1995), 484. G. Baker, B. Nickel and D. Meiron, Phys. Rev. B [**17**]{}, 1365 (1978); and “Compilation of 2-pt. and 4-pt. graphs for continuous spin models”, University of Guelph report (1977), unpublished. F. Karsch and E. Laermann, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 6954 (1994). E. Laermann, “Thermodynamics using Wilson and Staggered Quarks”,\
hep-lat/9802030. C.D. Roberts and A.G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 477 (1994). P. C. Tandy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**39**]{}, 117 (1997). M. A. Pichowsky and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 1644 (1997). M. A. Ivanov, Yu. L. Kalinovsky, P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, “Heavy- to light-meson transition form factors”, nucl-th/9711023, Phys. Rev. C., April (1998). A. Bender, D. Blaschke, Yu. Kalinovsky and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3724 (1996). D. Blaschke, C.D. Roberts and S. Schmidt, “Thermodynamic properties of a simple, confining model”, nucl-th/9706070, Phys. Lett. B, in press. A. Bashir, A. Kizilersu and M.R. Pennington, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 1242 (1998). F. T. Hawes, C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4683 (1994). P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C [**56**]{}, 3369 (1997). M. Baker, J. S. Ball and F. Zachariasen, Nucl. Phys. B [**186**]{} 531 (1981); [*ibid*]{} 560; D. Atkinson, P. W. Johnson, W. J. Schoenmaker and H. A. Slim, Nuovo Cimento A [**77**]{}, Series 11 (1983) 197. N. Brown and M. R. Pennington, Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 2723 (1989); M. R. Pennington, “Calculating hadronic properties in strong QCD”, hep-ph/9611242. M.R. Frank and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C [**53**]{}, 390 (1996). H.J. Munczek and A.M. Nemirovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 3081 (1983). A. D. Jackson and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 7223 (1996). T. Wettig, T. Guhr, A. Schäfer and H. A. Weidenmüller, in [*QCD Phase Transitions*]{}, Proceedings of the XXVth International Workshop on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations, Hirschegg, Austria (1997), edited by H. Feldmeier, J. Knoll, W. Nörenberg and J. Wambach, hep-ph/9701387. A. Bender, G. Poulis, C.D. Roberts, S. Schmidt and A.W. Thomas, “Deconfinement at finite chemical potential”, nucl-th/971009.
[ddddd]{} $\log h$ & $T_{\rm pc}^h/\eta$ & $\chi_h^{\rm pc}/\eta$ & $T_{\rm pc}^T/\eta$ & $\chi_T^{\rm pc}$\
-5.0 & 0.15921 & 707.0 & 0.15917 & 248.5\
-4.3 & 0.15931 & 241.9 & 0.15920 & 145.4\
-4.0 & 0.15941 & 152.9 & 0.15923 & 115.3\
-3.3 & 0.15990 & 52.19 & 0.15939 & 67.33\
-3.0 & 0.16034 & 32.91& 0.15953 & 53.34\
-2.3 & 0.16268 & 11.31& 0.16052 & 30.91
IR Dominant UV Improved O$(4)$ Lattice
-------------------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
$\delta$ 3.0 4.3 $\pm$ 0.3 4.82 $\pm$ 0.05 4.3 $\pm $ 0.5
$\beta$ 0.50 0.46 $\pm$ 0.04 0.38 $\pm$ 0.01 0.30 $\pm$ 0.08
$\frac{1}{\beta \delta}$ 0.67 0.54 $\pm$ 0.05 0.55 $\pm$ 0.02 0.77 $\pm $ 0.14
$T_c\,$(MeV) 168.7 153.5 $\pm$ 0.1 – 140 … 160
: Critical exponents and temperature for the models considered herein and a comparison with the results in the $N=4$ Heisenberg magnet [@neqfour], labelled as O$(4)$, and lattice simulations of QCD with two light flavours [@kl94]. \[tabc\]
[ddddd]{} $\log h$ & $T_{\rm pc}^h\,$(GeV) & $\chi_h^{\rm pc}\,$(GeV) & $T_{\rm pc}^T\,$(GeV) & $\chi_T^{\rm pc}$\
-4.30 & 0.15464 & 896.3 & 0.15379 & 67.72\
-4.00 & 0.15515 & 530.7 & 0.15394 & 55.70\
-3.70 & 0.15571 & 303.8 & 0.15422 & 45.70\
-3.52 & 0.15627 & 224.9 & 0.15443 & 40.65\
-3.40 & 0.15677 & 181.8 & 0.15460 & 37.37\
-3.30 & 0.15729 & 154.9 & 0.15487 & 35.00\
-3.15 & 0.15795 & 120.3 & 0.15508 & 31.64\
-3.04 & 0.15840 & 97.21 & 0.15534 & 29.32\
-3.0 & 0.15872 & 90.03& 0.15536 & 28.39
[^1]: A review [@el98] of results from more recent simulations on larger lattices with lighter quarks reports a significant dependence of these critical exponents on the lattice volume but with their product approximately constant. A value of $\delta\approx 1$ is obtained, which is characteristic of a first-order transition. These unexpected results might be artefacts of finite lattice spacing because introducing light dynamical quarks drives the simulations to stronger coupling and hence coarser lattices.
[^2]: The influence of the Debye-mass on finite-$T$ observables is qualitatively unimportant, even in the vicinity of the chiral symmetry restoration transition. The ratio of the coefficients in the two terms in Eq. (\[delta\]) is such that the long-range effects associated with $\delta_{0\,k} \delta^3(p)$ are completely cancelled at short-distances; i.e., for $|\vec{x}|^2\,m_t^2\ll 1$.
[^3]: Our quoted error bounds the slope of the linear fit. It is calculated from the slope of linear fits to the two endpoint values when they are displaced vertically, in opposite directions, by the standard deviation of the fit to all the tabulated results.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.